Motion For Leave To Admit Attached Motion For Reconsideration - Barlines Reinforcing Steel v. King King Abarca

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City
RENANTE K. ABARCA,
Complainant,
NLRC LAC NO. 06-001636-15(4)
NLRC NCR CN. 02-01969-15
-versus-
BARLINES REINFORCING
STEEL COMPANY, INC.
AMADEUS MAGPILE AND
JULIO VALENCIA,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------x
MOTION
[FOR LEAVE TO ADMIT ATTACHED
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION]
Respondent BARLINES REINFORCING STEEL COMPANY
(“Barlines Co.”), herein represented by JULIO R. VALENCIA, by
counsel, respectfully states:
1. On 25 May 2015, Labor Arbiter Alberto S. Abaylan (“LA

Abaylan”) rendered a Decision in the instant case finding that
Complainant RENANTE K. ABARCA (“Abarca”) was not illegally
dismissed, thus:
“… What is clear is that complainant was the subject of an

investigation and did not show up for work since he
escaped from police authorities on June 16, 2014. There is
illegal dismissal to speak of where the employee was not
notified that he had been dismissed from his employment
nor was he prevented from returning to his work.”
2. Unbeknownst to Barlines Co., Abarca filed a Notice and

Memorandum of Appeal (for the Appellant) dated 05 June 2015
(“Memorandum of Appeal”). The said Memorandum of Appeal was
sent only to the counsel of Barlines Co., in violation of the 2011 NLRC
Rules of Procedure which requires proof of service to the other
parties for the perfection of an appeal from the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
3. Worse, the copy of the Memorandum of Appeal sent to

the counsel for Barlines Co., was not received by any authorized
personnel and was thus, regrettably, not properly endorsed to the
undersigned law office.
4. It appears that on 29 June 2015, the Honorable

Commission, without Respondent being accorded any meaningful
opportunity to be able to refute the additional baseless and
unjustified claims of Complainant in his Memorandum of Appeal,
promulgated a Decision of even date in the instant case.
5. Regrettably, due to proper lack of notice
6. Considering that the firm never formally received a copy

of the Memorandum of Appeal, the firm through honest oversight,
inadvertently failed to timely endorse this case to its lawyer for
proper representation. Hence, this case was just endorsed to the
undersigned counsel. In fact, it is only recent that Respondent’s
counsel obtained a certified copy of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision
dated 25 May 2015, the Memorandum of Appeal and the Decision of
the Honorable Commission dated 29 June 2015.
7. In the case of Polsotin, Jr. et. al. v. De Guia Enterprises, Inc., 1

the Supreme Court ruled, to wit -
“x x x labor tribunals are mandated to use all

reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily, objectively and without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure."2
8. Moreover, it is settled that no undue sympathy is to be

accorded to any claim of a procedural misstep in labor cases. Such
cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the
substantial merits of the controversy.3
9. In the interest of substantial justice and in order that

this case be decided on the substantial merits of the controversy,
Barlines Co. prays for the admission of the attached Motion for
1
G.R. No. 172624, December 5, 2011.
2
Emphasis ours.
3
Edi Staff Builders International, Inc. v. Magsino, G.R. No. 139430, 20 June 2001.
2
Reconsideration which would clearly show that Abarca was never
illegally dismissed because he clearly abandoned his employment
and that he is not entitled to separation pay considering that there is
a valid and justifiable ground for his dismissal.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Commission to admit the attached Motion for
Reconsideration.
Respondent prays for such further or other relief as may be

deemed just or equitable.
Pasay City for Quezon City, 16 September 2015.
PAREDES MARQUEZ BAJAMUNDE ABALON and PARTNERS

Counsel for Respondent Barlines Reinforcing Steel Co.
3rd Floor, Summerlin Bldg., Rm. 3-D,
2454 FB Harrison Corner Valhalla Street, Pasay City
By:
MA. CYNTHIA E. BAJAMUNDE
Roll of Attorney’s No. 36918
IBP Lifetime No. 677097/ July 21, 2006
PTR No. 3367655/ Jan. 28, 2015/Malabon City
MCLE Compliance IV-0001614
KARL PATRICK N. PARAOAN

Roll of Attorney’s No. 56565
IBP Lifetime No. 08813/ Manila III
PTR No. 3854726/ Jan. 7, 2015/City of Manila
MCLE Compliance IV-0003973 / Jan. 20, 2012
Copy Furnished:
3
RENANTE K. ABARCA
Complainant
Blk 3 Lot 23 Rosa 2 Subd.
United Bayanihan
San Pedro Laguna
ATTY. ALEX B. PARCO

Counsel for Complainant
V and F Realty Building
Unit # 96 Tomas Arguelles St.,
Brgy. Dona Imelda, Quezon City
EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE AND FILING

BY REGISTERED MAIL
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, undersigned

counsel, respectfully explains that this Motion is being served on the other
parties and filed by registered mail due to distance and temporary lack of
messengerial personnel to effect personal service; and also sent by private
courier to expedite service and filing.
MA. CYNTHIA E. BAJAMUNDE

Motion For Leave To Admit Attached Motion For Reconsideration - Barlines Reinforcing Steel v. King King Abarca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Leave To Admit Attached Motion For Reconsideration - Barlines Reinforcing Steel v. King King Abarca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Leave To Admit Attached Motion For Reconsideration - Barlines Reinforcing Steel v. King King Abarca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

1. On 25 May 2015, Labor Arbiter Alberto S. Abaylan (“LA

“… What is clear is that complainant was the subject of an

2. Unbeknownst to Barlines Co., Abarca filed a Notice and

3. Worse, the copy of the Memorandum of Appeal sent to

4. It appears that on 29 June 2015, the Honorable

5. Regrettably, due to proper lack of notice

6. Considering that the firm never formally received a copy

7. In the case of Polsotin, Jr. et. al. v. De Guia Enterprises, Inc., 1

“x x x labor tribunals are mandated to use all

8. Moreover, it is settled that no undue sympathy is to be

9. In the interest of substantial justice and in order that

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

Respondent prays for such further or other relief as may be

Pasay City for Quezon City, 16 September 2015.

PAREDES MARQUEZ BAJAMUNDE ABALON and PARTNERS

KARL PATRICK N. PARAOAN

ATTY. ALEX B. PARCO

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE AND FILING

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, undersigned

MA. CYNTHIA E. BAJAMUNDE

You might also like