Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Comment Legal Forms

The document outlines various issues with the respondent's response and annexes regarding a case between a complainant and respondent. It notes inconsistencies in amounts stated versus paid, a lack of proof for claims regarding a shooting incident and changes in attitude, and various technical issues with the documents provided such as lack of notarization and irrelevant information included. Overall, the document argues the respondent failed to sufficiently substantiate or support various aspects of their response.

Uploaded by

fcnrrs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Comment Legal Forms

The document outlines various issues with the respondent's response and annexes regarding a case between a complainant and respondent. It notes inconsistencies in amounts stated versus paid, a lack of proof for claims regarding a shooting incident and changes in attitude, and various technical issues with the documents provided such as lack of notarization and irrelevant information included. Overall, the document argues the respondent failed to sufficiently substantiate or support various aspects of their response.

Uploaded by

fcnrrs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Annex 1 - Employment Contract
  • Comments
  • Annex 2
  • Annex 3
  • Annex 4
  • Notarization Annexes
  • Annex 5

Comments

Reply (Main Body)

1. Paragraph 1, there is no truth as to the salary of 405 per day for a 12-
hour duty, as stated in the employment contract signed on 4 January
2009. Respondent may stipulate as much amount as it wants in the
contract of employment, but the actual payment may be otherwise.
Despite the presentation of payslip, there is no acknowledgment that
Complainant received the same amount.
2. Paragraph 7, they failed to show proof on the shooting incident that it
was beyond the ambit of the management’s supervision. What was
merely presented was the check issued and the acknowledgment
receipt.
3. Paragraph 9, they failed to state in the Affidavit of Stephen Sekyu that he
never ordered the complainant. Regardless of the fact that the
management of the establishment is the one having the discretion as to
the placement of their security guards, complainant’s allegation was
that Stephen’s order came from the management itself.
4. Paragraph 10, they failed to substantiate their claim. Based on Stephen’s
affidavit, after the argument with the complainant, the latter never
reported back to work, hence, the change of Stephen’s attitude could not
be attributed to their personal feud.
5. On page 10, instead of III, they inadvertently used IV. Also, the first
paragraph thereafter lacks a period.
6. On page 9, they misquoted the reply. Instead of “ok” from their Annex
14, they used “okay”.

Annex 1 - Employment Contract

1. The Employment Contract was not notarized with an Acknowledgment,


thus there is no showing that Complainant executed the contract by his
own free act and deed. There is no presumption of regularity and the
same needs to be authenticated.

Annex 2

1. The Duty Detail only shows the place of assignment. It does not show
any other information as to other circumstances. As previously told,
Complainant suffered oppression from Respondent for the latter’s
failure to provide a harmonious workplace.

Annex 3

1. In the jurat, the word “his” was used twice instead of “her”: ‘Subscribed
and sworn … “his” passport … proof of “his” personal identity.’
2. The Affidavit of Georgina Wilson is only with regard to the payslip given
to her by Respondent. There is no showing that she is privy as to the
payslip that was not given to herein Complainant.

Annex 4

1. No amount of CTC paid, but with date and certificate number issued.

Annex 5

1. Paid 13th month pay to Edguard on his last pay period, in the middle of
the year. If indeed Edguard stopped showing up in his assigned post and
just took leave without requesting or receiving prior permission, the
company wouldn’t have been able to include his 13th month pay on his
last month of service.

Annex 6
1. Affidavit does not contain the amount of wage given.
2. Statement 3 is irrelevant “paying me more than the applicable minimum
wage”
3. Statement 7 is irrelevant “ gave me gift certificate” establishes nothing

Annex 7
1. Statement 7 is irrelevant and immaterial to the case at hand. “got a long
with my colleagues.”

All Notarized Annexes


1. They only have one document per page of their notarial book instead of
5 notarized documents per page.

You might also like