Position Paper - AGUHAR

8/10/2019 Position Paper - AGUHAR

1/22

PAGE

1

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

Republic of the PhilippinesDepartment of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Quezon City

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONARBITRATION BRANCH

CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR, OFW-SEA BASEDComplainant,

NLRC Case No. (M ) NCR-1 1 -1 7 4 1 7 -1 1 Hon. Labor Arb it er Enriqu e L. Flore s, Jr.

-versus-

SEALANES MARINE SERVICEINC., WAGENBORG SHIPPINGBV, and CHRISTOPHER DINOC. DUMATOL,

Respondents,x----------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINANTS POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR, by undersigned

counsel, respectfully submits this Position Paper, constitutive

of his causes of action against the respondents, to wit

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action asking for payment by respondents of

the permanent total disability benefits, damages and

attorneys fees in favor of herein complainant. These claims

are based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)


2/22

PAGE

2

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

between complainants Union (AMOSUP) and respondent

companies (WAGENBORG SHIPPING B.V. rep. by SEALANES

MARINE SERVICES, INC.); and other pertinent labor laws and

jurisprudence.

THE PARTIES

Complainant Candelario T. Aguhar (hereinafter referred

to as complainant Aguhar) is of legal age, Filipino, married

and a resident of Balico Drive, Poblacion, Talibon, Bohol

6325. He can be served with notices, orders, resolutions and

other processes of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Branch at

the address of his undersigned counsel.

Respondent SEALANES MARINE SERVICES, INC.

(hereinafter referred to as respondent Sealanes) is a

Philippine corporation operating as manning agency engaged

in the recruitment and placement of seafarers for deployment

abroad to their foreign principals. It may be served with

summons, orders, resolutions and other processes of this

Honorable Office at 8thFloor Pryce Center Bldg., 1179 Chino

Roces St., corner Bagtikan St., Makati City NCR 1200.


3/22

PAGE

3

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

Respondent WAGENBORG SHIPPING B.V., (hereinafter

referred to as respondent Wagenborg) is one of the foreign

principals of respondent Sealanes, where complainant Aguhar

was deployed. It is based in the Netherlands, but for

purposes of being sued and notified in the Philippines, service

of notices, orders and resolutions of this Honorable Office can

be done at the office of respondent Sealanes, its resident

agent in the Philippines.

Respondent CAPT. LIBERATO A. DUMATOL (hereinafter

referred to as respondent Dumatol) is the

President/CEO/Gen.Manager/POEA Registered Contact

Person of respondent Sealanes. He is of legal age, Filipino

and with office address at 8thFloor Pryce Center Bldg., 1179

Chino Roces St., corner Bagtikan St., Makati City NCR 1200,

where he may be served with notices, orders and resolutions

of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On 19 May 2011, the parties entered into a Contract of

Employment for complainant Aguhar to serve as an

ABLE BODY on board the vessel VOORMEBORG under

the following terms


4/22

PAGE

4

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

Duration of Contract : Seven [7] monthsPosition : Able BodyBasic Monthly Salary : EUR 447.00/mo.Hours of Work : 44 hrs/wk or 191 hrs/mo.Overtime Rate : EUR 224.00/mo.

: EUR 3.29/hr excess of 86 hrs.Vacation Leave Pay : EUR 119.00/mo.

Point of Hire : Manila, Philippines

Copy of the Contract of Employment is hereto attached

as Annex A.

2. Prior to the signing of the above-mentioned contract,

respondent Sealanes sent complainant Aguhar to its

accredited medical clinic for pre-employment medical

examination. Complainant Aguhar was found fit for duty

prior to his employment. Hence, he was hired by

respondents. Copy of pre-employment medical result is

hereto attached as Annex B.

3. On 07 July 2011, upon instruction of respondent

Sealanes, complainant Aguhar left the country and

eventually boarded the vessel Voormeborg, pursuant to

his contract of employment with respondents.

4. Complainant Aguhar was working on-duty on the vessel

19 September 2011 when an accident happened. He fell

down from more than two (2) meters high going down a


5/22

PAGE

5

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

ladder from hatchcover to main deck. As he fell down,

the left side of his chest crashed to a metal box;

instantaneously causing severe painful injury to his

lower lateral chest area. Complainant Aguhar sustained

multiple rib fractures (6th, 7th, and 8th ribs). The left

collar-bone was likewise badly hurt. It was

excruciatingly painful. Complainant Aguhar cannot find

sleep due to the pain. The pain was compounded by the

harsh weather and the rough sea conditions. Copy of the

Accident Report consisting of three (3) pages from Capt.

Makarevych, Master of Voormeborg, is hereto attached

as Annex C.

5. Per accident report, the vessel was at the Port of St.

Petersburg (Russia) on the day of the accident. The

officer in charge at the time of the accident was Chief

Officer Pavio Iakoviliev. At the moment of the accident,

crewmembers were under instruction to make ready the

ship for sailing. Complainant Aguhar was wearing safety

shoes, cover-all jacket and helmet when the accident

befell him. Hence, he had all the safety precautions in

place. The wet weather played a role in the culmination

of the accident. Complainant Aguhar was exposed to the


6/22

PAGE

6

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

risk of falling due to the wet and slippery conditions on

the vessel at the time.

6. Complainant Aguhar was repatriated to the Philippines

for medical reasons on 23 September 2011. Upon his

arrival in the country, he was immediately admitted at

the Manila Doctors Hospital in U.N. Avenue, Manila where

he was seen by the company designated physicians.

Initial x-ray results on 24 September 2011 confirmed the

multiple fractures with depressed components at the

postero-lateral aspect of the left 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs.

Copy of the x-ray results from the Manila Doctors

Hospital dated 24 September 2011 is hereto attached as

Annex D for reference.

7. On 29 September 2011, complainant Aguhar was

discharged from the Manila Doctors Hospital inspite of

the continuing episodes of pain which he repeatedly felt

on the left side of his chest and ribcage. Copy of the

Medical Abstract / Discharge Summary from Manila

Doctors Hospital is hereto attached as Annex E. This

document further confirms the diagnosis of Multiple Rib

Fractures, 6thto 8thribs.


7/22

PAGE

7

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

8. On 09 December 2011, with the pain in complainant

Aguhars chest continuing and there being no further

medical assistance from respondents, complainant

Aguhar consulted Dr. Roehl C. Salvador for further

medical attention. The subsistence of the multiple

fractures on the 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs of complainant

Aguhar was further confirmed. He then intended to use

these medical examination for the purpose of claiming

social security benefits from the Social Security

Commission. Copy of Dr. Salvadors Medical Certificate;

Radiographic Report from Hi-Precision Diagnostics; and

SSS Medical Certificate, are hereto attached as Annexes

F, F-1 and F-2.

9. By January 2012, after more than 120 days from the date

of his medical repatriation, complainant Aguhar decided

to ask respondent Sealanes for payment of his Total

Permanent Disability benefits as his injuries continue to

bring pain. The pain was increasingly manifested at the

time due to the cold weather. It was impossible for him

to sign-up for any contract to work on any vessel as x-

ray results would indicate his multiple fractures on the

6th, 7thand 8thribs of his ribcage. His career as a seafarer

was obviously ended by the accident in Voormeburg.


8/22

PAGE

8

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

10. By February 2012, inspite of the fact that complainant

Aguhars injuries persist, respondents thru respondent

Sealanes refused and failed to acknowledge his Total

Permanent Disability. Respondents therefore refused and

failed to pay the Total Permanent Disability benefits of

complainant Aguhar under the Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA) which provides for payment of Eighty

Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$80,000.00) in cases of total

and permanent disability. Copy of the C.B.A. is hereto

attached as Annex G for reference.

11. Before making any further action sometime on February

2012, Complainant Aguhar consulted a specialist in the

person of Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Misael Jonathan A.

Ticman, MD, FPOA, for a third and final examination of

his medical condition. The ultimate and subsisting

finding was that Multiple Rib Fractures on the 6th, 7th

and 8th ribs of complainant Aguhar. Copy of the

Disability Report issued by Dr. Ticman, consisting of two

(2) pages, is hereto attached as Annex H.


9/22

PAGE

9

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

12. The expert opinion of Dr. Ticman is that of total and

permanent disability in the case of complainant Aguhar.

On page 2 of his Disability Report, he wrote

Based on the history and physical examinationon the patient (Aguhar) and inspite of the fact thatfour months has past and the symptoms still persistand that he experiences pain on deep inspiration,the prognosis is not good. I am thereforerecommending Permanent Disability and that he is

unfit to work as a seaman in any capacity.

13. By reason of respondents refusal and failure to pay the

total permanent disability benefits of complainant

Aguhar, he filed the instant case against respondents.

Attempts to arrive at a settlement failed, hence, this

Position Paper is now filed.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

[a]. Whether or not complainant Aguhar is entitled to

payment of Permanent Total Disability Benefits; and

[b]. Whether or not complainant Aguhar is entitled to

payment of moral and exemplary damages, and

attorneys fees.


10/22

PAGE

10

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Complainant Aguhar thru undersigned counsel

respectfully submits in the affirmative for all the issues.

Complainant Aguhar submits that he is entitled to be

paid, among others, his total permanent disability benefits of

Eighty Thousand US Dollars [US$80,000.00] under the

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

The latest word of the Supreme Court on the matter is

the MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, ET. AL., v.

OBERTO S. LOBUSTA, (25 January 2012, G.R. No. 177578). In

that case, the Supreme Court re-affirmed its previous rulings

concerning the determination of total and permanent

disability, to wit

Petitioners are mistaken that it is only the POEA

Standard Employment Contract that must be

considered in determining Lobusta's disability.

In P a l i so c v . Ea s w a y s M a r i n e , I n c . ,25we said that

whether the Labor Codes provision on permanent

total disability applies to seafarers is already a

settled matter. In Pa l i s o c , we cited the earlier case

of R em i g i o v . N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e la t i o n s

Com m i ss io n 26where we said (1) that the standard

employment contract for seafarers was formulated

by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under

Executive Order No. 24727to secure the best terms


11/22

PAGE

11

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

and conditions of employment of Filipino contract

workers and ensure compliance therewith, and to

promote and protect the well-being of Filipino

workers overseas; (2) that Section 29 of the 1996

POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides

that all rights and obligations of the parties to thecontract, including the annexes thereof, shall be

governed by the laws of the Republic of the

Philippines, international conventions, treaties and

covenants where the Philippines is a signatory; and

(3) that even without this provision, a contract of

labor is so impressed with public interest that

the Civil Code expressly subjects it to the special

laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikesand lockouts, closed shop, wages, working

conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.28

In affirming the Labor Code concept of permanenttotal disability, R em i g io further stated:

Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Codeconcept of permanent total disability to the case ofseafarers. In P h i l i p p i n e T r a n sm a r i n e Ca r r i e r s v .N LRC, seaman Carlos Nietes was found to besuffering from congestive heart failure andcardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to workby the company-accredited physician. The Courtaffirmed the award of disability benefits to theseaman, citing ECC v . San i co, GSI S v . CA ,

andB e j e r a n o v . ECC that disability should not beunderstood more on its medical significance but onthe loss of earning capacity. Permanent totaldisability means disablement of an employee toearn wages in the same kind of work, or work ofsimilar nature that [he] was trained for or

accustomed to perform, or any kind of work whicha person of [his] mentality and attainment coulddo. It does not mean absolute helplessness. It

likewise cited B e j e r a n o v . ECC, that in a disabilitycompensation, it is not the injury which iscompensated, but rather it is the incapacity towork resulting in the impairment of ones earningcapacity.


12/22

PAGE

12

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

The same principles were cited in the morerecent case of Cr y s t a l Sh i p p i n g , I n c . v . N a t i v i d a d .In addition, the Court cited GSI S v .C a d i z andI j a r e s v . CA that permanent disability isthe inability of a worker to perform his job for

more than 120 days, regardless of whether or nothe loses the use of any part of his body.

x x x x

These facts clearly prove that petitioner wasunfit to work as drummer for at least 11-13months from the onset of his ailment on March16, 1998 to 8-10 months after June 25, 1998. This,by itself, already constitutes permanent totaldisability. x x x29

In V e r g a r a v . H am m o n i a M a r i t im e Se r v i ce s , I n c . ,30we

also said that the standard terms of the POEA Standard

Employment Contract agreed upon are intended to be

read and understood in accordance with Philippine laws,

particularly, Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code, as

amended, and the applicable implementing rules and

regulations in case of any dispute, claim or grievance.

Thus, the CA was correct in applying the Labor

Code provisions in Lobustas claim for disability benefits.

The Labor Arbiter erred in failing to apply them.

Article 192(c)(1) under Title II, Book IV of the Labor

Code, as amended, reads:

ART. 192. Pe r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . x x x

x x x x

(c) The following disabilities shall be deemedtotal and permanent:

(1) Temporary total disability lasting

continuously for more than one hundred twenty(120) days, except as otherwise provided in theRules;

x x x x


13/22

PAGE

13

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

Section 2(b), Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of

Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended, or

the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation

Commission (ECC Rules), reads:

Sec. 2. D i s a b i l i t y . x x x

(b) A disability is total and permanent if as a

result of the injury or sickness the employee isunable to perform any gainful occupation for acontinuous period exceeding 120 days, except asotherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.

Complainant Aguhars claim is in accord with the above-

cited 2012 Lobusta case, and of course with the re-affirmed

doctrinal rulings in Crystal Shipping, Inc. Et Al., v. Deo P.

Natividad, [G.R. No. 154798, 20 October 2005] and Bernardo

Remigio v. NLRC, Et Al., [G.R. No. 159887, 12 April 2006], as

well as subsequent jurisprudence maintaining the said

rulings, notwithstanding the revisions made in the POEA

Standard Contract.

It is very clear that the injury was sustained in the

course of employment and undeniably in the performance of

duty. Section 20 [B] of the POEA Standard Contract provides

B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FORINJURY OR ILLNESS


14/22

PAGE

14

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

The liabilities of the employer when theseafarer suffers work-related injury or illnessduring the term of his contract are as follows:

1. The employer shall continue to pay the

seafarer his wages during the time he is onboard the vessel;

2. If the injury or illness requires medicaland/or dental treatment in a foreign port, theemployer shall be liable for the full cost ofsuch medical, serious dental, surgical andhospital treatment as well as board andlodging until the seafarer is declared fit to

work or to be repatriated.

However, if after repatriation, the seafarerstill requires medical attention arising fromsaid injury or illness, he shall be so providedat cost to the employer until such time he isdeclared fit or the degree of his disability has

been established by the company-designatedphysician.

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medicaltreatment, the seafarer is entitled to sicknessallowance equivalent to his basic wage untilhe is declared fit to work or the degree ofpermanent disability has been assessed bythe company designated physician xxx xxx

4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of

this Contract are disputably presumed aswork-related.

5. Once signed off from the vessel for medicaltreatment, the employer shall bear the fullcost of repatriation in the event the seafareris declared (1) fit for repatriation; or (2) fit towork but the employer is unable to findemployment for the seafarer on board his

former vessel or another vessel of theemployer despite earnest efforts.

In case of permanent total or partial disabilityof the seafarer caused by either injury orillness the seafarer shall be compensated inaccordance with the schedule of benefits


15/22

PAGE

15

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

enumerated in Section 32 of his Contract.Computation of his benefits arising from anillness or disease shall be governed by therates and the rules of compensationapplicable at the time the illness or disease

was contracted.

In this case, the injury was work-related since the same

was sustained in the course of duty. Said injury was not pre-

existing since complainant underwent the mandatory pre-

employment medical examination before he was employed by

respondent, and was found to be fit and given a clean bill of

health prior to his employment.

In Crystal Shipping, Inc. Et Al., v. Deo P. Natividad, [G.R.

No. 154798, 20 October 2005], the Supreme Court ruled that:

Permanent disability is the inability of aworker to perform his job for more than 120days, regardless of whether or not he losesthe use of any part of his body. As gleaned

from the records, respondent was unable towork from August 18, 1998 to February 22,1999, at the least, or more than 120 days, dueto his medical treatment. This clearly showsthat his disability was permanent.

Total disability, on the other hand, meansthe disablement of an employee to earnwages in the same kind of work of similar

nature that he was trained for, or accustomedto perform, or any kind of work which aperson of his mentality and attainments coulddo. It does not mean absolute helplessness.In disability compensation, it is not the injurywhich is compensated, but rather it is the


16/22

PAGE

16

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

incapacity to work resulting in the impairmentof ones earning capacity.

The ruling in the Crystal Shipping Case is a refinement of

earlier decisions, viz

In the case of the Philippine TransmarineCarriers, Inc. vs. NLRC. 358 SCRA 47, theSupreme Court held that disability should notbe understood more on its medical

significance but on the loss of earningcapacity. Permanent total disability meansdisablement of an employee to earn wages inthe same kind of work, or work of similarnature that he was trained for or accustomedto perform, or any kind of work which personof his mentality and attainment could do. It

does not mean absolute helplessness (ECC vs.Edmund Sanico, 321 SCRA 268: GSIS vs. CA

285 SCRA 430; GSIS vs. CA 260 SCRA 133:Bejerano vs. ECC, 205 SCRA 598).

In disability compensation, it is not the injurywhich is compensated, but rather it is theincapacity to work resulting in the impairmentof ones earning capacity (Bejerano vs. ECC205 SCRA 598: Ulibas vs. Republic, 83 SCRA819; Roma vs. WCC, 80 SCRA 170).

One should always remember that the POEAStandard Employment Contract for Seamen isdesigned primarily for the protection andbenefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit oftheir employment on board ocean-goingvessels. Its provisions must, therefore, beconstrued and applied fairly, reasonably andliberally in their favor. Only then can its

beneficent provisions be fully carried intoeffect (Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs.NLRC 318 SCRA 632).


17/22

PAGE

17

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

The ruling in the Crystal Shipping case was maintained,

reinforced and more clearly expounded in the case of

Bernardo Remigio v. NLRC, Et Al., [G.R. No. 159887, 12 April

2006] when this Honorable Court, acting through then

Associate Justice [later on Chief Justice] Renato Puno,

included the application of the concept of Permanent Total

Disability under the Labor Code in favor of the sick or injured

seafarer in addition to the provisions of the POEA Standard

Employment Contract for seafarers. The ruling in the said

case reads as follows:

Second. Is the Labor Code's concept of

permanent total disability applicable to thecase at bar? Petitioner claims to havesuffered from permanent total disability asdefined under Article 192(c)(1) of the LaborCode, v i z:

Art. 192 (c) The following disabilities shallbe deemed total and permanent:(1) Temporary total disability lasting

continuously for more than one hundredtwenty days, except as otherwise provided inthe Rules; x x x

Petitioner likewise cites Vicente v.ECC1[35] and Abaya, Jr. v. ECC,2[36] both ofwhich were decided applying the Labor Codeprovisions on disability benefits. Privaterespondents, on the other hand, contend that

petitioner erred in applying the definition ofpermanent total disability under the LaborCode and cases decided under the ECC as theinstant case involves a contractual claimunder the 1996 POEA SEC.

Again, we rule for petitioner.


18/22

PAGE

18

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

The standard employment contract forseafarers was formulated by the POEApursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247to secure the best terms and conditions of

employment of Filipino contract workers andensure compliance therewith and to

promote and protect the well-being ofFilipino workers overseas.3[37] Section 29of the 1996 POEA SEC itself provides that[a]all rights and obligations of the parties to[the] Contract, including the annexes thereof,shall be governed by the laws of the Republicof the Philippines, international conventions,

treaties and covenants where the Philippinesis a signatory. Even without this provision, acontract of labor is so impressed with publicinterest that the New Civil Code expresslysubjects it to the special laws on laborunions, collective bargaining, strikes andlockouts, closed shop, wages, working

conditions, hours of labor and similarsubjects."4[38]

Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Codeconcept of permanent total disability to thecase of seafarers. In Philippine TransmarineCarriers v. NLRC,5[39] seaman Carlos Nieteswas found to be suffering from congestiveheart failure and cardiomyopathy and wasdeclared as unfit to work by the company-accredited physician. The Court affirmed the

award of disability benefits to the seaman,citing ECC v. Sanico,6[40] GSIS v. CA,7[41]and Bejerano v. ECC8[42] that disabilityshould not be understood more on its medicalsignificance but on the loss of earningcapacity. Permanent total disability meansdisablement of an employee to earn wages inthe same kind of work, or work of similarnature that [he] was trained for or

accustomed to perform, or any kind of workwhich a person of [his] mentality andattainment could do. It does not meanabsolute helplessness. It likewise citedBejerano v. ECC,9[43] that in disabilitycompensation, it is not the injury which iscompensated, but rather it is the incapacity


19/22

PAGE

19

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

to work resulting in the impairment of one'searning capacity.

Complainant Aguhar is further entitled to moral and

exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.

On account of respondents wanton refusal to pay

complainant what is clearly due to him, which act manifests

evident bad faith on their part, respondents must likewise be

ordered to pay moral damages in favor of complainant

Aguhar who, in addition to his sickness, also suffered serious

anxiety, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and loss of

appetite. Such moral damages must amount to at Five

Hundred Thousand Pesos [Php500,000.00] Philippine

currency.

In order to serve as a lesson to the general public and

prevent further commission of the same or similar acts

injurious to complainant, respondents must likewise be

ordered to pay exemplary damages of at least Five Hundred

Thousand Pesos [Php500,000.00] Philippine currency.

Since it was respondents act of refusing to pay

complainants disability benefits which forced the latter to

litigate, respondents must likewise be ordered to pay


20/22

PAGE

20

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent [10%] of the total

award in favor of complainant Aguhar.

R E L I E F

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

asked of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office that the

following be awarded in favor of complainant by ordering

respondents to pay -

1. TP Disability Benefits = US$ 80,000.00 Dollars

2. Moral damages = PhP 500,000.00 Pesos

3. Exemplary damages = PhP 500,000.00 Pesos

4. Attorneys Fees equivalent to 10% of total award

= US$ 8,000.00 Dollars; and

= PhP 100,000 Pesos

Other reliefs just and equitable are respectfully sought.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Santa Cruz, Laguna for Quezon City, 25 April 2012.


21/22

PAGE

21

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

Atty. EMMANUEL E. SANDICHOCounsel for the Complainant

117 P. Guevarra St., Santa Cruz, Laguna

IBP No. 848920, 01.06.2012, ManilaIVPTR No. 8163771, 02.05.2012, Laguna

Roll No. 42246 admitted on 9 May 1997MCLE Compliance No. III-0020564

Republic of the Philippines ]Quezon City, Metro Manila ] s.s.

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

I, CANDELARIO T. AGUHAR, of legal age, Filipino, marriedand resident of Balico Drive, Poblacion, Talibon, Bohol afterhaving been sworn in accordance with law, depose and statethat

I am the complainant in the above captioned case; I

have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoingPosition Paper; I have read and understood the same; Icertify that the declarations therein are true andcorrect of my own personal knowledge and on thebasis of authentic records.

I have not commenced any action or proceedinginvolving the same issues before any other court,agency or tribunal. To my personal knowledge, no such

action or proceeding is pending before any other court,agency or tribunal. In the event I come to know of anyother pending action to that effect, I undertake toinform this office within five [5] days thereafter.

IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I hereto affixed my signature this25thof April 2012 in Quezon City.

CANDELARIO T. AGUHARAffiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 April2012 in Quezon City by affiant with Seafarer Registration


22/22

AGE

22

OF22

-

POSITIONP

PER

OFCOMPLAINANT

Certificate (SRC) No. CB10697-97 issued at POEA-Ortigas on17 October 2002/ 13 April 2011 and valid until 11 April 2016.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;Book No. _____;

Series of 2012.

________________________________________________

Copy furnished --

DEL ROSARIO & DEL ROSARIO LAW15THFloor Pacific Star BuildingCorner Makati and Gil Puyat AvenuesMakati City, Metro Manila

Received by:

Signature : _________________Name : _________________Position : _________________Date : ________________

Documents

Position Paper - AGUHAR