ERICK S. SARTE, ET AL,,Complainants,

-versus-

BITMICROINTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,

Respondents.X------------------------x

ERICK SASOY SARTE, ET AL783 San Juan SkeetSta. Cru4 Cavte Clly

BITMICRO NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, INC./ZOPHAR SANTE/ STEPHEN URIARTE/LYNITTE DOWER19h Floor Netsquare CenterBon facio G obaiCity, TagLrig Cty

GREETINGS:

Quezon C ty, Phi ippines october 8, 201 4

Republic of the PhilippinesDepartrnent of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONNational Capital Region

Quezon City

NLRC NCR CASE N0_ 12.15596n3

NETwORKS

NOTICE OF DECISION

ATTY. WREN CHRISTOPHER R. DONESCounseL for the Complainants22ND Floor, West Tower, PSE Contreortigas Center, Pasig Cjty

ROMULO MABANTA BUEMVENTUMSAYOC & DE LOS ANGELESCounsel lor ihe Regpondents21d Floor, Philarnlife Tower8767 Paseo de Roxas Strcel [,,lakatj City

You are hereby nolied that on SEPTEIrIBER 30, 2014, a DEC|SIoN,, copy attached, was rendered n the above

Purslant to Aaflc es 223 ol the Labor Code, as arnend€d and under Section i RuieV oflhe2011 NLRC Rues ofProceclre. Dec sions awards or orde6 oi the Labor Aio ter shall be I na and executory un ess appea ed to the cornnrission byany or bolh parl es wilhin ten i10) ca endar davs frcm rece pt ihercof, x x x,,,

The dec sion oi the LaborAloter re nstating a dsrn ssed or separated emp oyee insofar as lhe re nstatement aspect sconcerned sha be mmedetey executory even pend ng ap'ea. The employee sha be either be adm ted back to work underthe sa,me tems and condtons or n tlre payro The employer is likewise directed to submit a repo/r of co mpliance withinten (10)calendar days fiom receiptofthe DECIStOiJORDER.

The post ng oi a bond by the employer sha not stay the execul on lor reinstatement

No moi on ior recons de€tlon of thts Decrston sha be entena ned

Allhority of lhe Labor

OLIVER C. J

L A-ll.al trcm anv interlcr!tr o.der of thc Labor Arbjrc.s rs not subje.l0rApl-sr pu*lant t. section s (s), Rure r orthe 2011 Nlric

Requisites for Perfection ofan Appeal:

Appea must be iiled w th n ten (1 0) calendar days from rece pt oi the dec sion, a\lard $ old€r of the Labor Arb tet

Veried by the appe ant himsef/hersef n accordance wth Secton 4. Rue 7 of the Rr.rles of Colrt asL amendedi

ln the form ol a memorandum of appee whlch shall siale the giolnds relieo lpon and the aTgLlTnents n

suppori lhereof the reliefs prayed for aid wth a statemenl of the date the appeLLant leceved the appea eddecls on oa award

r llree .l eq o\ qpe,\' r'o' o p' "ao oL 6(

Proofol payment of the requ reC appea fee and ega reseaaah fee

Posting of cash or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, excusve of damages andattorney s fees

n case of Surety Bond, the same sha be

i) lssued by a fefltab e bondlng company accredlted by the Commission oI the SupremeCoLrrl,

l) Accompanedbyorqna or certifed trLre cop es ofthe fo lowing:

> Jo nt dec araton under oath by the empoyer, hls/her couns€L and bond ng compenyattestirg ihal the boid posted s genu ne and sha be n effect Lrntii fna disposition ofthe case;

> ndemn ty agreereiri between the empoyer-appe lant and bond ng compar]y> Proof of securty depostoT co aleTa securing the bondl provided, lhal a check shal

not be cofsidered as an acceptab e secLrrlty,> Certfcale ofAuthorlty lrom the lnsurance Commssoni> Cerlfcate of Regisiralon from the SeaLr tes and Exchafge Comm sson;> Certfcate ofAccredltation and A!thorty irom the S!preme Court and> Notarzed Soard Resou on or Secretary s Certilicate from the bondng company

showng is aLrthor zed sigfator es and the r spec men s gnatures.

Prooi of service upon theotherpadres

FA LURE TO COIiIPLY W TH ALL OF THE ABOVE REOU REMENTS W Lt RESULT IN THE D]SIJ SSAL OF THE APPEALFOR NON PERFECTlON

IN VIEW OF THE PROLIFERATION OF FAKE SURETY BONDS, APPELLANTS ARE STERNLY AOVISED TO DEALONLY WTH AUTHORIZED AGENTS OF ACCREDITED SURETY COIIIPANIES, AND EXERCISE DUE AND UTMOSTDILIGENCE TO ENSURE THAT THE SURETY BOND POSTED IS GENUINE, THE POSTING OF A FAKE OR IRREGULARBONDWLL RESULT IN THE OUTRIGHT OISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL,

Republic of the PhilippinesDepartment of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COIV]IV]ISSIONational Capital Region

Quezon City

ERICK S. SARTE, ETAL.,Complainants,

- versus -

BITMICRO NETWORKSINTERNATIONAL, INC., E7AL.,

Respondents.x----------------"-------------------------------x

NLRC NCR CASE No. 12-15596-13

ffim-/€̂ /

iHE LnBd{r:ici'':ir

)_r - Q ...,,

DECISIONThis is a comp alnt for constructive dismissal with prayer for full back wages,

separation pay mora and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees filed by the

above stated complainants aganst Btmicro Networks lnternational, lnc., its

President, Stephen R Uriarte, and its Chief Operating Offlcer, Zophar Sante

Conciliation failed Hence both parlies were directed to submit the r respective

pos tion paper and other related plead ngs. Thereafter, the instant case was ordered

submltted for resolution based on the records on ft e.

ln their position paper comp alnants basically allege thai ihey are employees

of Bitm cro who were construciive y dismissed frori] emp oyment. They c aim that the

case was triggered by a change in the management of the respondent company

sometime n August 2013, which was preceded by a btiier inira-corporate dispute

beiween competing factions vylng for control of Bitmicro That they were caught in the

middle of the controversy which eventual y resulted in ther constructive dismissal

from employment.

Page 2DEC S ONErckS Sarte eia.vs Biimicro Networks nt nc eiaLX-- x

ln support oi their position, the complainants submitted the Joint Affidavit of

complainants Erlck Safte, Lawrence Sa azar and Noeme l\/ateo Salazar, who were

the Engineeting Directors of Bitmicro as well as the Joint Affidavit of complainants

Jayord Pinili, John Carlo Lara. Nepomuceno Franco ll, Ernando Ariel Bangayan,

Rommel Edillorana and Aaron Jay Cabu ng, the employees who were ass gned to

various departments in the Engineering Department of Bitmicro.

ln the r Joint Affidavit, complainants Erick Sarte Lawrence Salazar and Noeme

l\4ateo Salazar alleges the following:

"6. Sometime in the lafter poftion of May 2013, we were infornedby Mr. Rey H. Bruce (Mr. Bruce), the President and CEO of Bitmicro, thatthe PMC wi be supervised by Mr. Stephen R. Uiafte ('Mr. Unane\Executive Vice-Prcsident, Geneal Counsel and Cotpotut'e Secretary ofBitmicro Networks, lnc. ('BNI-USA'), Bitmicrc's parcnt company in the t|nitedStates of Ameica. X x x

7. Sometime in the eady pottion of June 2013, we received anolfrcial announcement from the management that Mr. Bruce wi be repla@das CEO of BNI-USA.

11. On 26 July 2013, Mr. Zophar Sante ("Mr. Sante'), the Vp forMarketing of BNI-USA. went to the Company s office in the philippines andarnnged a meetitv with us. Mr. Uiafte and Mr. Dave Shapowal (Mt.Shapowal"), CEO of BNI-USA, likewise joined the neeting remotely viatelephore conference. We were informed that BNI-USA is contemptating ofimplementing a temporary retrenchment - a tempotary sevennce fromemployment where the employees will not receive any separation pay - lorthe employees in the Philippines, and that they atoady had a list ofadministrative staff who wi be sepaated from the seNice.

12- ln the neantime, the scheduled conlerence with Messrs.Udaie and Salhi pushed through on 30 July 2013. On said date, wepresented to Mr- Uiaie the letter coming from Mr. Bruce rcminding us of ournon-disclosure obligations to the Company_ Mr. lJiarte ignored the letter andinstead demanded that we should rcspond to alt the questions that may beasked duing the "deep diligence" examination_ However, we complied withour undeiakings in the Non-Disctosure Agreement and did not reveal anyconfidential infomation to Mr. Sathi.

13- Our decision not to disclose confidentiat information to Mr.Salhi did not sit wellwith Mt. lJriarte. He then attempted to intimidate us intofollowing his orders, especially to Eveal company secrets to third pafties.Finally, he caused undue disruption in the opentions of the Company and

DEC S ONErickS Sarte eia vs Brtmcro Networks nil lnc etalx ----------- ,-x

pu ed the different team leaders frcm their wark stations in otder ta have apivate discussian. Because of the confusion Mr Salhi himself decided notto conduct the "deep diligence" until the intm-cotpo@te dispute has beensettled.

17. The employees' salaies for the second haff of August 2013were delayed. The rcason proided was that there was allegedly nosignatory available to rclease the funds.

19. On the same date, Mt. Sante also assembled the employeeslo discuss BN/-USA'S side in the controversy_ Duing the conference, Mr_Sante laid down the following conditions before the employees can receivetheir salaies: (a) the employees wi not take instruclions from Mr. Cunanan;and (b) the Ervineeing Directots wil! sign a lefter of supporl in favor of thealleged new ma nag e ment.

20. Eventually, on 05 September 2013, the employees receivedtheir salaies for the second half of August 2013. While the empto@esreceived their salaies for the second hall of August 2013, the Company didnot remit ou contibutions due to the differcnt govemment aqencies (i.e_, theBlR, SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-lbig), and pay the premiums due to the Company'sHMO ptovider, and thus, some employees wee unable to avail of their HMObenefits.

22. SubseqLently, the new management led by Mr. Sante held ameeting outside the office with select employees to address their concerns.Very few ASIC and ASG employees werc infoned about the meeting. Weleaned that dutitp the said tgeting, Ms. Maioillas led a signaturecampaign to show suppott to the new managemenL lt was also announcedthat the salaies wi be directly paid to select employees provided that theywill sign an attendance sheet every day.

23. l, Eick Saie, was informed by Mr. Sante that I was notwelcome to aftend the above-stated meeting_

24. On 15 Septenber 2013, the Company remifted the salaies forthe frrst half of September 2013. Only those employees who sign the lettet ofsuppott for the new rtanagement werc paid their salaies_ As such, we didnot receive our salaies.

26. On 30 September 2013, the Company remifted the sataies forthe secod hall of September 2013. Once again, only those who signed thelefter of suppotl for the new nanagement werc paid their salaies. We didnot receive our salaies-

27- Under the new nat@genent, the new secutw guads wereinstructed that only the employees mentioned in a list proided can enbr theoffice. The list did not include the ASIC engineers and the EngineeingDiF-ctors.

Page 4DECtStONErick S. Sarte, et al. vs. Biimicro Netwod<s lnil lnc. ei al.x-----------------,- ,,---------x

29. We leaned that on 04 October 2013, Mr. Sante held a "pizza' paiy" attended by select employees who signed the lelter of suppott to thenew management, plus additional five (5) selected ASIC engineets and ten(10) selected ASG engineers. Again, we were not inited.

30. On said date, Mr. Sante announced that the company holidayhas been lifted and the emplot/ees are dirccted to immediately repoi forwo*. Unfodunately, when the ASIC and ASG employees (includingourselves) tied to repod for wod< on 08 October 2013, the new secuityguads refused tlEir entry to the Engineeing wotk arca- lnstead, we were allrcdirected to the Recreation Room where we waited for ML Sante.

31. ln our meeting, ML Sante inlofined us that there is noguamntee that the Company wi be able to pay our salaies, and we wereinstead asked to take a leal@ of absence in the meantime and jusl consumeour existing leave crcdits-

32. On the same day, Mr. Sante demanded thaf an update for allthe upcoming prcducts of the Company. He also mentioned that Ms.Madoillas will now be the new Head of the PMC. Thereafter, Ms. Maioillasinformed us that the engineeing directors and managers who used to leadthe projects (including ourselves) were already leplaced new managershandpicked by the new managemenL We demanded that the newmanagement should issue a memonndum regatding our demotign blt theyrefused to do so.

33. On 16 Octobet 2013, and after much delay, we finally began toreceive our salaies, this time for the first half of October 2013.

34. On 20 Octobet 2013, Mr. Sante invited us for a meeting at hisoffice. Duing the meeting, Mr- Sante instrucled us to take a forced leave ofabsence while he was a egedly assefiing his influence and authoity over theengineeing groups. He mentioned that we were 'very influential" to the gtheremployees. He mentioned that we will just be nolified when we can rctum towork. Stafting the said date, we werc not allowed to enter the offt@premises-

35. ln view of our constructive dismissal from employnent,sometine in the latter poftion of October 2013, we filed a Complaint for illegal(constructive) dismissal against the Company before the National LaborRelatio ns Co m mi ssi on (N LRC).

36. On 02 December 2013, we rcceived text messages stating thatwe are direded to repoi for work the following day, 03 December 2013.

37. As instructed, we rcpoied lor work on 03 December 2013.We were initially met by Messrs. ENin Salazat (who was recently prcfitotedto Diredor of Engineeing) and Madon Verdan (a hadpicked ASIC Managerduing the pizza patty) for a biefing. They nentioned that ,ince only ahandful ofengineers are needed for suppott, we witl only be given tasks to beassigned from tine to time. They stated lhat we should just keep ouBelvesbusy in the meantime-

38. Since the said date, while we are reporting for work in theoffice, we are not peiorming any produclive task that we were previouslypeiorming for the Company- lnstead, we are being bypassed as some of ourpeGonnel are being rrunaged directly by Mess6_ Salazar and Verdan. Tokeep oursel,{es busy, we just spend the day studying and tnining indiidualy.

Page jDEC S ONErick S Saare ei a vs Bltm cro Neh,/orks ntl. tnc et aX ----- X

On the other hand, in their Joint Affidavit complainants Jaylord pinili, JohnCarlo Lara, Nepomuceno Franco ll, Ernando Ariel Bangayan, Rommel Edillorana andAaron Jay Cabuling, averred:

"5. Specifica y, sometime in the latter poftion of August 2013,Messrs- Uiaie and Sante arived at the Company's office and demanded thatthe employees should rccognize the new managenent, and that theemployees should no longer recognize the old management ted by Mr_ Bruceand Mr. Gilbei Cunanan ('Mr. Cunanan'), the fomer project Manager ofBitrmicro. Since the employees are not piv! to the controversy, we chose toremain neutnl lest we be caught in the crossfire between competing factionsof management-

6. Unfoftunately, our salaies for the second hatf of August 2013wee delayed- The rcason provided was that there was no signatory availahtewho can release the funds_ We surmise, howevet, that tte detay was causedby the intra-coryorate dispute.

9- On the same date, a telephone conference was afianged by thenew managenent to claify the rcasons for the delay in our sataies_ We wercinfotmed that the new management wilt release our salaies proided that weno longer recognize the old managemenL Our Engineeing Directors weelikewise instructed to sign a lefter of suppoft in favor of the new managementas condition for tlp release of the funds for the Auqust 2013 sataties,nol,tuithstanding the pendency ol the intm-cotpoete dispute. We wereappa ed that the new management is using our hard eanted sa/ares asleverage to gather suppott. However, since we wanted to maintain ourneutrality, our Engineeing Direclors did not sign the tetter of suppotl.

10. On 06 Septembet 2013, we received our salaies for thesecond half of August 201j. However, the Company did not remit ourcontibutions due to the differcnt government agencies (i.e., rre BiB SSS,Plilryeath, Pag-lbi and did not pay the premiums due to the Company'sHMO provider. As such, we teamed that some emplo@es faited to avaii oftheir HMO benefits.

13. On 15 September 2013, the Company remitted the salaies forthe lirst haff of September 201j. We noted, however, that only the selectemployees who sign the lefter of suppoti in favor of the new manaqementwere paid their salaies- We did not rcceive our salaies.

'15. On 30 September 2013, the Company remitted the salaies forthe second half of September 2013. Once again, only the setect emptoyeeswh9 signed the letter of suppott for the new managengnt were paid theirsalaies- We did not receive our salaies.

16. We leamed that on 04 October 2013, Mr. Sante hetd a ,pizzapaft/' aftended by select employees who signed the letter of suppott for thenew management, plus additionat fwe (5) setected ASIC engineers and ten

DEC]SIONErckS Sade ela vs Btmcro Neiworks lnt nc etaX'------- - ,-----x

(10) selected ASG engineerc. We were not invited ta atlend the said party.We likewise learned that thase wha attended the said party were paid theirSeptember 2013 salaies, which were gyen through checks issued by theBank of Conmerce.

17. Under the new nanagement. new security guards weredeplayed and were instructed that only selected employees enumerated in alist provided wi be allowed to enterthe office.

18- Eventually, all employees werc directed to repoft for workbeginning on 08 Ocfober 2013- However, since our names werc not includedin the list ptovided to the secuity guads, we were not allowed to enter outwokplace- lnstead, we were rediected to the Recreation Room located at the19th Floor of the Net Square Building where we wee met by Mr Sante. Mr.Sante informed us that if we wish to repott for work, we rny do so but therc isno guanntee that we will be pab our salaies_ He instead mentioned that wemay take a leave of absence instead, if we wanted, but without pay_

19. lt was thereforc clear thal we ate no longer welcome to wotk forthe new management and that they want to lay us off without providing anymutually acceptable sevemnce package_ Simply put, the employees who didnot manifest their suppott to the new management (especially those who didnot sign the letter of suppod) arc being forced to resign tuom employmenL

21. ln the neantime, on 16 Oclaber 2013 and after much delay wefinally began to receive our salaies. However, we did not recejve our salaiesfar Septenber 2A13 on the sane date. ln fact some employees received theirSeptember 2013 salaries anly in December 2013 while some recejved theirSeptember 2013 salaries only in January 2014.

22 Presently, while we are repofting for work for the Company,with the exception af a few affected employees most of us were merclydirected to vlait for instructions from the new management that may be givenfrom time ta time- Unfoftunately we are only being given tasks that areoutside the scope af our job descriptian. Worse, some employees were evenrepading fotvla* with nothing else to do."

On the other hand, in their posit on paper, the respondents maintain thai the

"m sperceived bad faith and ma ce in the acts of the new management x x x led to

thefil ng ofthe present complaint for constructive dsmissa xx,,(paragB). According

to the respondenis, "x x Bitmtcro's operations were shutdown for several weeks

beginning the m ddle of Septembet 2A13 x x " and 'x x in the ensuing confusion x x

the atmosphere in B tmicro became heavy with uncerta nty and dlstrust. x x x (parag 4

& 7).

DEC SiONErckS Sarie eta vs Btmcro Networks lnt nc etaX--- X

Respondents further stated that the comp ainants can be subdivided into three

(3) main groups, namely (a) those who have been reporting for work and receiving

thelr salaries and benefits (b) those who have been absent from work without

[officia]l leave and have not yet resigned or been termtnated; and (c) those who have

resigned from the company

Specifical y, those belongtng to Group One appears to be the follow ng

ABADABRECEA!BL]L:I]'A MARYJL]NE

ASEJO LOU E Ai!I!AZL]CENA N ]\A CATI]ER]I.]EEACAI,] REX'LBANTiGI]E S!I\'ED C iSSLENO3EN . NDYANGEL NEBUDUAI,] OAVID HENRYBULAONG JERICICABULNGDANGqI']AN T IiIOTNY aLVEROELARI,IENTE JONATIIAf.]DY JONGCOED LLORANA Ro[ililELENRQUEZESTRELLA EDL]AFDIi

FEI,]OL

FLORES JOSELTONEFOMUC'i.]O

GACL]SAN HA DEEGAHOL L]LBETHAI,]NE

DOUGLAS IHOIIASALEERTEOilzALEZ JA ME I.] COIEII,IACARUBBOMANZO ANDFELlJMATEO NOEJiEMEL

'ADOHERLYi\]

MEr!002q[I JARES REUEENOCHOADA OL VE ANI,IEocR s[{AORCL]LLO

BEVAI]PEsTA[]o

PONCE CYRILL

AMOR LEO

SAGqBAEN RODERiC(LAWREI.]CE

SAN JUANSAi,iT AGO

ER]C(S MEON LEOANTHOI,]YIAEUFNG TROY HANCE!ILLANUEVA JEZRELPAUL

DEC S ONErcks Sarte eial vs Biimicro Nehvorks nt nc eialX-- ,X

I ZAPLAN JANNALEL

Under Group Two or those who have been absent without leave:BANGAYAI] ERMNDO AR ELBELEN DE MAR A EL ZqDEGUZ[IAN JEROMEDELMUNDO MELJE BREI]TDEL]GEi!TE JED PAOLO

JL]NETHGLFONEA JOSE REDENTOA

JOHI.]CARL'NEPOIi]L]CENO

Under Group Three or those who resigned or has submitted their resignation:

AGOOTAERNIRDO DERIC(

JASM NaA50N0CHAVEZESTEMBER REG NALDFERNANDEZGAHTE OLEN

JOHN CRSLORENZO GER[]il,l

i ARIA RENE

Respondents allege that the majority of the complainants continue to work at

Bitmicrc, receiving the same salaries and benefits and that since there is no

cessation of employment, then there can be no constructive dismissal and the

complaint should be dismissed. As to the complainants who have been absent from

work without lofficial] leave since even before the filing of the complaint, said group ofcomplainants have not resigned and have not been terminated by BitMicro, hence,

the employment relationship still exists and thus, as to this group, the complaint

should also be dismissed. And, as regards the complainants who allegedly resigned

from the company, respondents claim that some of the complainants have sent

DEC S ONErckS Saire eia vs Bitmrcro Networks nI lnc etalx--- _--- -,--- xresignaton etters and voluntarily left Bi vlicro and have not shown that they were

forced into resigning by the new management. They likewlse maintain that theirvoluntary resignation precludes a finding of constructtve dismissal hence. the

complaint as to this group of complainants should likewise be dismissed.

ln their Reply, complainants maintain that respondents are guilty ofconstructive dtsmissal ln the case of complainants Sarte, Saiazar and lvlat,Ao_

Salazar. complainants cited their Joint-Affidavit (Annex ,A,, compla nants, positton

Paper) and alleged that said complainants were,x x removed from their prevously

assigned ro es as Engineering Directors x x,, and that,,x x they suffered a demotion atthe hands of the new management led by lvlessrs. Sante and Uriarte.x x,, (parag 10,

complainanis' Reply). Complainants also submitted the Affidavit of Fedenco

Sambilay, Jr (Annex'8", complainants, Reply) who testified that those who did not

sign the letter of support for the new management did not receive their September j 5salary (parag 7 Annex 'B") and that the new management held a pizza party where

members of the ASIC group (which included the complainants) were not invited:

. . - '-11. On that same day whib the pizza paiy was being held, menbersof ASIC gtoup not invited to the pafty heard about th; pafty and theretrenchment ptan af the canpany. understandabty, this pissed th;n aff. Upta this time, they werc left in .1ark_(1) they received na satary far 1 month,wljle:one af Bitmlcro employees rcceived theirs, (2) there was no cleat andantctat 1_nsttuctton as ta when they can repoft for work. (3) they heard abaut theretrenchment plan of lhe new management. but the detaits w;re not' ctear.,

Complainants also pointed out in their Reply thatl

"12. lt cannat be denied that the demation af complainants ErjckSafte. Lawrence Satazar and Naeme Mateo-Salazar, *ho iereunceremaniously removed from being memberc af the pMC. and who werebypassed as Engineeing Directors by mare junior manages fl.e., MessrsErtin Satazar and Malan Verdan) who are now direciiy ;n"ginj \n"i,respective teams. amounted ta constructive dlsrllssa/. Henceioin tn.complainants have no involvement v.hatsaever tn the prarJct that thev used

Page l(lDEC S ONErckS Sarle eial vs Btmicro Nehrorks nt nc €tatx------ --,------x

to lead. even after they vlere asked to repod back to the office. This is atextbook example of demation and constructive dismissal."

Moreover, complainants also submitted the Affidavit of Mr. Marohomsalic

(Annex "E", complainants' Reply) who testified that respondents favored only those

who signed the letter of support for the new management.

Finally, complainants pointed out that those who signed letters of resignation

did so involuniarily. ln this connection, complainants submitted the Joint Affidavit of

Marjo Marasigan, Reginald Estember, John Cris Jardin and Derick Bernardo (Annex

"G', complainants' Reply) who narraied the circumstances surrounding the execution

of said resignation letters:

'4. There is no truth to the contention of Bitmicro that we volunhilytendered our rcsignation letters. On the contrary, our respedive rcsignationlette$ were involuntaily issued only aftet we had sufEred discimiration,disdain and insensibilu at the hands of the a eged new management ofBrtmicro, which compelled us to forego continued employment with the saidcompany.

5- Our odeal could be tnced to an intra-coryorate dispute, whichstafted when cedain individuals belonging to Bitmicro Networks, lnc. (,BNl-USA'), Bitmicrc's parent company in the l_tnited States of Arneica, wrestedcontlol over from the existing management led by the Company,s presidentaN Chief Executive Ofricer (CEO), Mr. Rey Bruce ("Mr. Bruce).

6. While it appearcd that we will become innocent bystanders inthe said intn-corponte dispute, a confluence of events beginning in August2013 brought the intrc-cotpo@te dispute ight in front of the doorstep of theCompany when rcptesentatives of BN||SA, /.e., Messrs Stephen R. Uiafte(ML Unafte), Executive Vice-Ptesident, Genenl Counsel and CotporuteSecretarf of BNI-USA, and Zophar Sante (Mr. Sante'), the Vp for Marketing ofBNI-USA, fied to assei contrcl otEr the Company. Duing this peiod,Messs. Uiafte aN Sante adved at the Company,s offrce and demanded thatthe employees should recggnize the new management, and that theemployees should no longer recognize the old management led by Mr Bruceand Mr. Gilbeft Cunanan ('Mr. Cunanan), the former pro.ject Manager ofBitmicro. Since we werc pivy to the controversy, we chose to rcmainimpaftial.

7. Unfoftunately, our salaies lor the second hatf of August 2013were delayed. The rcason provided was that thee was no signatory availablewho can release the funds. We surmise, however, that the delay was causedby the intn-corponte dispute.

DEC S ONErcks Saire €ta vs Biimicro Networks nil lrc etaX ---, ,---X

9. On the same date, a telephone conference was arnnged by thenew managenent to claify the reasons for the delay in our salaies. We wercinformed that the new management will release our salaies provided that weno longer rccognize the old managemenL Appaen y, the new managementis using ou hatd earned salaies as levercge to gather suppotl. Howevet,since we wanted to maintain our neutRlu, our Engineeing Directors did notsign the letter of support.

10. On 06 September 2013, we received our salaies for thesecond half of August 2013. Hov,/ever, the Company did no! rcmit ourcontibutions due to the differcnt govemment agencies (i.e., lhe BIR, SSS,PhilHealth, Paglbig) and did not pay the premiums due to the Company'sHMO provider. For this reason, some emptoyees hiled to avail of their HMObenefits-

13. On 15 September 2013, the company remifted the salaies forthe frrst haff of September 2013. We noted, however, that onty the selectemployees who signed a letter of support in favor of the new managementwee paid their salaies. Since we did not sign the letter of support, we did notrcceive our salaies.

15. On 30 September 2013, the Company rcmitted the sataies forthe second half of September 2013. Once again, onty the select employeeswho signed the letter of suppoft fot the new management were paid theirsa/ares. /Veed/ess lo state, we did not receive our salaies.

16. We leamed that on 04 October 2013, Mr. Sante sponsorcd a'pizza pafty' attended by select enployees who signed the tefter of suppott forthe new ftnnagemenL plus additional five (5) setected ASIC engineers and ten(10) selected ASG engineers. We were not invited to altend the said party.We likewise leamed fhat those who aftended the said pau were paid theirSeptember 2013 salaies, which were given through checks issued by theBank of Comrnerce.

17. Under the new management, new secuity guatds were deployedand were instructed that only selected employees enumerated in a listprovided will be a owed to enter the office.

18. Eventually, all employees were directed to repoft fot wotl<beginning on 08 Oclober 2013. However, since our names were not includedin the list provided to the secuity guads, we werc not allowed to enter outworkplace. lnstead, we were redirccted to the Recreation Room tocated at thef19th Floot of the Net Square Buitding where we werc net by Mr. Sante. Mt.Sante inforned us that if we wish to repoi for wotk, we may do so but there Ino guarantee that we will be paid our salaies_ He instead mentioned that wemay take a leave of absence instead, if we wanted, but without pay_

19. lt was therefore clear that we aE no longer welcome to work lorthe nevt management and that they want to lay us off without ptoviding anymutually accepkble sevennce package. Since we did manifest thei suppottto the new managenenL and did not sign the letter of suppott, we are beingforced to resign from employment_

Page l:DEC S ONErcks Safie €tal vs gitmcro Nelworks ntl nc eiaX .- X

20. Since we could na longet endurc the acts af hamssment,insensibility and disciminalion by the new management af Bitmictu led byMessrs. Uriaie and Sante, and mast especially cansideing were we natreceiving out salaies, we had no chorce but to resign fron employment.

21. We likewise wish to stress that the new management has beencontinuously harassing us even after have alrcady tendered aur involuntaryresignation farm the Company. ln fact. we were informed that Bitnicro willanly issue our ceftificates of clearance (which are required by any prospedivefuture emplayment, and which vr'e are entitled to receive as paft of the temsand conditians of employment) if we will execute a Re/ease Waiver andQuitclaim in favor af the Campany, its officers and employees. Hovr'ever. stncewe have already filed a case for constructive dismissal to challenge au illegaldlsmlssa/, we mentianed that we cannat issue the required Release Waiverand Quitclaim."

As to the complainants who no longer reported for woft, comOlainants asserted tn

their Reply that this was because of respondents' acts and "x x only after suffering

d scr m nation, disdain and insensibility at the hands of the respondents" (parag. 38) To back

up this posiUon, complainants submltted the Joint Affidavit of complainants Ernando Adel

Bangayan Jaylord Pinil , John Carlo Lara l/lel-Jie Brent del MLrndo, l\/laria Eliza de Belen and

Patrlck Nepomuceno (Annex "H", complainants' Rep y) who unanimously narrated that they

were not paid thelr salarles while the salar es of select emp oyees were released.

They testified also that they were not allowed to enter the workplace by the new

secu.ity guards of respondents:

"3. We have examined the Position Paper of Bitmicro whee italleged that we were not constructively dismissed frcm employment. lnstead,Bitmicro alleged that there is no cessation from employment as we have ontybeen absent frcm employment without official leave.

7. Unfofiunately, our salaies for the second half of August 2013wee delayed- The reason prcvided was that there was no signatoty availablewho can release the funds- We surmise, however, that the delay y/as causedby the intra-coryonte dispute.

9. On the same date, a telephone cofierence was aranged by thenew management to claify the Easons for the delay in ou salaies. We weeinformed that the new management will release our salaies prcvided that weno longer recognize the old management. Apparcntly, the new managernentis using our hard earned salaies as levenge to gather support. Howevet,

DFC S ONEr ck S. Sade ei al vs Biimicro NeMorks nt nc. et aix-,------- ---------,x

since we wanted to maintain ou neutft ty, ou Engineeing Direclors did natsign the letter af suppaft.

10. On 06 Septembet 2013, we received our salaies for thesecond half of August 2013. However, the Company did not remit ourcontibutions due to the differcnt govemnent agencies (i.e., lhe BiR, SSS,PhilHealth, Pag-lbig) and did not pay the premiums due to the Company'sHMO provider- For this reason, some employees failed to avait of their HMObenefits.

13. On 15 September 2013, the company rcmitted the salaies forthe first half of September 2013. We noted, however, that only the selectemployees who signed a letter of suppoft in favor of the new managementwerc paid their salaies. gnce we did not sign the letter of suppoi, we did notreceive our salaies-

15. On 30 September 2013, the Company rcmifted the sataries forthe second half of September 2013. Once again, only the select employeeswho signed the lefter of suppott for tle new manageffEnt were paid theirsa/ar-es. Need/ess to state, we did not receive our salaies.

16. We leamed that on 04 October 2013, Mt. Sante sponso@d a'pizza pafty' attended by select emptaPes who signed the letter of support forthe new rnanagement, plus additional five (5) selected ASIC engineers and ten(10) selected ASG engineers. We were not invited to aftend the said pafty.We likewise learned that those who attended the said pary were paid theirSeptembq 2013 salaies, which were given through checks issued by theBank of Commerce

17- Undet the new managemenL new secuity guards wee deployedand were instruded that only selected employees enumented in a listprovided wi be allowed to enter the office.

18- Eventually, all employees were direcled to repott for workbeginning on 08 Ocloher 2013. However, since our names were not includedin the list proided to the secufiy guads, we werc not allowed to enter ourwotkplace. lnslead, we were redirected to the Recreation Room located at thel19th Floor of the Net Square Building where we werc met by Mr. Sante. Mr.Sante informed us that if we wish to repoft for work, we may do so but there tno guaranbe that we will be paid our salaies. He instead mentioned that wemay take a leave of absence instead, if we wanted, but without pay_

19. lt was therefore clear that we are no longer welcome to work forthe new management and that they want to lay us off without providing anymutua y accepbble seve@nce package. Since we did manifest their suppodto the new managernent, and did not sign the lefter of suppott, we are beingforced to resbn from employment_

20- Since we could no longer endure the acts of hanssment,insensibility and discimination by the new management of Bitmicrc ted byMessts. Uiarle and Sante, and most especially consideing we were notreceiving our sataies, we no longer attempted to rcpod for work. As westrongly believed that we have already been constructively dismissed agarnslBitmicrc and the new management led by Messrs. lJiaie and Sante."

DECIS ONErckS Sade.eta vs. Btmcro Nehlorks nt nc eiax --,------- x

ln their Reply, respondents basically denied the allegations and accusations of

complainants in their affidavits. Respondents reiterated their position that if there is

no cessation of employment, there can be no constructive dismissal. Respondents

also denied committing acts of discrimination, insensibility or disdain towards the

complainants and alleged that the delay in the payment of salaries and statutory

contributions of the employees was because of lack of funds and confusion

encountered by the new management.

ln their Rejoinder, complainants argued that actual cessation of work is not

necessary for a finding of constructive dismissal. Complainants alleged that "x x

notwithstanding the series of acts of harassment, insensibility and disdain suffered at

the hands of the respondents x x" (parag 4), they continued with their employment

because "x x they still have families to feed, to provide shelter, and to fulfill the basic

necessities in life.x x' Complainants also refuted the arguments ralsed in

Respondents' Reply, citing the several affidavits they submitted in evidence.

ln their Rejoinder, respondents alleged that the delay in salaries, decrease in

work assignment and inability of the employees to enter the company premises

occurred after Bitmicro shut down because of the intra-corporate dispute.

Respondents reiterated their position that they did not act jn bad faith and that they

are not liable for constructive dismissal. Respondents also submitted the Affidavit of

Atty. Granados (Annex "6", respondents' Rejoinder) who testified that some

complainants, including those who resigned, did not mention that they were victims of

discrimination. insensibility and disdain.

Page 1-rDEC S ONErckS.Sade eta vs Bitmcro Netwo s nt nc eiaX- - x

Posed for reso ution is ihe issue of whether or not the complainants were

constructive y dismissed; and whether or not they are entifled to their monetary

c aims.

According to the respondents the complainants may be categorzed into three

(3) groups, to wit: (a) those who have been reporting for work and receiving their

sa aries and beneflts; (b) those who have been absent from work without official leave

and have not yet resigned or been ierm nated and (c) those who have resigned from

the company

As to the first and second groups lt s the contention of respondents that since

there is no cessation of employment, there can be no constructive dism ssa We do

not subscribe to thls view. The gravamen of the charge of constructive dismissal is

the act or acts of discrimination, insenslbllity or disdain committed by an employer

which becomes unbearable on the part of the employee that ii would foreclose any

cholce by him except to forego contnued employment (SHS perforated Mateials.

lnc vs Diaz GR. No 185814, October 13 2010cting Duldulao vs CA,517 SCRA

191). lt s not necessary to wait for an actual cessation of employment to occur

before an aggrieved worker can institute an action for constructive dismissal In

l\,4asagana Concrete Products vs. NLRC, G R. No. '106916, September 3, 1999, the

Supreme Court ruled 'Constructive dismissal does not always invove forihright

d sm ssal or diminutlon n rank, compensation. benefit and privileges.,' As explained

in another case, constructive dismissa "is an act amounting to dismissal but is made

to appear as if it were not. Constructive d smissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise

The law recognizes and resolves this situation in favour of employees in order to

protect ther rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employei (Mario B.

Dimaganvs Dacworks United tncorporated, G.R. No 191053, November 28. 201 1).

DEC]SIONErcks Saare eia vs. Btmicro Neiv,,orks lnt nc etax- -,--------x

Apropos is the case of The Archard calf and Cauntry Club vs. Ametia

Francisca (G.R. No. 178125, Mar. 18. 2013), where the Supreme Court elucidated

that constructive dismtssal occurs not when an emp oyee ceases to report for work

but when the employer commits the unwarranted acts that makes the empLoyee's

cont nued employment intolerable:

"The fact that Fnncisca continued ta repoft fq wark does notnecessarily suggest that constructive dismissal has not occurred, nar does itoperate as a waiver. Canstructive dismlssa/ occurs nat when the employeeceases to repoft fat wo*. but when the unwananted acts of the employet arccommitted ta the end that the enployee's continued employment shattbecane sa intolerable. ln these difficult times, an emplayee may be left withna choice but ta continue with his employment despite abuses cammittedagainst him by the emplayer and even during the pendency of a labordispute betvleen then- This should not be taken against the employee.lnstead we must share the burden of his plight, ever aware of the prcceptthdt necessitol/s men ae not kee nen."

ln ihis case, it s readlly apparent that the first and second groups of

compla nanis were subjected to a very hostile environment after they were perceived

to be pro old management. First, payment of their sa aries were repeatedly delayed

and in some nstances, not released whie those who signed the etter of support for

the new management were paid their sa aries on time (Annexes ,,A,, and ,,8,,,

complainants'Position Paper: Annexes 'E" and "H" complainants' Reply).

This alone already constituted not only a vio ation of Article 1 16 of the Labor

Code which prohibits withholding of wages but is a badge of construc ve dismissa

As held by the Supreme Court in the SHS Perforated lvlatenals case, G.R. No.

185814, October 13. 2010:

'What made it impossible, unreasonable or unlikely for respondent tocontinue working for SHS was the untawful withholding of his salaty. Fot saidrcason, he was furced to rcsign_ lt is of no moment that he served hisEsignation leftet on November 30, 2005, lhe last day of the payrott peiod anda non ofuing holiday, since his salary was aheady due him on November 29,2005. being the last working day of said peiod. ln tact, he was then informed

Page 17DECtStONErick S. Sarte, et al. vs. Bitmicro Networks lntl. lnc. et al.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------x

that the wages of all the other SHS emploFes werc already released, andonly his was being withheld. Whal is significant is that the rcspondentprepared and seNed his Esignation lefter .ight after he was informed that hissalary was being withheld. lt would be absurd to rcquire Espondent totolente the unla\ltful withholding of his salary for a longer peiod befoe hisemployment can be cons/dercd as so lmpossib/q unreasonable or unlikely asto constitute conslructive dismissal. Even gnnting that the withholding ofrespondent's salary on Nol@mber 30, 2005, would not cgnstitute an unlawfulact, the continued refusal to release his salary after the payroll peiod wasclealy unlaMul. The petitioners' claim that they prepared the check ready forpick-up cannot undo the unlawful withholding."

Moreover, complainants' contribuiions to the BlR, SSS, PhilHealth, etc. were

also not remitted. On the other hand, those select employees (those who signed the

letter of support for new management) were treated favorably by the respondents. As

narrated in the Joint Affidavit of complainants Erick Sarte, Lawrence Salazar and

Noeme Mateo Salazar, they were also demoted from their previous roles of

Engineering Directors and at the same time replaced as members of the Project

Management Committee (Annex "A', complainants' Position Paper). ln this regard,

the complainants attested:

"32. On the same day, Mr. Sante demanded that an update for allthe upcoming products of the Company. He also mentioned that Ms.Martoillas will now be the new Head of the PMC. Thereafter, Ms. Martoillasinformed us that the engineeing dircctors and managers who used to leadthe projects (including ourselves) were already replaced new managershandpicked by the new managemenL We demanded that the newmanagemefi should issue a memorandum rcgarding our demotion but theyrefused to do so-"

ln addition, the complainants were also instructed to take a forced leave of

absence because they were allegedly "very influential" with the other employees and

told that they would just be notified when they could return to work:

"34. On 20 actober 2013, Mr. Sante invited us for a meeting at hisoffice. Duing the neeting, Mr- Sante instructed us to take a forced leave ofabsence while he was allegedly asseiing his influence and authoity over theengineeing groups. He mentioned that we were 'ver! influentiat" to the other

DEC S ONErckS.Sarte eia vs Blimcro Netlvorks ntl lnc etax,,-,----- x

enployees. He fientioned that we vli just be notified when we can return towark Starting the said date- we were not allowed to enter the office

l\,4oreover, as narrated n the Joint Affldavit of complainants Sarte, Salazar and

l\/lateo Salazar, the said complainants, together with the ASIC engineers were also

barred from entering the office premises by the security guards of the new

management (paa.27, Annex A, complainants' Position Papea. And when they

were f naliy admitted back to work, they were effectively demoted as they were not

allowed to perform any productive task:

'38. Since the 6aid date. while we are repoiing fot work in theaffice. vle are not performing any productive task that we were previauslypedorming for the Company. lnstead, $/e are being bypassed as some of autpersonnel are being managed directly by Messrs Salazar and Vedan. Tokeep ourselves busy, we just spend ihe day studying and training individua y.',(lbid)

The other compla nanis also testif ed thai they suffered the same ordeal in the

hands of the respondents (Annex "8", complainants Position Paper)

As against the positive testimonies of the complainants, respondents have not

proffered any controvert ng evidence. except the lone affldavit of Atty Granadas

(Annex'6", respondents'Rejoinder) who testfied, in general. that some complainants

did not mention that they were vctms of discriminaton insensibility and disdain

Clearly, such knd of general statement cannot prevail over the categorical and

positive declarations of compla nants about the acts of harassment and dlscr minat on

committed upon them. Respondents also submitted copes of notices to return to

work to some compla nants (Annexes '8"to "19", respondenis' Position paper), but

these notlces were sent only on December 16,2013 ot after the filing of the present

complaint. Evidently the sending of said noiices appears to be a mere afterthought

DEC S]ONErick S Sarte et a vs Biimlcro NeNvorks ni nc et ax ------------- , - '-----'xintended to camoufage the antecedent acis of harassment committed against the

complainants.

The Supreme Court has ru ed that ihe burden falls upon the employer to prove

that the employee's assignment from one position to another is not tantamount to

constructive dismissal fcoca-Cola Battlers Philippines, lnc. vs. Del y/iar (G.R. No.

G.R. No. 163091, Oct. 6 2010). ln the present case, the respondents have failed io

discharge said burden Indeed, respondents have not disputed that ihe complainants

were relegated from their lofty roles as Eng neering Directors and members of ihe

PMC, to mere spectators who have noth ng else to do but report for work and waste

time while waiting for instruction for menia tasks to be assigned from time to iin'te.

Coupled with respondents' acts of delaying and withholding the salaries of

complainants, the conc uslon s inescapable that the deliberate reduction ln their

responsibilities and duties for no apparent reason, consiituted a demotion in

rank wrthout cause, and therefore. tantamount to constructive drsrnissal.

As to the respondents c aim that some of the complainants were instructed not

to report for work because of alleged safety concerns left behlnd by the old

management, they miserably failed to exp ain why the employees sympathetlc to the

new management were allowed to work if ndeed there were risks to their lives and

safety. Only the employees oyal to the new management were allowed to work and

were given their salaries. The discrim nation perpetrated against the complainants

can be seen ln the Joint Affidavit of complainants Jaylord Pinili, John Carlo Lara.

Nepomuceno Franco ll Ernando Ariel Bangayan, Romel Edillorama and Aaron Jay

Cabul ng (Annex B comp alnant's Position Paper):

'12. On 13 Septembet 2013, we aftended a genenl assefibly hetdat the Max's Restaunnt, which was led by Mr Sante. We were infotmed that

Page lnDEC S]ONEr ck S Sade ei al vs Aimicro Networks lnt nc ei a:x -- x

thee were at least three (3) previous meetings that werc held, which we failedto attend because of lack of priar notice. We vlere informed lhat thoseemployees wha failed to attend lhe meetings will be cansidered on leave ofabsence withaut' pay.

17- Under the new management, new secuity guatds weredeployed and werc instructed that only selected employees enumented in alist provided will be allowed to enter the office.

18. Eventually, all employees wete directed to rcpod for workbeginning on 08 Oclober2013- However, since our names werc not includedin the list ptovided to the secuity guads, we were not allowed to entea ourwotuplace. Inslead, we were redirected to the Recreation Room located at the19th Floor of tl]e Net Squarc Building where we werc met hy Mr. Sante. Mr.Sante informed us that if we wish to repoft for work, we may do so but therc isno guarantee that we will be paid our salaies. He instead mentioned that wemay take a leave of absence instead, if we wanted, but without pay.

19. lt was therefore clear that we are no longer welcome to work forthe new management and that they want to lay us off without providing anymutually acceptable sevennce package. Sinply put, the employees who didnot manifest their support b the new management (especially those who didnot sign the letter of suppoft) aE being forced to rcsign from employment."

Clearly, merely because the complainants did not sign the letter of support for

the new management, they were subjected to discrimination and a hostile,

unbearable work atmosphere.

As regards the third group whom respondents claimed to have voluntarily

resigned, this is disputed by said complainants' testimony (Annex "G", complainants'

Reply) narrating the various acts of discrimination, insensibility or disdain on the part

of the respondents that forced them to forego continued employment:

"4. There is no truth to the contention of Bitmicro that wevoluntaily tendeed our resignation lelte6. On the contrcry, ou rcspectiveresignation lefterc werc involuntaily issued only after we had sutfereddiscimination, disdain and insensibilry at the hands of the alleged newmanagement of Bitmicro, which compe ed us to forcgo continuedemployment with the said company.

5. Our odeal could be tnced to an intra-coryonte dispute, whichstafted when cedain individuals belonging to Bitmicro Netwotks, lnc. (BNt-USA), Bitmicro's parent company in the t.lnited States of Ameica, wrestedcontrol over from the existing management led by the Company's presidentand Chief Executive Officet (CEO), Mr. Rey Bruce ("'Mr. Bruce').

PagellDEC S ONErckS Sane,eta vs Btmcro Neh{orks ntl inc etax - - -,,, - -,, -, - - - - - - - - - - - - x

6. While it appearcd that we will become innacent bystandeG inthe said intn-coryonte dispute, a confluence of events beginning in August2013 brought the inha-corporate dispute ight in tont of the dooGtep of theCompany when reprcsentatives of BNIUSA, /.e., Messrs Stephen R. Uiade(Mr. Unane), Executive Vice-Prcsident, General Counsel and CorporateSecretary of BNI-USA, and Zophar Sante (Mr. Sante), the VP fot Ma*eting ofBNI-USA, tied to asseft control over the Company. Duing this peiod,Messrs. Uiafte and Sante arived at the Company's office and dematded thatthe emplopes should recognize the new management, and that theemployees should no longer recognize the old management led by Mr Bruceand Mr. Gilbeft Cunanan ('Mr. Cunanan'), the fonner Prcject Managet ofBitmicro. Since we were pivy to the contrcversy, we chose to rcmainimpaftial.

7. Unfortunately, our salaies for the second half of August 2013were delayed. The reason provided was that therc was no signatory availablewho can release the funds. We sutmise, however, that the delay was causedby the intn-corponte dispute.

9. On the same date, a telephone conference was atmnged by thenew management to clarry the reasons fot the delay in oursalaies. We weeinfotmed that the new nanagement will release ou salaies prcvided that weno longer recognize the old management- Apparcntly, the new managementis using our had eamed salaies as levenge to gather suppoft. However,since we wanted to maintain ou neLtality, our Engineeing Direclots db notsign the lefter of suppoi.

10. On 06 September 2013, we received ou salaies for thesecond half of August 2013. However, the Company did not rcmit ourcontibutions due to the diffeent govemment agencies (i.e., #,e 8/R, SSEPhilHealth, Pag-lbig) and did not pay the premiums due to the CompanysHMO provi&t. For this rcason, some employees failed to avail of their HMObenefits.

13. On 15 September 2013, the company remifted the sahies forthe first haff of September 2013. We noted, however, that only the selectemployees who signed a letter of suppoft in fawr of the new managementwere paid thet salaies. Since we did not sign the lefter of suppott, we did notreceive oursalaies.

15. On 30 September 2013, the Company remifted the salaies forthe secod haff of Septembet 2013. Once again, only the select employeeswho signed the letter of suppott for tl]F- new managefiEnt were paid theirsa/ares- Need/ess lo state, we did not rcceive our salaies-

16. We leaned that on 04 October 2013, Mr. Sante sponsoed a'pizza pady' attended by select employees who siqned the tefrer of suppod forthe new n@nagemenL plus additionat five (5) selected ASIC engineers and ten(10) selected ASG engineers. We wee not invited to aftend the said pafty.We likewise teamed that those who attended the said pafiy were paid theirSeptember 2013 salaies, which were given through checks issued by theBank of Commerce-

Page:2DEC S ONEricks Safte €ia vs Biimcro Netrrorks nt nc eiax-------- x

17. Under the new managemenl, new secuity guards were deplayedand were instructed that only selected employees enumented in a listprcvided will be alla\Aled to enter the off]ce.

18- Eventually, all employees werc directed to Epott for workbeginning on 08 October 2013- However, since our names were not includedin the list provided to tlp secuity guatds, we were not allowed to enter ourworkplace. lnstead, we were edirccted to the Recreation Room located atthe 19th Floor of the Net Square Building where we were met by Mr. Sante.Mr. Sante informed us that if we wish to repoft for work, we may do so butthere is no guarcntee that we will be paid our salaies. He instead mentionedthat we may take a leave of absence instead, if we wanted, but without pay_

19. lt was thercfore clear that we are no longer welcome to workfof the new management and that they want to tay us ofl without ptovidingany mutually acceptable seveftnce package_ Since we did not manilest theirsuppott to the new mat@gefiEnt, and did not sign the letter of suppott, we arebeing forced to resign from employmenL

20- Since we coutd no longer endure the acts of harassment,insensibility and discimination by the new management of Bitnicro led byMessrs. Uiafte and Sante, and most especially consideing were we notreceiving our salaies, we had no choice but to resign from employment_

21. We likewise wish to strcss that the new management has beencontinuously ha?ssir?g us even after have alrcady tendered our involuntaryrcsignation lrom the Company. ln fact, we wee infornted that Bitmicro willonly issue our cedifrcates of clea@nce (which are required by any prospectivefuture employment, and which we are entitled to receive as paft of the temsand conditions of employment) if we will execute a Re/ease Waiver aNQuitclaim in lavor of the Company, its offrcers and employees. However,since we have already filed a case for cons:tructive dismissal to challenqe ourillegat dismissal, we mentioned that we cannot lssue fhe regur'red R;/easeWaiver and Quitclaim.

22- Given the foegoing circumstances, it qannot be denied that wewee forced to forcgo continued employment with the Company, and ourresignation letters were involuntaily issued." (Annex G, complainants' RepM

Respondents' submission of the alleged resignation letters marked as

Annexes "20" - "31" of their Position Paper does not foreclose the fact that the

execution thereof was not voluntary. lt must be noted that the resignation letters

were preceded by the above acts of harassment and discrimination that were

perpetrated upon the said complainants. The nature of these series of acts can lead

to no other conclusion than that the workplace has become unbearable for the

complainants that they were practically "x x forced to forego continued employment

DEC S]ONErckS Sarte, eta vs Btnrc.o Networks tnt nc erax-- -xwlth the company x x" (parag 22) and hence were forced to resign. As testified bythe complainants in their Joint Affidavit (Annex ,,8',, complainants, position paper;

Annex'G", complalnants, Reply)

''19. lt was therefare cleat that we are no tangerwelcome to work fotthe new management and that they want ta tay u" oit *itioui proiiaing unymutually acceptable severance paciage Sinc; we dtd manifesi tieir supponto the new manaqement. and dtd nat sen the letter of suppoft we are betngfarced rc .a.stgo fram emptoyme4t

As against the detailed acts of harassment described by the cornplainants,mere production of their alleged resrgnatron letters will not suffice to controvert theinvoluntariness of its execution.

Besrdes, the filing of the instant cornplaint for illegal dlsmissal is rnconsistentwith voJuntary resignatron or abandonni'rent Had these comprainants rntended toforsake their jobs and gainful empioyment, they would not have found tt necessary toinstitute thts case against the respondents

It must be stressed that the rights of workers cannot be adversely affected orcompromised by a change in management of the employer The employer, no matterwho runs the busrness, has certain obligations towards its employees that should behonored and respected.

ln Spic N'Span Services Corp vs. Gloria paje, et al. G R No. 174084 August25, 2A1O, lhe Supreme Court emphastzed that ,,x x labor rights assume preferredpositions in our legal hierarchy x x The State is bound to ,protect the rights ofworkers and promote security of tenure, humane workrng conditions ot work and aliving wage." Verily, a workeis job is his means of livelihood and he is enti ed todecent working condttion, free from harassment and discrirnination.

DECiSLONErckS Saire eta vs Btmicro Neilvorks lnt nc eialx----,--------,-- x

Under the aw. an ilegaly or constructively dlsrnissed employee is entitled to:

(1) either relnstaternent, if viable, or separation pay, f re nstatement is no onger

viable; and (2) backwages These two re efs are separate and dlstinct from each

other and are awarded conjunctvey (Robinsons Galleria vs. Ranchez G.R. No.

177937. Jan 19,2a11).

As such, the complainants who were compelled to res gn, or were proh bited

from reporting for work. because they were consiructiveLy dism ssed shou d be paid

fu I backwages from the time they were constructively dismissed until f nal ty of this

decis on. On the other hand those employees who continued reporting for work, and

hence were paid their salaries, should no longer receive any backwages

Furthermore since t appears that there is already a stralned working

relationship between the comp ainants and the respondents, We find that an award of

separat on pay to the complainants - equivalent to their one (1) month's pay for every

year of service a fractlon of six (6) months equvalent io one (1) year - is more

appropriate under the circumstances of the case

Because of ihe comp a nants' unlustif ed dismissal, We I kewise award in their

favor moral and exemplary damages. Award of moral and exemplary damages for an

lega ly dismlssed employee s proper where the employee had been harassed and

arbitrarily terminated by the emp oyer. l\,4oral damages may be awarded to

compensate one for diverse njures such as mental anguish besmirched reputat on,

wounded feelings, and socia humi iat on occastoned by the employers unreasonable

dsmssal of the employee After careful dellberaton, We fnd the amouni of

P25 000.00 for moral damages and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages for each

comp ainant as sufficient to assuage the sufferings experienced by them and by way

of example or cofiection for the pub]ic good.

ErckS Safte etal vs Btmicro Net\/orks lnt nc etax------- x

Finally an award of attorney s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total

judgment award is a so given to the complainants as they were forced to litigate to

protect their rights and interests against the discriminatory acts of the respondents.

According y, attached to this Dec sion is a computatton of the judgment award

due to the complainants, wh ch forms an integral part hereof. The judgment award is

computed from the date they were constructtvely dismissed from empioyment

(October2013) until the date of thisdecison. This computat on was derived from the

table of salar es and tenure which was attached as Annex "C" in the complainants'

Position Paper. This was not refuted by the respondents, and is, therefore deerned

adm tted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered ludgment is hereby rendered declaring

compla nants to have been constructively and illegally dismissed from emp oyment.

Respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainants, jointly and severajly, thetr

claims for backwages, separation pay moral and exempary damages, as well as

attorney's fees or the total amount of P47,099,356,94,

The computation of the judgment award s attached as Annexes "A", "8" and

'C" of th s Dec sion and forms as an integral part hereof

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, September 30, 2014.

t^. (.t*. REYNCI

LaborArbiter