Position Paper - Varde
Position Paper - Varde
Position Paper - Varde
RICHARD PINILI ,
Complainant ,
Respondents .
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
POSITION PAPER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
COMES NOW Complainant, by his own self, and unto this Honorable
Commission, most respectfully submits this position paper in support of his case for
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, and further states, THAT:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
paper
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
It is admitted that on September 2005, when the BFAD personnel conducted its
first routine inspection on said establishment, herein pharmacist was absent.
However, it is not without any reason at all, but for the fact that herein pharmacist
was still recuperating from her recent operation of myoma. Attached herewith is a
copy of a doctor’s certificate marked as Annex “A”.
As for the allegations that said establishment was selling and offering for sale
physician’s sample drug products, while it is true that there were indeed some
physician’s sample drug products found in the premises, it does not necessarily follow
that it was offered for sale or sold. The truth of the matter is that said physician’s
sample was placed on the drawer in the cabinet of said establishment, for the reason
that sometimes if not oftentimes, there are some indigent person who asks for drug
samples, and it is the practice of the management that these drug physician’s samples
are to be given away for free to these marginal people. Are we then to be penalized
for this simple gesture of benevolence?
1. RA 3720, as amended – Sec. 11 (l) for selling and offering for sale expired
drug products, and Sec. 11(j) for selling and offering for sale unregistered
imported drug products;
It is not true that said establishment is selling or offering for sale expired drug
products. If some of these expired products were indeed found during that inspection,
such products were there for the reason that these were readied for eventual
replacement by sales representatives who by agreement shall replace same after these
expire.
As for the presence of imported drug products, these were given by my friend
who requested to sell them, without my any inkling that these were imported. For this
negligence, I beg the kind indulgence of this Honorable Office.
2. A.O. 56 s. 1989 – Sec. 2.2.1.6.3 for failure to provide dry seal or rubber
stamp, and Sec. 2.2.1.6.3 for failure to provide red and white labels.
Our alleged failure to provide dry seal or rubber stamp, and to provide red and
white labels could be explained by the absence of herein pharmacist that day. It must
be noted that when herein pharmacist was absent that day, she had locked the rubber
stamp and the red and white labels in her locker, so the remaining staff could not have
access to them if and when she is absent. However, such lapses were already
rectified. These rubber stamp and red and white labels are always ready and on hand
if and when needed, absence or presence of pharmacist.
Likewise, as fate would have it, when the BFAD conducted another routine
inspection on August 2, 2006, the same pharmacist, was also absent for the reason that
she had the recurrence of a migraine, hence asked to take a day off to see a doctor.
Attached herewith is a copy of a doctor’s certificate marked as Annex “B”.
On that routine inspection on August 2, 2006, BFAD found out that said
establishment had the following deficiencies required of such an establishment,
namely:
1. that the pharmacist was absent on that day;
2. that there was no available washing facility and refrigerator;
3. that there was no available washing facility and refrigerator;
4. that no generic drug-list name cards and posters; and,
5. that our prescription Record Book are not updated.
Yet, even now, we still welcome such routine inspections. These are one of the
ways to determine our lapses as a service-oriented establishment, and if there are still
rooms for improvements, we will gladly do it.
P R A Y E R
With the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that herein respondents be
exonerated of the allegation imputed, on the equitable principles of excusable
negligence. And to further reconsider its Cease and Desist Order dated January 18,
2006, in the interest of justice and fair play.
Other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the premises are also prayed
for.
Minglanilla (for Cebu City), Cebu, Philippines, this 14 t h day of August 2006.