RUTCHER T. DAGASDAS, Petitioner, vs. GRAND PLACEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205727
January 18, 2017
Facts
In November 2007, GPGS, for and on behalf of ITM, employed Dagasdas as Network Technician. He was to be deployed in Saudi Arabia under a one-year contract7 with a monthly salary of Saudi Riyal (SR) 5,112.00. Before leaving the Philippines, Dagasdas underwent skill training8 and pre-departure orientation as Network Technician.9Nonetheless, his Job Offer10 indicated that he was accepted by Aramco and ITM for the position of "Supt."
On February 8, 2008, Dagasdas arrived in Saudi Arabia.15 Thereafter, he signed with ITM a new employment contract. Under this contract, Dagasdas shall be placed under a three-month probationary period; and, this new contract shall cancel all contracts prior to its date from any source.
On February 11, 2008, Dagasdas reported at ITM's worksite in Khurais, Saudi Arabia. 17 There, he was allegedly given tasks suited for a Mechanical Engineer, which were foreign to the job he applied for and to his work experience. Seeing that he would not be able to perform well in his work, Dagasdas raised his conce1n to his Supervisor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. Consequently, he was transferred to the Civil Engineering Department, was temporarily given a position as Civil Construction Engineer, and was issued anidentification card good for one month. Dagasdas averred that on March 9, 2008, he was directed to exit the worksite but Rashid H. Siddiqui (Siddiqui), the Site Coordinator Manager, advised him to remain in the premises, and promised to secure him the position he applied for. However, before Dagasdas' case was investigated, Siddiqui had severed his employment with ITM. Later, 11M gave him a termination notice20 indicating that his last day of work was on April 30, 2008, and he was dismissed pursuant to clause 17.4.3 of his contract, which provided that ITM reserved the right to terminate any employee within the three-month probationary period without need of any notice to the employee.
On June 24, 2008, Dagasdas returned to the Philippines.24 Thereafter, he filed an illegal dismissal case against GPGS, ITM, and Aramco. Labor Arbiterdismissed the case for lack of merit .The National Labor Relations Commissionissued a Resolution finding Dagasdas' dismissal illegal. On September 26, 2012, the CA set aside the NLRC Resolutions and reinstated the LA Decision dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Issue
WON Dagasdas was validly dismissed from work.
Ruling
The Petition is with merit.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, this rule allows certain exceptions, including a situation where the findings of fact of the courts or tribunals below are conflicting.35 In this case, the CA and the NLRC arrived at divergent factual findings anent Dagasdas' termination. As such, the Court deems it necessary to re-examine these findings and detemline whether the CA has sufficient basis to annul the NLRC Decision, and set aside its finding that Dagasdas was illegally dismissed from work.
it is well-settled that employers have the prerogative to impose standards on the work quantity and quality of their employees and provide measures to ensure compliance therewith. Non-compliance with work standards may thus be a valid cause for dismissing an employee. Nonetheless, to ensure that employers will not abuse their prerogatives, the same is tempered by security of tenure whereby the employees are guaranteed substantive and procedural due process before they are dismissed from work.
In this case, prior to his deployment and while still in the Philippines, Dagasdas was made to sign a POEA-approved contract with GPGS, on behalf of ITM; and, upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, ITM made him sign a new employment contract. Nonetheless, this new contract, which was used as basis for dismissing Dagasdas, is void.
No comments:
Post a Comment