SECOND
DIVISION
EMS
MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 107723
July 24, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and LUISA G. MANUEL,
Respondents. D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
This petition
for certiorari with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary
restraining
order seeks the nullification of the decision of public respondent
National
Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] dated November 29, 1991, awarding
private
respondent her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment
contract
and attorney's fees, as well as its resolution of October 28, 1992,
denying
her motion for reconsideration of said decision.
Private
respondent Luisa G. Manuel was hired as
a domestic helper in Hong Kong by Deborah Li Siu Yee on April 13, 1989,
for a period of two years from the time of her arrival. Under her
employment
contract,[1]
secured through the efforts of petitioner placement agency [EMS], she
would
receive HK$2,500.00 per month during the term of her contract. Luisa
worked
for her Chinese employer in Hong Kong from August 2, 1989, until
October
1, 1989, when she was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines
after
she made repeated demands for her weekly rest day, of which she was
denied
from the start of her service, in violation of Clause 6[a] of the
employment
contract.[2]
She also complained that she was not allowed to meet or see fellow
Filipinos.
By the time she left, she had only received a separation pay of
HK$2,500.00
and her return flight ticket.cralaw:red
On October 23,
1989, Luisa filed a complaint before
the Adjudication Department of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration
[POEA] for illegal dismissal and illegal exaction against Yee, EMS and
its surety, Paramount Insurance Corporation. In a decision dated
February
18, 1991,[3]
POEA Administrator Jose N. Sarmiento dismissed the complaint for lack
of
merit. The only reasons he advanced were that Luisa was given her
separation
pay in lieu of notice of her termination in compliance with Clause 12[a][4]
of the employment contract, and Yee actually paid her repatriation
expenses
as provided in Clause 12[e][5]
of said contract and as required by POEA Rules and Regulations. Thus,
he
concluded that "under the circumstances, respondent [Yee] has complied
with the law and with complainant's contract of employment and her
consequential
repatriation cannot be termed illegal. In this regard, complainant
cannot
lay claim over the salaries for the unexpired portion of her contract
nor
can this Office award the same."
On appeal, the
NLRC reversed and set aside POEA
Administrator Sarmiento's decision after finding no evidence clear and
convincing enough to support the POEA's finding that Luisa was "not
illegally
dismissed," and after concluding that there was no just cause for her
dismissal.
Hence, on November 29, 1991, it rendered its assailed decision,[6]
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
DECISION
appealed from is reversed and set aside, and another one is hereby
rendered
ordering respondent EMS Manpower and Placement Services to pay
complainant
the peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of the following:
1. FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND HONG KONG DOLLARS
[HK$55,000.00]
as her salaries for the unexpired portion of her contract;
2. Five per centum [5%] of the total
award, as
and by way of attorney's fees.
The claims for moral and exemplary
damages are
hereby dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration having been
denied in the resolution of October 26, 1992, the instant petition was
filed.
The lone issue
for resolution is whether Luisa
Manuel was illegally dismissed or if her termination was for a just and
valid cause.cralaw:red
We see no reason
to depart from the NLRC's decision.
Not only is it supported by the facts and the law, but there is also no
showing that it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The
assailed
judgment must be affirmed and the petition, consequently, dismissed.cralaw:red
EMS argues that
Yee was justified in pre-terminating
Luisa's employment due to the fact that the latter apparently hit her
employer's
child, as evidenced by a photocopy of a telex[7]
allegedly transmitted by the latter herself. This action supposedly
constituted
"serious misconduct" under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended,[8]
and "misconduct" under Clause 12[b-ii][9]
of the employment contract. Even assuming arguendo that Luisa's act
does
not fall within the ambit of said Clause 12[b-ii], her termination
would
still be valid in accordance with Clause 12(a).[10]
These contentions
are not persuasive. As correctly
ruled by the NLRC, the telex could hardly be recognized as sufficient,
let alone substantial evidence of Luisa's purported misconduct. It was
a single document, totally uncorroborated and easily concocted or
fabricated
to suit one's personal interest and purpose. The best supporting
evidence
would have been a statement from the child's teacher who allegedly
witnessed
the incident, but none was presented. In the same manner, the affidavit[11]
of a certain Nestor M. Palomar, to the effect that he used to meet
fellow
domestic helper Luisa at the Center Square Garden in August 1989,
thereby
debunking the latter's claims that Yee prevented her from congregating
with other Filipinos, is at best hearsay evidence because Palomar was
not
presented to testify at the POEA hearings, even though he was available.cralaw:red
This Court is
convinced that Luisa was dismissed
from her employment without any valid or just cause, in contravention
of
her security of tenure, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor
Code, as amended. Under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Charter, "[t]he
State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas," and
all
workers "shall be entitled to security of tenure." In basically the
same
tenor, the Labor Code provides in Article 279 that "[i]n cases of
regular
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title [on
termination
of employment]."
Finally, contrary
to the claim of EMS that there
was no illegal dismissal in the case at bar because Yee adequately
complied
with the employment contract by paying Luisa a one-month separation pay
in lieu of notice and shouldering her repatriation expenses, suffice it
to say that said contract is not in conformity with our laws inasmuch
as
it failed to stipulate the "just causes for the termination of the
contract
or of the service of the workers," as mandated by Section 14[e], Rule
V,
Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the instant
petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of November 29, 1991, and
resolution of October 28, 1992, of the National Labor Relations
Commission
are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno
and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Annex "A" Rollo, pp. 24-28.
[2]
It states that, "The Helper shall be entitled to at least one rest day
in each week. A rest day is a continuous period of not less than twenty
four hours. The dates of the weekly rest days will be appointed by the
Employer who must, unless the rest days are on a regular basis, notify
the Helper before the beginning of each week."
[3]
Annex "E," Rollo, pp. 45-49.
[4]
It states that, "In the event of either party wishing to terminate this
Contract prior to the expiry of this Contract, the initiating party
shall
give in writing to the other party one month's notice or forfeit one
month's
wages in lieu of notice."
[5]
It states that, "In case of termination of contract under Clause 12(b),
the Helper shall be repatriated to Manila, Philippines or at the
Helper's
request sent to her place of origin if such place is nearer to Hong
Kong.
The employer shall pay the costs of the return passage supplemented by
the travelling allowance stated in Clause 7[c]."
[6]
Rollo, pp. 58-70.
[7]
Ibid., p. 39.
[8]
"Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[a] Serious misconduct or
willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative
in connection with his work;
[9]
It states that, "Notwithstanding the provision of Clause 12(a), the
Employer
may in writing terminate the Contract without notice or payment in lieu
of notice if the Helper, in relation to the employment, [i]
xxx
xxx xxx [ii] commits misconduct, such misconduct
being
inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of her duties;
[10]
Fn. 4, supra.
[11]
Dated June 21, 1990; Rollo, p. 40. |