• Sameer Overseas v. Cabiles, G.R. No.

170139, August 5, 2014 - FAITH

Doctrine:
 A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure o
f dismissal. The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two writt
 en notices before termination. One of the written notices must inform the employee
of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal. The other notice must "[inf
orm] the employee of the employer’s decision." Aside from the notice
requirement, t he employee must also be given "an opportunity to be heard."

Facts:

Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency
. Responding to an ad it published, respondent, Joy C. Cabiles, submitted her application
for a quality control job in Taiwan.

Joy’s application was accepted. Joy was later asked to sign a oneyear employment
contract f or a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. She alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency
required he r to pay a placement fee of P70,000.00 when she signed the employment
contract.

Joy was deployed to work for TaiwanWacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997. She allege
d that in her employment contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year. In
Ta iwan, she was asked to work as a cutter.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang fro
m Wacoal informedJoy, without prior notice, that she was terminated and that "she should i
mmediately report to their office to get her salary and passport." She was asked to "prepare
for immediate repatriation."

Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to July 14, 1997, she only earned a total of NT
$9,000. According to her, Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.

On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission a
gainst petitioner and Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally dismissed. She asked for th
e return of her placement fee, the withheld amount for repatriation costs, payment of her s
alary for 3 months as well as moral and exemplary damages. She identified Wacoal as
Same er Overseas Placement Agency’s foreign principal.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent's termination was due to her i
nefficiency, negligence in her duties, and her "failure to comply with the work requirement
s [of] her foreign [employer]." The agency also claimed that it did not ask for a placement
fe e of P70,000.00. As evidence, it showedOfficial Receipt No. 14860 dated June 10, 1997,
bear ing the amount of P20,360.00. Petitioner added that Wacoal's accreditation with
petitioner had already been transferred to the Pacific Manpower & Management Services,
Inc. (Pacific
) as of August 6, 1997. Thus, petitioner asserts that it was already substituted by Pacific Ma
npower.

Pacific Manpower moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s claims against it. It alleged
that th ere was no employer-employee relationship between them. Therefore, the claims
against it were outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Pacific Manpower argued that
the emplo yment contract should first be presented so that the employer’s contractual
obligations mig ht be identified. It further denied that it assumed liability for
petitioner’s illegal acts.

On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint. Acting Executive Labor
Arbit er Pedro C.Ramos ruled that her complaint was based on mereallegations.

In a resolution dated March 31, 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission declared th
at Joy was illegally dismissed. It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show th
at the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. It found that Sa
meer Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove that there were just causes for terminatio
n. There was no sufficient proofto show that respondent was inefficient in her work and
tha t she failed to comply with company requirements.41 Furthermore, procedural
dueprocess was not observed in terminating respondent.

The Commission denied the agency’s motion for reconsideration dated May 12, 2004
throu gh a resolution dated July 2, 2004.

Aggrieved by the ruling, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency caused the filing of a
petition4 9 for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the National Labor Relations
Commissio n’s resolutions dated March 31, 2004 and July 2, 2004.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission wit
h respect to the finding of illegal dismissal, Joy’s entitlement to the equivalent of three
mont hs worth of salary, reimbursement of withheld repatriation expense, and attorney’s
fees. Th e Court of Appeals remanded the case to the National Labor Relations Commission
to addre
ss the validity of petitioner's allegations against Pacific.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the ruling of the National Labor
Relati ons Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three
months’ wo rth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost ofher repatriation, and
attorney’s fees despite t he alleged existence of just causes of termination.

SC Ruling:

NO

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing
Joy ’s dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.

Petitioners admit that they did not inform private respondent in writing of the charges
agai nst him and that they failed to conduct a formal investigation to give him opportunity
to air his side. However, petitioners contend that the twin requirements of notice and
hearing ap plies strictly only when the employment is within the Philippines and that these
need not b e strictly observed in cases of international maritime or overseas employment.

The Court does not agree. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code whic
h afford protection to labor apply to Filipino employees whether working within the Philip
pines or abroad. Moreover, the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where t
he contract is made) governs in this jurisdiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that t
he Contract of Employment entered into by and between petitioners and private responden
t was executed here in the Philippines with the approval of the Philippine Overseas Employ
ment Administration (POEA). Hence, the Labor Code together with its implementing rules a
nd regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.

Petitioner’s allegation that respondentwas inefficient in her work and negligent in her
duti es may, therefore, constitute a just cause for termination under Article 282(b), but
only if p etitioner was able to prove it.
Respondent’s dismissal less than one year from hiring and her repatriation
on the same day show not onlyfailure on the partof petitioner to comply with
the requirement of the existen ce of just cause for termination. They patently
show that the employersdid not comply with the due process requirement.

A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid
procedure of dismi ssal. The employer is required to give the charged
employee at least two written notices bef ore termination. One of the written
notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or
her dismissal. The other notice must "[inform] the employee of the e
mployer’s decision." Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must
also be given "a n opportunity to be heard."

Petitioner failed to comply with the twin notices and hearing requirements.
Respondent sta rted working on June 26, 1997. She was told that she was
terminated on July 14, 1997 effec tive on the same day and barely a month
from her first workday. She was also repatriated o n the same day that she
was informed of her termination. The abruptness of the terminatio n negated
any finding that she was properly notified and given the opportunity to be
heard. Her constitutional right to due process of law was violated.

Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her

salary for the unexpired portion ofthe employment contract that was
violated together with attorney’s fees and reimbursement of amounts
withheld from her salary.