Sameer Overseas v. Cabiles (Labor)

G.R. No. 170139

August 5, 2014

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC.,  Petitioner, vs. OY C. CA!ILES, Respondent. "ACTS# •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

• •

• •

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 uality control !ob in "ai#an. "ai#an. Joy$s application #as accepted. Joy #as later as%ed to sign a oneyear employment contract for a monthly salary of  &"'(),*+.. She alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency reuired her to pay a placement fee of P-,. #hen she signed the employment contract. Joy #as deployed to #or% for "ai#anacoal, Co. /td. 0acoal1 on June 2+, (33-. She alleged that in her employment contract, she agreed to #or% as uality control for one year. In "ai#an, "ai#an, she #as as%ed to #or% as a c utter. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims that on July (4, (33-, a certain 5r. 6u#ang from acoal informedJoy, #ithout prior notice, that she #as terminated and that 7she should immediately report to their office to get her salary and passport.7 She #as as%ed to 7prepare for immediate repatriation.7 Joy claims that she #as told that from June 2+ to July (4, (33-, she only earned a total of &"'3,. According to her, acoal deducted &"'*, to cover her plane tic%et to 5anila. Subseuently, Joy filed a complaint #ith the &/RC against petitioner and acoal. She claimed that she #as illegally dismissed. She as%ed for the return of her placement fee, the #ithheld amount for repatriation costs, payment of her  salary for 2* months as #ell as moral and e8emplary damages. She identified acoal as Sameer Overseas Placement  Agency$s foreign principal. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent9s termination #as due to her inefficiency, negligence in her  duties, and her 7failure to comply #ith the #or% reuirements :of; her foreign :employer;.7 "he agency also claimed that it did not as% for a placeme placement nt fee of P-, P-,. .. . As eviden evidence, ce, it sho#ed sho#ed an offici official al receip receiptt bearin bearing g the amount amount of P2,*+.. Petitioner added that acoal9s accreditation #ith petitioner had already been transferred to the Pacific 5anpo#er < 5anagement Services, Inc. 0Pacific1. "hus, petitioner asserts that it #as already substituted by Pacific 5anpo#er. Pacific 5anpo#er moved for the dismissal of petitioner$s claims against it. It alleged that there #as no employer=employee relationship bet#een them. "herefore, the claims against it #ere outside the !urisdiction of the /abor Arbiter. Pacific 5anpo#er argued that the employment contract should first be presented so that the employer$s contractual obligations might be identified. It further denied that it assumed liability for petitioner$s illegal acts. "hereafter, the /abor Arbiter dismissed Joy$s complaint. Joy appealed to the &/RC. In a resolution, resolution, the &/RC declared declared that Joy #as illegally illegally dismissed. It reiterated reiterated the doctrine doctrine that the burden of proof to sho# that the dismissal #as based on a !ust or valid cause belongs to the employer. It found that Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove that there #ere !ust causes for termination. "here #as no sufficient proof to sho# that respondent #as inefficient in her #or% and that she failed to comply #ith company reuirements. >urthermore, procedural due process #as not observed in terminating respondent. "he Commission denied the agency$s motion for reconsideration  Aggrieved by the ruling, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency caused the filing of a petition for certiorari #ith the CA assailing the &/RC$s resolutions. "he CA affirmed the decision of the &/RC #ith respect to the finding of illegal dismissal. ?issatisfied, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency filed this petition.

ISS$E#

O&, the CA erred #hen it affirmed t he ruling of the &/RC finding f inding respondent illegally dismissed. R$LING# No. CA has validly affirmed the ruling of the &/RC.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to sho# that there #as !ust cause for causing Joy$s dismissal. "he employer, acoal, also failed to accord her due process of la#. Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and uality standards at #or%.)@ "hey may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply #ith these standards.)3 >ailure to comply may be a !ust cause for their  dismissal.+ Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an employee #ho is guilty of acts that are inimical to the interest of the employer.+( hile the la# ac%no#ledges the plight and vulnerability of #or%ers, it does not 7authorie the oppression or self=destruction of the employer.7 5anagement prerogative is recognied in la# and in our !urisprudence. "his prerogative, ho#ever, should not be abused. It is 7tempered #ith the employee$s right to security of tenure.7 +*or%ers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. "hey may not be removed from employment #ithout a validor !ust cause as determined by la# and #ithout going through the proper procedure. Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our  Constitution. Bmployees are not stripped of their security of tenure #hen they move to #or% in a different !urisdiction. ith respect to the rights of overseas >ilipino #or%ers, #e follo# the principle of le8 loci contractus 0the la# of the place #here the contract is made1 #hich governs in this !urisdiction. "here is no uestion that the contract of employment in this case #as perfected here in the Philippines. "herefore, the /abor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and other la#s affecting labor apply in this case. >urthermore, settled is the rule that the courts of the forum #ill not enforce any foreign claim obno8ious to the forum$s public policy. 6erein the Philippines, employment agreements are more than contractual in nature. "he Constitution itself, in Article III, Section *, guarantees the special protection of #or%ers, to #itD "he State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organied and unorganied, and promote full employment and euality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all #or%ers to self organiation, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to stri%e in accordance #ith la#. "hey shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of #or%, and a living #age. "hey shall also participate in policy and decision=ma%ing processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by la#. Ey our la#s, overseas >ilipino #or%ers 0O>s1 may only be terminated for a !ust or authoried cause and after compliance #ith procedural due process reuirements.  Article 2@2 of the /abor Code enumerates the !ust causes of termination by the employer. "husD  Art. 2@2. "ermination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the follo#ing causesD 0a1 Serious misconduct or #illful disobedience by the employee of the la#ful orders of his employer or representative in connection #ith his #or%F 0b1 Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his dutiesF 0c1 >raud or #illful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authoried representativeF 0d1 Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of  his family or his duly authoried representativesF and 0e1 Other causes analogous to the foregoing. Petitioner$s allegation that respondent #as inefficient in her #or% and negligent in her duties +3 may, therefore, constitute a !ust cause for termination under Article 2@20b1, but only if petitioner #as able to prove it. "he burden of proving that there is !ust cause for termination is on the employer. 7"he employer must affirmatively sho# rationally adeuate evidence that the dismissal #as for a !ustifiable cause.7 >ailure to sho# that there #as valid or !ust cause for termination #ould necessarily mean that the dismissal #as illegal. "o sho# that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in #or% is valid, it must be sho#n thatD (1 the employer has set standards of  conduct and #or%manship against #hich the employee #ill be !udgedF 21 the standards of conduct and #or%manship must have been communicated tothe employeeF and *1 the communication #as made at a reasonable time prior to the employee$s performance assessment. "his is similar to the la# and !urisprudence on probationary employees, #hich allo# termination ofthe employee only #hen there is 7!ust cause or #hen :the probationary employee; fails to ualify as a regular employee in accordance #ith reasonable standards made %no#n by the employer to the employee at the time of his :or her; engagement.7-2

6o#ever, #e do not see #hy the application of that ruling should be limited to probationary employment. "hat rule is basic to the idea of security of tenure and due process, #hich are guaranteed to all employees, #hether their employment is probationary or  regular. "he pre=determined standards that the employer sets are the bases for determining the probationary employee$s fitness, propriety, efficiency, and ualifications as a regular employee. ?ue process reuires that the probationary employee be informed of  such standards at the time of his or her engagement so he or she can ad!ust this or her character or #or%manship accordingly. Proper ad!ustment to fit the standards upon #hich the employee$s ualifications #ill be evaluated #ill increase one$s chances of  being positively assessed for regulariation by his or her employer.  Assessing an employee$s #or% performance does not stop after regulariation. "he employer, on a regular basis, determines if an employee is still ualified and efficient, based on #or% standards. Eased on that determination, and after complying #ith the due process reuirements of notice and hearing, the employer may e8ercise its management prerogative of terminating the employee found unualified. "he regular employee must constantly attempt to prove to his or her employer that he or she meets all the standards for  employment. "his time, ho#ever, the standards to be met are set for the purpose of retaining employment or promotion. "he employee cannot be e8pected to meet any standard of character or #or%manship if such standards #ere not communicated to him or her. Courts should remain vigilant on allegations of the employer$s failure to communicate#or% standards that #ould govern one$s employment 7if :these are; to discharge in good faith :their; duty to ad!udicate.7 In this case, petitioner merely alleged that respondent failed to comply #ith her foreign employer$s #or% reuirements and #as inefficient in her #or%. &o evidence #as sho#n to support such allegations. Petitioner did not even bother to specify #hat reuirements #ere not met, #hat efficiency standards #ere violated, or #hat particular acts of respondent constituted inefficiency. "here #as also no sho#ing that respondent #as sufficiently informed of the standards against #hich her #or% efficiency and performance #ere !udged. "he parties$ conflict as to the position held by respondent sho#ed that even the matter as basic as the  !ob title #as not clear. "he bare allegations of petitioner are not sufficient to support a claim that there is !ust cause for termination. "here is no proof that respondent #as legally terminated. Respondent$s dismissal less than one year from hiring and her  repatriation on the same day sho# not only failure on the part of petitioner to comply #ith the reuirement of the e8istence of !ust cause for termination. "hey patently sho# that the employers did not comply #ith the due process reuirement.  A valid dismissal reuires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal.-) "he employer is reuired to give the charged employee at least t#o #ritten notices before termination. One of the #ritten notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal. "he other notice must 7:inform; the employee of the employer$s decision.7-@ Aside from the notice reuirement, the employee must also be given 7an opportunity to be heard.7 Petitioner failed to comply #ith the t#in notices and hearing reuirements. Respondent started #or%ing on June 2+, (33-. She #as told that she #as terminated on July (4, (33- effective on the same day and barely a month from her first #or%day. She #as also repatriated on the same day that she #as informed of her termination. "he abruptness of the termination negated any finding that she #as properly notified and given the opportunity to be heard. 6er constitutional right to due process of la# #as violated. 6BRB>ORB, the petition is ?B&IB?. "he decision of the CA is A>>IR5B? #ith modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is OR?BRB? to pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount euivalent to her salary for the une8pired portion of  her employment contract at an interest of +H per annum from the finality of this !udgment. Petitioner is also OR?BRB? to reimburse respondent the #ithheld &"'*,. salary and pay respondent attorney9s fees of &"'*. at an interest of +H per  annum from the finality of this !udgment.