IVAN ARCHILLE P.
TEODOSIO
I. SHORT TITLE: Rutcher Dagasdas v. Grand Placement and
General Services
II. FULL TITLE: RUTCHER T. DAGASDAS, Petitioner, vs.
GRAND PLACEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES CORPORATION,
Respondent, G.R. No. 205727, January 18, 2017
III. TOPIC: RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT, DOCTRINE
OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION
IV. STATEMENT OF 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 contract with a monthly salary of Saudi Riyal
(SR) 5,112.00. Before leaving the Philippines, Dagasdas underwent
skill training and pre-departure orientation as Network Technician.
Nonetheless, his Job Offer indicated that he was accepted by Aramco
and ITM for the position of "Supt."
On February 8, 2008, Dagasdas arrived in Saudi Arabia.
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. 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 concern 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 an
identification 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, ITM gave him a
termination notice indicating that his last day of work was on April 30,
CASE DIGEST FOR LABOR STANDARD
IVAN ARCHILLE P. TEODOSIO
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.
Thereafter, he filed an illegal dismissal case against GPGS, ITM, and
Aramco. Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit. The
National Labor Relations Commission issued 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.
V. ISSUES/s: Whether or not Dagasdas was validly dismissed from
work
VI. 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 determine 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
CASE DIGEST FOR LABOR STANDARD
IVAN ARCHILLE P. TEODOSIO
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.
VII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated September 26, 2012 and Resolution dated January 28, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115396 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the March 29, 2010 and June 2, 2010 Resolutions
of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC OFW-L-02-
000071-10 are REINSTATED.
CASE DIGEST FOR LABOR STANDARD
