Case Digest (G.R. No. 74004)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 74004)
Facts:
A.M. Oreta & Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Sixto Grulla, Jr., G.R. No. 74004, August 10, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner A.M. Oreta & Co., Inc. (with Engineering Construction & Industrial Development Co. or ENDECO as its foreign principal) employed private respondent Sixto Grulla, Jr. as a carpenter pursuant to a written employment contract dated June 11, 1980 for a twelve‑month period; Grulla departed for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on August 5, 1980.On August 15, 1980 Grulla was injured at the worksite, sustaining a fractured lumbar vertebra; he was hospitalized for twelve days and discharged on August 27 with instructions to undergo physical therapy. Grulla presented a medical certificate declaring him fit for work and reported to his project manager on September 18, 1980. He worked thereafter until receiving a termination notice dated October 9, 1980.
In December 1981 Grulla filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal, recovery of medical expenses (P1,000), unpaid wages for the unexpired ten months of the contract (US$3,700), and attorney’s fees. Petitioners answered asserting that Grulla was a probationary employee dismissible for unsatisfactory performance within a three‑month probationary period and alleged violations of contractor rules.
On August 8, 1985 the POEA found the dismissal illegal, awarded US$3,700 (salaries for ten months), P1,000 medical reimbursement and 10% attorney’s fees; petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). By resolution dated January 17, 1986 the NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the POEA decision. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on April 1, 1986 with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC; a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement was issued on April 23, 1986.
Issues:
- Was respondent Grulla’s employment illegally terminated?
- Is respondent Grulla entitled to salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract and reimbursement of medical expenses?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)