Title
Anderson vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 111212
Decision Date
Jan 22, 1996
A Filipino worker in Saudi Arabia was illegally dismissed after nine months; the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, ordering payment for the unexpired contract and salary differential.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 111212)

Facts:

Employment Contract and Recruitment:
Petitioner George Anderson was recruited by respondent Pacific Business Ventures, Inc. to work as a foreman in the Fiberglass Division of Bitar Metal Fabrication Factory in Damman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The employment contract was for two years, starting February 16, 1988, with a monthly salary of SR1,000 (Saudi Riyals) plus a food allowance of SR200, equivalent to US$320 in total.

Termination of Employment:
After nine months of service, petitioner was informed on November 6, 1988, by respondent Kamal Al Bitar, the proprietor and general manager, that his services were being terminated. Four days later, petitioner returned to the Philippines.

Filing of Complaint:
On March 30, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal, recovery of salary differential, vacation leave pay, refund of transportation expenses, and recruitment violations.

Respondents' Defense:
Private respondents claimed petitioner was dismissed for "loss of confidence," alleging he lacked leadership, motivation, and technical know-how for the job.

POEA Decision:
The POEA ruled in favor of petitioner, finding he was illegally dismissed. It ordered respondents to pay the balance of his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract and a salary differential.

NLRC Decision:
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the POEA decision, dismissing petitioner's complaint, based on an affidavit from Kamal Al Bitar submitted during the appeal.

Issue:

  1. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting Kamal Al Bitar's affidavit as evidence.
  2. Whether petitioner was validly dismissed for "loss of confidence."
  3. Whether petitioner was entitled to the reliefs granted by the POEA.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.