Case Digest (G.R. No. 111212)
Facts:
The case involves George Anderson as the petitioner and the Labor Relations Commission, Pacific Business Ventures Inc., and Kamal Al Bitar as respondents. The events leading to the case began when George Anderson was recruited by Pacific Business Ventures, Inc. to serve as a foreman in the Fiberglass Division of the Bitar Metal Fabrication Factory located in Damman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. His employment commenced on February 16, 1988, for a duration of two years, with a monthly salary of SR1,000.00 and an additional food allowance of SR200.00, totaling approximately US$320.00 monthly. After nine months of employment, on November 6, 1988, Kamal Al Bitar, the proprietor and general manager, informed Anderson that his services were being terminated. Following his dismissal, Anderson returned to the Philippines four days later. On March 30, 1989, he filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) alleging illegal dismissal, recovery of salary dif...
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:
- Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting Kamal Al Bitar's affidavit as evidence.
- Whether petitioner was validly dismissed for "loss of confidence."
- Whether petitioner was entitled to the reliefs granted by the POEA.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)