G.R. No. 85866 - Asian Construction and Development Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The petitioner, Asian Construction and Development Corporation, hired the private respondent as a steel fixer in Iraq on October 4, 1985, marking the private respondent's third engagement in a project with the petitioner.
The respondent had been thoroughly familiarized with steel fixing work for approximately three years, establishing his technical expertise in that area.

When the steel fixing works neared completion, the petitioner transferred the respondent to the waterproofing division.
The private respondent had limited experience in waterproofing, having worked only three days in that new capacity.

After performing waterproofing work for three days, the respondent was ordered to leave his work without any explanation by his German supervisor.
The following day, he was informed by the project site manager, Mr. Rodito Sunga, that he was being terminated, with the termination allegedly attributed to insubordination.
The respondent had pleaded to be reassigned back to steel fixing, citing his lack of familiarity with waterproofing tasks, but his request was denied.
Additionally, the petitioner withheld salary allotments and charged the respondent for his travel expenses to and from Iraq.

On June 26, 1986, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
The POEA, on July 9, 1987, rendered a decision declaring the respondent’s dismissal illegal or without justifiable cause.
The decision of the POEA was later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on appeal.

The petitioner attempted to justify the termination on the grounds of insubordination, submitting an affidavit of Mr. Rodito Sunga alleging that the respondent repeatedly refused orders to carry hollowblocks.
The POEA Administrator noted that the respondent’s lack of familiarity with waterproofing, given his brief exposure of only three days, was the primary factor leading to his dismissal.
The evidence presented by the petitioner, primarily the self-serving affidavit of Mr. Sunga, was deemed hearsay and insufficient to establish that the dismissal was due to insubordination.

The factual findings of both the POEA and NLRC, which favored the respondent by ruling against the petitioner’s justification of dismissal, were accorded great weight due to substantial supporting evidence.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case and ultimately found no merit in the petition of certiorari filed by the petitioner.
The dismissal was upheld as illegal based on the administrative bodies’ substantiated findings and significant evidentiary support.

Whether the dismissal of the private respondent was carried out in accordance with justifiable cause.
Whether the allegation of insubordination, as the ground for termination, was adequately supported by evidence.

Whether the petitioner’s decision to transfer the respondent from steel fixing to waterproofing without proper training or sufficient notice violated principles of proper employment practices.
Whether the respondent’s unfamiliarity with waterproofing, evidenced by his short tenure in the new assignment, could logically justify termination.

The reliability and weight given to the petitioner’s evidence, notably the self-serving affidavit of the project site manager.
Whether the administrative bodies’ factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, warrant deference over the petitioner’s allegations.