G.R. No. 82340 - Dumez Company of France vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner: Dumez Company of France, a French corporation hiring Filipino workers.
Respondents:

Florante Jose, one of the Senior Draftsmen hired.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and, indirectly, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) as adjudicating bodies.

Intermediary: Eastern Construction Company, Inc. (ECCOI), the local recruiter and conduit for employment contracts in the Philippines.

In 1984, Dumez required additional manpower for its Medical City project in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, specifically four Senior Draftsmen.
Dumez sought and obtained POEA approval to hire the requisite manpower with an initial wage proposal of US$600.00 per month.
ECCOI issued Manpower Requisition Slips to the prospective employees, each clearly stating the name, job category (“Senior Draftsmen”), and a monthly basic salary of US$600.00.
Florante Jose, among the prospective recruits, later entered into employment-related agreements.

While three Senior Draftsmen’s contracts consistently stated a US$600.00 monthly base salary with a normal hourly rate of US$2.50, Florante Jose’s contract indicated a monthly base salary of US$680.00, despite having the same hourly rate of US$2.50.
The computation based on the hourly rate (US$2.50 per hour for 240 hours per month) inherently produced US$600.00, underscoring an inconsistency with the figure shown on Jose’s contract.
The discrepancy was discovered when the site management in Saudi Arabia prepared the initial salary papers, prompting immediate communication with the Philippine office.

ECCOI employee Mrs. Carmen Francisco, in her affidavit, explained that the higher amount (US$680.00) in the contract was a typographical error attributable to clerical oversight amid the volume of paperwork.
It was asserted that Jose had received a copy of his Manpower Requisition Slip – correctly indicating US$600.00 – prior to signing the employment agreement with Dumez.
Dumez later informed Jose that the error would need to be corrected, requiring him to sign revised contract documents reflecting the intended salary of US$600.00, but Jose insisted on receiving the US$680.00 figure.

Despite the initial payment of US$680.00 for the first month of employment (subject to the future reclassification of his job to justify the higher pay), no available position matched Jose’s desired salary classification.
On February 9, 1985, Dumez terminated Jose’s services on the grounds of “surplus employee, excess of manpower and retrenchment.”
Jose was repatriated on February 28, 1985, with Dumez covering his return fare expenses.
On September 13, 1985, Jose filed a complaint with the POEA for illegal dismissal, contesting the termination and alleging breach of the employment contract.

The POEA, in its decision dated April 9, 1987, dismissed Jose’s complaint, ruling that the termination was for a just cause under Article 284 of the Labor Code and that the contractual salary was indeed US$600.00, as evidenced by both the employment contract’s computation and the Manpower Requisition Slip.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the POEA decision on January 20, 1988, ordering Dumez to pay Jose’s salary for the unexpired term of his one-year contract at US$680.00 per month, holding that the dismissal was not based on legitimate surplus criteria but on “wage distortion.”
The NLRC noted that Jose was not a “surplus employee” since he was on a fixed-term contract and had only worked for one month; the dispute regarding the salary figure was central to his dismissal.

No valid employment contract existed due to the absence of a true meeting of the minds regarding the salary – the essential term.
Even if a contract existed, Jose’s refusal to accept the intended salary of US$600.00 amounted to serious misconduct or fraud under Article 283 of the Labor Code.

Jose, in contrast, asserted that a valid contract was formed based on his understanding that his monthly base salary was US$680.00.
The Solicitor General remarked that the contract was voidable because of vitiated consent resulting from a mutual mistake over the essential salary term of the employment agreement.

Was there a valid and subsisting employment contract between Dumez and Florante Jose given the conflicting salary figures (US$600.00 as indicated by the requisition slip and computation, versus US$680.00 shown in Jose’s employment agreement)?
Did the mutual mistake regarding the essential salary term vitiate the consent necessary for the formation of a valid contract?
Was Jose’s termination justified on the grounds advanced by Dumez (i.e., “surplus employee” due to excess manpower and retrenchment) or was it effectively a wrongful dismissal based on wage distortion?
To what extent should Dumez be held accountable for the clerical error, and what equitable compensation, if any, is appropriate for frustrating Jose’s employment expectations?