G.R. No. 183486 - The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp., Limited vs. National Steel Corp.

Private respondent Multiline Resources Corporation is a recruitment agency engaged in the deployment of workers to Saudi Arabia.
Petitioner Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company Ltd. (formerly Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd.) is the Saudi-based principal of Multiline and also operates in the Philippines.
Private respondent Lauro B. Ramos, an applicant for overseas employment, became the central figure in the dispute.

On October 29, 1992, Ramos applied with Multiline for employment as a barber, undergoing an examination and interview.
Upon satisfying the employment requirements, Ramos signed a contract and job order securing a twelve‐month employment as a barber at a monthly salary of US$265.

Upon arriving in Saudi Arabia, Ramos reported to the Hanjin office only to be informed that the position he applied for had already been filled and no vacancy existed.
Faced with this setback, Ramos experienced severe hardship—he had to beg for food and resorted to sharing cramped sleeping quarters with other Filipinos—and returned to the Philippines after five days.

Ramos filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) alleging illegal dismissal/termination of contract against Hanjin and Multiline.
The POEA Administrator rendered a decision on September 26, 1995, ordering respondents to pay Ramos US$3,180 (or its peso equivalent) for a full year’s salary plus an additional 10% as attorney’s fees.
Multiline, disagreeing with the decision, appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The NLRC, after several orders and modifications—including setting aside its earlier decision and reassigning the case to another Labor Arbiter—moved through a series of decisions:

An Order by the Labor Arbiter on February 18, 1997, dismissing the case due to non-appearance on scheduled hearings.
A motion to re-open the case by Ramos followed by a dismissal without prejudice on August 14, 1997, and a re-filed case on August 18, 1997.
On February 9, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Ramos’ complaint after determining his dismissal was legal.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in its Resolution dated July 30, 2002, declaring that Ramos was illegally dismissed and awarding him three months’ salary, moral damages of P25,000, and attorney’s fees.

Ramos further appealed the NLRC resolution to the Court of Appeals, arguing that he was entitled to the full unexpired portion of his employment contract—that is, a one-year salary rather than only three months.
In its Decision dated August 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted Ramos’ petition and modified the NLRC resolution by awarding him the full year’s salary.

Petitioner Hanjin elevated the case by filing a special civil action for certiorari seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals’ Decision and the earlier NLRC Resolution.
Hanjin raised several grounds including:

Alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in entertaining the petition despite Ramos’ failure to furnish Hanjin’s counsel with a copy of the petition.
Jurisdictional issues concerning the alleged absence of an employee-employer relationship between Ramos and Hanjin.
The contention that even if an employee-employer relationship existed, the dismissal was not proven to be valid.
A challenge to the modification of the NLRC resolution by awarding full-year salary instead of three months, alleging such modification constituted an abuse of jurisdiction and discretion.

Hanjin’s petition was further critiqued on procedural grounds, notably the improper mode of appeal:

The case was raised via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure instead of the prescribed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The petition was filed 60 days after notice of the assailed judgment, missing the exceptions that would allow such a filing.

Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to the case despite Ramos’ failure to furnish Hanjin’s counsel with a copy of the petition?
Was Hanjin’s decision to elevate the case via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, instead of the appropriated mode under Rule 45, proper under the rules governing appellate remedies?

Is Ramos’ dismissal from his employment by Hanjin and Multiline illegal?
Is Ramos entitled to the full unexpired portion of his employment contract (i.e., one year’s salary) rather than only three months’ salary as initially awarded by the NLRC?
Is Ramos entitled to moral damages in addition to the monetary award for illegal dismissal?

Whether Hanjin had any available or efficacious remedy, and if the failure to appeal the NLRC decision in a proper manner rendered the administrative and judicial decisions against it final and executory.