Title
Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 78603
Decision Date
Jan 28, 1991
PNCC not liable for Buan's repatriation; Iqama non-renewal due to REDEC's refusal, beyond PNCC's control, releasing it from contractual obligations under Article 1266.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 78603)

Facts:

Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division); Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and Ruben S. Buan, G.R. No. 78603, January 28, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner PNCC engaged private respondent Ruben S. Buan as Civil Engineer III on 22 May 1979 for two years in Saudi Arabia (salary US$1,024). After completing that term, PNCC entered into a second two-year overseas employment contract with Buan as Senior Engineer at US$1,350 per month; the second contract contained paragraph 13 providing that renewal of the employee’s Residence and Work permit (Iqama) was a condition to continued employment and that denial of renewal by the “concerned authorities” would cancel the contract without prejudice to accrued rights.

On 21 August 1981 Buan arrived in Saudi Arabia on a re-entry visa sponsored by REDEC, the principal contractor for the project on which PNCC was a subcontractor. Buan’s Iqama expired on 1 September 1981. PNCC requested REDEC to extend or renew Buan’s Iqama, but REDEC returned the request “without renewal” with a handwritten note stating it was “dissatisfied with the performance” of Buan; REDEC had earlier sponsored his re-entry visa. Because REDEC refused to sponsor renewal, Buan was repatriated on 26 November 1981.

Buan filed a complaint before the POEA for breach of contract/illegal dismissal. On 15 April 1986 POEA ordered PNCC to pay Buan the unexpired term under the second contract (US$28,080.00) plus attorney’s fees. On appeal the NLRC (Second Division) affirmed the POEA decision with modifications, reducing the award to the equivalent of fifteen months’ pay and awarding attorney’s fees. PNCC filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court (seeking review of the NLRC decision) and prayed for a temporary r...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding PNCC liable for breach of the second overseas employment contract despite the refusal of REDEC to sponsor renewal of Buan’s Iqama (invoking force majeure or supervening impossibility under Article 1174 and related Civil Code provisions)?
  • Did the NLRC err in construing paragraph 13 of the employment contract and in disregarding Article 49, Labor and Workmen Law (Saudi Arabia) which conditions foreign employment on sponsorship by a Saudi employer?
  • Was the NLRC’s award of attorney’s fee...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.