Case Summary (G.R. No. 187730)
Employment Agreement and Discrepancy
On January 16, 1985, Jose signed an employment agreement that indicated a monthly salary of US$680.00 while the other Senior Draftsmen's agreements reflected US$600.00 as their monthly salary with a normal hourly rate of US$2.50. Upon starting work on January 23, 1985, Dumez discovered the salary discrepancy, which they attributed to a typographical error. They communicated to Jose that the correction needed to be made, proposing a new agreement that reflected the US$600.00 salary, which Jose refused.
Termination of Employment
On February 9, 1985, Jose was terminated under the pretext of being a "surplus employee" due to excess manpower. However, he was repatriated back to the Philippines on February 28, 1985. Subsequently, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on September 13, 1985.
POEA Ruling
The POEA ruled on April 9, 1987, that Jose's termination was justified under Article 284 of the Labor Code. They confirmed that there was no breach of contract by Dumez, asserting that Jose was informed beforehand about the monthly salary being US$600.00 and that the computation for that amount corresponded correctly with his hourly rate.
NLRC Appeal and Ruling
On January 20, 1988, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the POEA’s ruling, concluding that there was a wage distortion resulting from Jose's salary dispute rather than a valid ground for dismissal. It ordered Dumez to compensate Jose for the unexpired term of his contract at the higher rate of US$680.00.
Arguments from Petitioner and Respondent
In its petition, Dumez contended that there was no illegal dismissal because the employment contract never materialized due to a lack of mutual consent on the salary. Conversely, Jose maintained that a valid contract existed, and Dumez had breached it. The Solicitor General argued that the contract was voidable because of vitiated consent.
Analysis of Contract and Mutual Mistake
The court found that a mutual mistake existed regarding the employment terms, particularly concerning the salary. Although Jose believed he was entitled to US$680.00, Dumez provided evidence supporting its claim of a clerical error. The court distinguished between a mutual mistake and a mistake sufficient to vitiate consent in a valid contract. Thus, there was no valid contract as the essential elements of offer and acceptance regarding the salary were no
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187730)
Case Overview
- The case involves Dumez Company of France ("Dumez"), a French corporation, and Florante Jose, a Filipino worker hired through Eastern Construction Company, Inc. ("ECCOI") for a project in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
- Dumez sought to employ four Senior Draftsmen, offering a salary of US$600.00 per month. Jose was one of the draftsmen hired.
- The employment agreement signed by Jose indicated an erroneous salary of US$680.00, which became a point of contention leading to his dismissal.
Employment Agreement and Salary Discrepancy
- Upon hiring, Jose was provided with a Manpower Requisition Slip indicating a salary of US$600.00.
- The employment agreement signed by Jose on January 16, 1985, mistakenly stated his monthly salary as US$680.00, while the hourly rate was consistent at US$2.50.
- Jose began work on January 23, 1985, and the salary discrepancy was identified shortly after.
Termination of Employment
- Dumez terminated Jose's services on February 9, 1985, citing "surplus employee, excess of manpower and retrenchment" as the reasons.
- Jose was repatriated to the Philippines on February 28, 1985, with Dumez covering the return fare.
Legal Proceedings
- On September 13, 1985, Jose filed a complaint for