Title
Skillworld Management and Marketing Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 74412
Decision Date
Jun 13, 1990
A worker deployed to Saudi Arabia was illegally dismissed after two months, with unsubstantiated claims of misconduct. Courts upheld his right to security of tenure, affirming compensation for the unexpired contract.
illegal dismissal
invalid documents
driving licenses

Case Summary (G.R. No. 74412)

Deployment, Contract, and Repatriation

On June 24, 1983, respondent Francisco R. Manuel was deployed to Saudi Arabia as a driver by petitioner Skillworld Management and Marketing, which was described as a duly licensed recruitment agency operated by petitioners-spouses Serafin and Alicia Ramos. Upon arrival in Jeddah, Manuel signed a two (2) year employment contract with petitioner Shary Limousine for a monthly basic salary of three hundred U.S. dollars.

Two (2) months later, on August 24, 1983, Manuel was repatriated to the Philippines. When he arrived, he confronted petitioners, who allegedly promised to deploy him to other projects.

Manuel’s Complaint to the POEA

After more than one year without further deployment to petitioners’ other projects, Manuel filed a complaint on January 5, 1985 with the POEA. He alleged illegal dismissal during his employment in Jeddah. Manuel stated that while employed as driver of Shary Limousine in its Jeddah branch, he was stopped by Saudi Arabian police, who sought to inspect his driver’s license. According to Manuel, he showed the police two documents given to him by his employer, Shary Limousine, which made him believe that the documents pertained to a driver’s temporary license. Manuel claimed, however, that he was informed that the documents were not valid for a driver’s license.

Manuel averred that, together with eleven other drivers, they brought the matter to their superiors. Three days after bringing the matter upward, he was ordered to pack his things, taken to Riyadh, and repatriated to the Philippines. Upon arrival, Manuel requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a translation of what was purportedly his driver’s license; he asserted that the translation revealed only a certification of employment with Shary Limousine in its Jeddah branch.

Petitioners’ Defense Before the POEA

In their answer, petitioners denied illegal dismissal and asserted that Manuel’s dismissal had valid and just cause. They alleged that Manuel was dismissed for disobedience, absenteeism, refusal to work, and banding together to engage in concerted activities against the employer.

To support the defense, petitioners presented affidavits of Cholo Lopez, Administrative Manager of Shary Limousine, and Felix Cariagu and Jaime Bautista, who worked with Manuel at Shary Limousine.

POEA Decision and Award

On August 21, 1985, the POEA rendered a decision in favor of Manuel. The dispositive portion directed petitioners to pay Manuel U.S. $6,900.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment, covering salary for the unexpired portion of twenty three (23) months, payable through the POEA.

NLRC Review and Affirmance

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was treated as an appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the POEA decision on April 28, 1986. Petitioners challenged the factual findings of the POEA, insisting that Manuel’s allegations were not proven and that petitioners’ witnesses sufficiently established that Manuel’s dismissal rested on valid and serious grounds.

Certiorari to This Court and Subsequent Developments

After two motions for extension of time to file the petition, petitioners filed this Rule 65 petition with this Court on June 28, 1986. In parallel, on May 30, 1986, the POEA issued a writ of execution, which petitioners opposed on June 11, 1986.

On June 4, 1986, petitioners filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the POEA, raising for the first time a defense grounded on Saudi Arabian law. Petitioners alleged that under Saudi Arabian laws, certificates of employment coupled with a valid driver’s license from the worker’s country of origin were sufficient authority to drive motor vehicles in Saudi Arabia for three months, and they claimed that this fact had not been presented nor substantiated during the proceedings due to counsel’s omissions despite petitioners’ reminders.

The POEA denied the petition for relief on June 18, 1986, ruling that the omissions did not constitute excusable neglect contemplated by law. The POEA also noted that the parties had been afforded the opportunity to be heard, that petitioners had availed of the right to appeal, and that parties are entitled to a speedy determination of their claims.

This Court later issued a temporary restraining order on July 3, 1986 enjoining enforcement of the POEA and NLRC rulings. The record further showed that the cash bond of P50,000.00 posted by petitioner had already been released to Manuel on June 16, 1986, prior to receipt of the restraining order.

Petitioners then filed an amended petition on July 9, 1986, and a supplemental petition on August 30, 1986. Manuel filed comments in the course of the proceedings.

Petitioners’ Arguments on Grave Abuse of Discretion

Petitioners claimed that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to find that: first, Manuel was a probationary employee at the time of his dismissal and thus could be dismissed without the procedural and substantive protections associated with regular employees; and second, Manuel was guilty of the charges attributed to him by petitioners.

As to probationary status, petitioners relied on paragraph four of Manuel’s employment contract, asserting that “the first three months” were a probationary period during which both parties were entitled to cancel the contract without compensation.

Petitioners also faulted the POEA for denying their petition for relief from judgment. They again invoked the Saudi Arabian law defense that foreigners with a valid license from their country of origin could drive in the host country for the first three months without need of securing a Saudi Arabian license. They maintained that this defense was relevant and should have been considered, and they sought remand for re-hearing.

The Court’s Ruling on Probationary Status and Security of Tenure

The Court rejected the petitioners’ theory that probationary status permitted dismissal at will. The Court held that even if Manuel had been on probation at the time of dismissal, he still enjoyed constitutional security of tenure. The Court cited jurisprudence, including Manila Hotel Corporation v. NLRC (G.R. No. 53453, January 22, 1986) and Renato L. Cruz, as well as Alga Moher International Placement Services v. Hon. D. Atienza, et al. (G.R. Nos. 74610-11, September 30, 1988), stressing that although probationary employment confers limited tenure, the worker could not be removed without cause during the period of employment or before contract expiry.

Thus, the Court ruled that petitioners could not dismiss Manuel merely because his employment was allegedly probationary.

The Court’s Review of Whether the Alleged Causes Were Proven

The Court further examined the alleged grounds for dismissal—disobedience, absenteeism, refusal to work, and banding together to engage in concerted activities, including inciting other employees. It noted that the NLRC found these alleged causes were not established. The NLRC reasoned that petitioners’ purported temporary driver’s licenses were in fact mere certifications identifying the drivers as Filipino citizens and stating that they were sent to work with the Shary Limousine branch in Jeddah. It also observed that Saudi police, upon encountering Manuel and his co-drivers at checkpoints, had informed them that the alleged temporary licenses were not valid.

The NLRC also found that Manuel did refute the employer’s witnesses. It recounted that in his affidavit dated 14 February 1985, Manuel asserted that the witnesses’ accusations were baseless, hearsay, and possibly fabricated, and that his own documents indicated a different foreign employer than what petitioners claimed at the POEA. Manuel also denied joining any strike or mass action while in Jeddah, and he explained that the drivers merely inquired from the Philippine Embassy regarding why they were allowed to drive without licenses, prompting the Embassy to write the employer to protect them in foreign soil.

The Court treated these factual determinations as binding absent a showing of substantial reason to overturn them. It reiterated the principle that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and at times even finality. It cited cases such as Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC (G.R. No. 76989, September 29, 1987) and Akay Printing Press v. Minister of Labor and Employment (G.R. No. 59651, December 6, 1985), among others.

The Court’s Treatment of the “Saudi License” Defense and Relief from Judgment

The Court also addressed petitioners’ argument that the POEA gravely abused its discretion in denying relief from judgment based on a Saudi Arabian law defense. The Court noted a key procedural defect: petitioners did

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms