4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
was no substantial evidence to grant the prayer for moral and exemplary damages.[9]
The petitioners appealed the adverse decision before the National Labor Relations
Commission assailing that they were denied due process, that the respondent cannot
be considered as dismissed from employment because he was not even deployed yet
and the monetary award in favor of the respondent was exorbitant and not in
accordance with law.[10]
On 28 February 2003, the NLRC affirmed with modification the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is hereby,
MODIFIED BY DELETING the award of overtime pay in the total amount of
Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six US Dollars (US $3,636.00).
In all other respects, the assailed decision so stands as, AFFIRMED.[11]
Before the NLRC, the petitioners assailed that they were not properly notified of the
hearings that were conducted before the Labor Arbiter. They further alleged that after
the suspension of proceedings before the POEA, the only notice they received was a
copy of the decision of the Labor Arbiter.[12]
The NLRC ruled that records showed that attempts to serve the various notices of
hearing were made on petitioners’ counsel on record but these failed on account of
their failure to furnish the Office of the Labor Arbiter a copy of any notice of change of
address. There was also no evidence that a service of notice of change of address was
served on the POEA.[13]
The NLRC upheld the finding of unjustified termination of contract for failure on the part
of the petitioners to present evidence that would justify their non-deployment of the
respondent.[14] It denied the claim of the petitioners that the monetary award should
be limited only to three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term of the
contract. It ruled that the factual incidents material to the case transpired within 19911992 or before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 which provides for such limitation.[15]
However, the NLRC upheld the reduction of the monetary award with respect to the
deletion of the overtime pay due to the non-deployment of the respondent.[16]
The Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied by the NLRC
in its Resolution dated 27 July 2005.[17]
The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC when it affirmed with modification the ruling of
the Labor Arbiter. They prayed that the Decision and Resolution promulgated by the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32800
3/11