5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint[17] with the National Labor Relations
Commission against petitioner and Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally
dismissed.[18] She asked for the return of her placement fee, the withheld amount for
repatriation costs, payment of her salary for 23 months as well as moral and exemplary
damages.[19] She identified Wacoal as Sameer Overseas Placement Agency’s foreign
principal.[20]
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent's termination was due to
her inefficiency, negligence in her duties, and her “failure to comply with the work
requirements [of] her foreign [employer].”[21] The agency also claimed that it did not
ask for a placement fee of ?70,000.00.[22] As evidence, it showed Official Receipt No.
14860 dated June 10, 1997, bearing the amount of ?20,360.00.[23] Petitioner added
that Wacoal's accreditation with petitioner had already been transferred to the Pacific
Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (Pacific) as of August 6, 1997.[24] Thus,
petitioner asserts that it was already substituted by Pacific Manpower.[25]
Pacific Manpower moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s claims against it.[26] It alleged
that there was no employer-employee relationship between them.[27] Therefore, the
claims against it were outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.[28] Pacific Manpower
argued that the employment contract should first be presented so that the employer’s
contractual obligations might be identified.[29] It further denied that it assumed liability
for petitioner’s illegal acts.[30]
On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint.[31] Acting Executive
Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos ruled that her complaint was based on mere allegations.
[32] The Labor Arbiter found that there was no excess payment of placement fees,
based on the official receipt presented by petitioner.[33] The Labor Arbiter found
unnecessary a discussion on petitioner’s transfer of obligations to Pacific[34] and
considered the matter immaterial in view of the dismissal of respondent’s complaint.
[35]
Joy appealed[36] to the National Labor Relations Commission.
In a resolution[37] dated March 31, 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission
declared that Joy was illegally dismissed.[38] It reiterated the doctrine that the burden
of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause belongs to the
employer.[39] It found that Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove that
there were just causes for termination.[40] There was no sufficient proof to show that
respondent was inefficient in her work and that she failed to comply with company
requirements.[41]
Furthermore,
procedural
due
process
was
not
observed
in
terminating respondent.[42]
The National Labor Relations Commission did not rule on the issue of reimbursement of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57319
2/39