8/20/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Mamoun be held liable for illegal dismissal, breach of contract, and payment of the
unexpired portion of the contract.[10]
For their part, AICI and Al Mamoun claimed that respondents abandoned their duties by
mid-2012, based on the e-mail message[11] from Golden Arrow to that effect, viz.:
2. Illegal Termination – I understand Mr[.] [Yamat] and Mr[.] Bartolome
refused to work resulting in the work they were designated to complete
remaining pending. It is our policy that should a member of staff refuse to
carry out their normal duties without a satisfactory and timely explanation
then we believe they have terminated their employment themselves.[12]
The LA's Ruling
In a Decision[13] dated August 31, 2012, the LA held that respondents were illegally
dismissed, and accordingly, ordered AICI and Al Mamoun to pay the former P69,300.00
each, representing their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract.[14] The LA
explained that AICI and Al Mamoun failed to overcome their burden to prove that the
dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. They likewise failed to show that
respondents abandoned their duties.[15]
Aggrieved, AICI and Al Mamoun filed an appeal.[16]
The NLRC's Ruling
In a Decision[17] dated June 27, 2013, the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling, noting that
AICI and Al Mamoun failed to discharge their burden to prove by substantial evidence
that the termination of respondents' employment was valid.[18]
Undaunted, AICI and A1 Mamoun filed a petition for certiorari[19] before the CA.
The CA's Ruling
In a Decision[20] dated November 11, 2015, the CA denied the petition.[21] It held that
AICI and A1 Mamoun failed to comply with procedural and substantive due process in
dismissing respondents from their employment.[22]
AICI and Al Mamoun moved for reconsideration,[23] arguing for the first time that they
were denied due process because respondents did not first contest their termination
before the "[Labor] Attache or any [authorized] representative of the Philippine[]
Embassy nearest the site of employment," as stipulated in the employment contracts,
before filing the complaint before the LA.[24]
In a Resolution [25] dated August 19, 2016, the CA denied the said motion.[26] It
explained that, as a rule, termination disputes should be brought before the LA, except
when the parties agree to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration pursuant to then
Article 262[27] (now Article 275) of the Labor Code, provided that such agreement is
stated "in unequivocal language." Citing jurisprudence,[28] the CA added that the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64949
2/11