4/16/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
408 Phil. 570
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 99047, April 16, 2001 ]
OMAR O. SEVILLANA, PETITIONER, VS. I.T.(INTERNATIONAL)
CORP./SAMIR MADDAH & TRAVELLERS INSURANCE AND SURETY
CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION),
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
This old petition, denominated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Revised Rules of court, shall be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 for reasons which are hereinafter stated. The petition seeks to reverse the
Resolution[1] dated March 26, 1991 of public respondent National Labor relations
Commission (NLRC), Second Division, which set aside the Decision[2] dated December
29, 1989 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Adjudication Office in
POEA Case No. (L) 88-12-1048.
The facts are as follows:
Sometime in November 1987, petitioner Omar Sevillana was contracted to work as a
driver by private respondent I.T. (International) Corporation (I.T., for brevity) for its
foreign accredited principal, Samir Maddah (Samir, for brevity), in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia. The agreed monthly salary was US $370.00 for a period of two (2) years.
Petitioner alleged, however, that when he received his salaries from his employer, he
was only paid US $100.00 a month for twelve (12) months, instead of the agreed US
$370.00 per month.
On November 2, 1988, after working twelve (12) months with his employer, petitioner
said that he was repatriated without any valid and justifiable reason. Petitioner
shouldered the cost of his return airfare in the amount of US $630.00.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA, for brevity) for underpayment of salaries, illegal dismissal,
reimbursement of return airfare, moral damages and attorney's fees against I.T.
(International) Corporation, Samir Maddah and Travellers Insurance and Surety
Corporation (Travellers, for brevity).
In answer thereto, private respondent I.T. denied the material allegations of the
petitioner but admitted that the petitioner was one of several workers it deployed and
employed abroad. I.T. argued that the petitioner continuously worked with Samir for
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120
1/12