4/16/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
more than one (1) year until his blood pressure was considered critical. Thus, Samir
was forced to closely monitor the health condition of the petitioner. When petitioner's
blood pressure did not stabilize and begun affecting his work as driver due to frequent
headaches and dizziness, I.T. alleged that Samir decided to repatriate the petitioner to
avoid further injury and complication to his health. I.T. claimed that after the
petitioner had received all the benefits accorded to an employee consisting of full
salaries and separation pay, the petitioner refused to be repatriated and instead
decided to run away. Since then, the whereabouts of the petitioner were unknown and
I.T. only heard about the petitioner when the latter reported to their office in the
Philippines and later on filed the subject complaint before the POEA Adjudication Office.
After both parties have submitted their respective position papers and their evidence
thereto, the POEA Adjudication Office, through Tomas Achacoso, rendered a decision on
December 29, 1989 holding the private respondents herein jointly and severally liable
to the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the POEA decision reads -
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
the respondents (International) Corporation, Madir and Travellers Insurance
& Surety Corporation jointly and severally liable to the complainants the
following amounts or their peso equivalents at the time of payment:
1. THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FORTY US DOLLARS (US $3,240.00)
representing complainant's salary differential for his twelve months
employment;
2. FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY US DOLLARS (US $4,440.00)
representing complainant's salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract;
3. TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE SAUDI RIYAL (S.R.
2,369.00) representing the cost of complainant's return airfare;
4. 5% of the aforesaid amounts as attorney's fees.
All other claims of the complainant are dismissed.
SO ORDERED."[3]
Only private respondent I.T. appealed the aforesaid decision of the POEA Adjudication
Office to the NLRC Second Division which in turn reversed and set aside the findings
and ruling of the former in its Resolution dated March 26, 1991. The NLRC held that -
"x x x
xxx
xxx
The conclusions that could be inferred on the PAL Ticket is that complainant
at that particular time travelled from Saudi Arabia to the Philippines - as to
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120
2/12