G.R. No. 159358
2 of 10
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/159358.htm
Arabia (principal or the company), under a one-year employment contract. According to
Eureka, Valencia had to undergo a three-month probationary period under the contract.
On October 17, 1998, Eureka deployed Valencia to Saudi Arabia where he was given an
orientation at the principals head office and assigned to the Design Department. Eureka
contends that Valencias superiors and fellow electrical engineers found him to be incapable
of doing shop drawings. As a result, the company transferred Valencia to the Technical
Department. Since Valencias performance remained unsatisfactory, the company
terminated his employment for his failure to meet the required probationary standards.
On the other hand, Valencia claims that he passed the rigid interview Eureka
conducted prior to his deployment. Valencia attributes the sudden termination of his
employment to his December 30, 1998 complaint to the Administrative Manager that he
was not being paid his monthly salary and food allowance. Valencia was allegedly told to
wait as he was being transferred to another branch; instead, the company terminated his
services and repatriated him on January 6, 1999.
When Valencia arrived in the Philippines, he filed a complaint against Eureka with
the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration where Eureka failed to explain the cause of
Valencias early repatriation.
Subsequently, Valencia filed a complaint against Eureka with the NLRC. After
[4]
hearing, the labor arbiter rendered a decision whose dispositive portion states:
IN LIGHT OF THE [SIC] ALL THE FOREGOING, the respondents are ordered to
pay the complainant: 1) 3 months salary for the unexpired portions of the contract for the
sum of US$2,340.00; 2) unpaid salary and food allowance for December 1998 in the sum
of US$780.00 and SR$200.00 respectively; and 3) salary from 1-7 January 1999 in the
amount of US$210.00.
SO ORDERED.
Eureka claims that it received the labor arbiters decision on November 22, 1999 and
timely filed its notice of appeal on December 2, 1999. The NLRC, however, found that the
labor arbiters decision was served on Eureka on November 21, 1999 as shown by the
registry return card, and, consequently, dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of
time.
1/28/2016 12:50 PM