Previous 1 / 12 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 803 Phil. 463 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 205727, January 18, 2017 ] RUTCHER T. DAGASDAS, PETITIONER, VS. GRAND PLACEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. DECISION DEL CASTILLO, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the September 26, 2012 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 115396, which annulled and set aside the March 29, 2010[2] and June 2, 2010[3] Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC OFW-L-02-000071-10, and concomitantly reinstated the November 27, 2009 Decision[4] of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit. Also challenged is the January 28, 2013 Resolution[5] denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Rutcher T. Dagasdas (Dagasdas). Factual Antecedents Grand Placement and General Services Corp. (GPGS) is a licensed recruitment or placement agency in the Philippines while Saudi Aramco (Aramco) is its counter part in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Industrial & Management Technology Methods Co. Ltd. (ITM) is the principal of GPGS, a company existing in Saudi Arabia.[6] In November 2007, GPGS, for and on behalf of ITM, employed Dagasdas as Network Technician. He was to be deployed in Saudi Arabia under a one year contract[7] with a monthly salary of Saudi Riyal (SR) 5,112.00. Before leaving the Philippines, Dagasdas underwent skill training[8] and pre departure orientation as Network Technician.[9] Nonetheless, his Job Offer[10] indicated that he was accepted by Aramco and ITM for the position of "Supt" Dagasdas contended that although his position under his contract was as a Network Technician, he actually applied for and was engaged as a Civil Engineer considering that his transcript of records,[11] diploma[12] as well as his curriculum vitae[13] showed that he had a degree in Civil Engineering, and his work experiences were all related to this field. Purportedly, the position of Network Technician was only for the purpose of securing a visa for Saudi Arabia because ITM could not support visa application for Civil Engineers.[14] On February 8, 2008, Dagasdas arrived in Saudi Arabia.[15] Thereafter, he signed with elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 1/12

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rutcher T. Dagasdas vs. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation, G.R. No. 205727, January 18, 2017

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 205727

Division: PH Supreme Court First Division

Date of decision: Jan 18, 2017

Year of decision: 2017

Nature of the case: TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

MRO Case Type

2-notice rule in valid dismissal proceedings
Appeal to the NLRC
Breach of contract
Contract substitution is prohibited
Grounds for dismissal
Illegal dismissal
Interpretation of overseas employment contract
Joint and solidary liability of agency and employer
Management prerogatives and security of tenure of OFWs
Money claims
Release, waiver and quitclaim
Termination of employment

Summary of outcome: The Court ruled in favor of Dagasdas. It found that prior to his deployment, Dagasdas was made to sign a POEA-approved contract with GPGS, on behalf of ITM. However, upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, ITM made him sign a new employment contract (which became the basis for his dismissal).

ITM failed to show that it set and communicated work standards for Dagasdas to follow, and on which his efficiency (or lack thereof) would be determined.

The Court also ruled that the new contract was void and in clear violation of Dagasdas' right to security of tenure.

The new contract was not shown to have been processed through the POEA. It breached Dagasdas' original contract as it was entered into even before the expiration of the original contract approved by the POEA. The Court declared that its terms and conditions, including reserving in favor of the employer the right to terminate an employee without notice during the probationary period, were void.

Dagasdas was likewise not afforded procedural due process when he was dismissed from work. There was no prior notice of the purported infraction. He was not given any opportunity to explain on any accusation made against him. He was simply given a notice of termination. The twin-notice requirement was not complied with.

Lastly, although Dagasdas executed a quitclaim, the same did not preclude him from filing the suit. GPGS and ITM failed to show that Dagasdas had indeed voluntarily waived his claims against the employer.

Observatory: Migrant Workers Rights

Affected Sector

Migrant Worker / Former Migrant Worker

Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.

Combined geolocations

Latitude: 14.57223

Longitude: 120.99233

: Geolocation 1Geolocation 2Geolocation 3

Primary Documents

2017Rutcher T. Dagasdas vs. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation_january.pdf
english
Download View