Previous 4 / 12 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On June 2, 2010, the NLRC denied the Motion for Reconsideration of its Resolution dated March 29, 2010. Undeterred, GPGS filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that Dagasdas was illegally dismissed. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On September 26, 2012, the CA set aside the NLRC Resolutions and reinstated the LA Decision dismissing the case for lack of merit. The CA could not accede to the conclusion that the real agreement between the parties was to employ Dagasdas as Superintendent. It stressed that Dagasdas left the Philippines pursuant to his employment contract indicating that he was to work as a Network Technician; when he arrived in Saudi Arabia and signed a new contract for the position of a Superintendent, the agreement was with no participation of GPGS, and said new contract was only between Dagasdas and ITM. It emphasized that after commencing work as Superintendent, Dagasdas realized that he could not perform his tasks, and "[s]eemingly, it was [Dagasdas] himself who voluntarily withdrew from his assigned work for lack of competence."[31] It faulted the NLRC for failing to consider that Dagasdas backed out as Superintendent on the excuse that the same required the skills of a Mechanical Engineer. In holding that Dagasdas' dismissal was legal, the CA gave credence to Dagasdas' Statement of Quitclaim and Final Settlement. It ruled that for having voluntarily accepted money from his employer, Dagasdas accepted his termination and released his employer from future financial obligations arising from his past employment with it. On January 28, 2013, the CA denied Dagasdas' Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, Dagasdas filed this Petition raising these grounds: [1] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.[32] [2] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED WITH ITS FINDINGS THAT THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY DAGASDAS IN ALKHOBAR IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE LATTER AND THAT IT WAS [H]IS PERSONAL ACT OR DECISION [TO SIGN] THE SAME.[33] [3] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAULTING THE NLRC FOR HS FAILURE TO INVALID ARE OR DISCUSS THE FINAL SETTLEMENT AND STATEMENT OF QUITCLAIM SIGNED BY [DAGASDAS].[34] Dagasdas reiterates that he was only recruited "on paper" as a Network Technician but the real agreement between him and his employer was to engage him as elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 4/12

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

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

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

Primary Documents

Notifications