6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Security of tenure remains even if employees, particularly the overseas Filipino workers
(OFW), work in a different jurisdiction. Since the employment contracts of OFWs are
perfected in the Philippines, and following the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of
the place where the contract is made), these contracts are governed by our laws,
primarily the Labor Code of the Philippines and its implementing rules and regulations,
[37] At the same time, our laws generally apply even to employment contracts of OFWs
as our Constitution explicitly provides that the State shall afford full protection to labor,
whether local or overseas.[38] Thus, even if a Filipino is employed abroad, he or she is
entitled to security of tenure, among other constitutional rights.[39]
In this case, prior to his deployment and while still in the Philippines, Dagasdas was
made to sign a POEA-approved contract with GPGS, on behalf of ITM; and, upon arrival
in Saudi Arabia, ITM made him sign a new employment contract. Nonetheless, this new
contract, which was used as basis for dismissing Dagasdas, is void.
First, Dagasdas' new contract is in clear violation of his right to security of tenure.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines the following are the just causes for dismissing
an employee:
ARTICLE 297. [282] Termination by Employer. - An employer may terminate
an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the 1ntst reposed in him by
his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of
his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.[40]
However, per the notice of termination given to Dagasdas, ITM tem1inated him for
violating clause 17.4.3 of his new contract, viz.:
17.4 The Company reserves the right to terminate this agreement without
serving any notice to the Consultant in the following cases:
xxx
xxx
xxx
17.4.3 If the Consultant is terminated by company or its client within the
probation period of 3 months.[41]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310
6/12