Anderson vs NLRC : 111212 : January 22, 1996 : J Mendoza : Second...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/111212.htm
in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing complainants salary differential for nine
(9) months.
All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
[3]
On December 10, 1990, private respondents appealed to the NLRC. On January 13, 1992,
they filed a supplemental appeal memorandum and, on June 29, 1992, a second supplemental
appeal memorandum, submitting an affidavit of respondent Kamal Al Bitar in which he stated:
a. He is the proprietor and General Manager of respondent Bitar Metal Fabrication Factory thereinafter
called the Company.
b. On February 1988 or thereabouts, he hired complainant-appellee George Anderson as Supervisor of the
Companys fiber glass-section.
c. During the 3-month probationary period of Mr. Andersons employment contract, Mr. Bitar observed
that Mr. Andersons performance as Supervisor was miserable in that he had no leadership ability and that
he relied too much on his subordinates in the performance of his work in the fiber glass section.
d. After the said probationary period, Mr. Bitar discussed with Mr. Anderson his miserable performance
and gave the latter a chance to improve.
e. However, in the course of Mr. Andersons employment with the Company, the latter had shown his lack
of technical know-how required for his position, and worse, he exhibited a negative attitude toward his
work.
f. By reason of Mr. Andersons miserable performance as well as his negative work attitude, the Companys
trust and confidence in him began to erode. Mr. Andersons services could have been terminated for just
causes, i.e., miserable performance and loss of trust and confidence. However, the Company decided to
preterminate his employment contract pursuant to Section E of his Employment Contract by granting him
separation pay, in lieu of the 30-day notice. The said section reads as follows:
The employer may terminate the contract on other grounds by giving prior thirty (30) days
written notice or in lieu thereof termination pay equivalent to salary for 30 days for every
year of service.
g. Lastly, the Company likewise paid Mr. Anderson other amounts in accordance with his employment
contract and the Saudi Arabian Law.
(Italics supplied)
On January 25, 1993, the NLRC set aside the decision of the POEA and dismissed
petitioners complaint. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the
NLRC on April 22, 1993. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in:
(1) Admitting in evidence the affidavit of private respondent employer which is not only
self-serving and a patently fabricated documentary evidence but also it was presented for the
first time on appeal.
(2) Holding that petitioner never refuted the factual allegations surrounding the loss of
confidence of the private respondent employer in the petitioner-complainant.
2 of 6
1/20/2016 7:54 PM