Garais vs. NLRC : 116016 : April 26, 1996 : Padilla, J. : First Division
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116016.htm
By private respondents account, the employment contracts signed by petitioners provided
for a probationary period of three (3) months within which the employer could terminate the
contract in accordance with law.[1] During petitioners employment with respondent company
(SAAD Construction), they were warned in writing that their refusal to carry out the orders and
instructions of their supervisors without a valid cause and their instigation of co-workers to stop
working or not to report for work were acts prejudicial to the company and hence, similar acts in
the future would be dealt with severely. Petitioners performance on the jobs did not improve, so
on different dates from 5 February to 10 February 1990, their employments were terminated for
non-compliance with requirements for qualification and for violation of company rules and
regulations. The sums of US$435 or US$635 were deducted from their wages to cover
repatriation expenses.
Petitioners individually filed complaints for illegal dismissal against their foreign employer,
SAAD Construction Establishment, represented by A.P. Placement in cases before the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA consolidated and jointly heard the
cases and rendered a decision on 11 December 1991, the dispositive part of which states:
WHEREFORE, the respondents A.P. Placement Specialist Center, Saad Construction Est., and Times
Surety Insurance Co., Inc. are hereby ordered to pay the following complainants:
1. ALDIN H. GARAIS - SR28,845.00 and US$435.00
2. NILO DEL SOL - SR28,845.00 and US$435.00
3. NESTOR A. MENDOZA - SR28,845.00 and US$435.00
4. CELESTINO E. BALMES - SR28,845.00 and US$435.00
5. DOMINGO O. MENDOZA - SR28,845.00 and US$435.00
6. EDUARDO A. RAYOS - SR29,970.00 and US$635.00
7. ARNEL C. CASTANEDA - SR29,000.00 and US$635.00
8. ERNESTO M. PERCULEZA - SR24,200.00 and US$635.00
9. EDGARDO PENALOSA - SR29,000.00 and US$635.00
10. OSCAR T. SANTOS - SR28,845.00 and US$635.00
or their peso equivalent at time of payment.[2]
Private respondents appealed the POEA decision to the NLRC. While the memorandum of
appeal filed by private respondents was dated 3 January 1992, the surety bond was posted only
on 25 March 1992 after respondent NLRC issued a resolution dated 20 March 1992 directing
private respondents to post a cash or surety bond based on the latters own computation. Upon
receipt of the 20 March 1992 resolution of the NLRC and the private respondents notice of
compliance therewith, petitioners filed an omnibus opposition on the ground, among others, that
the POEA decision had already become final and executory after private respondents failed to
perfect the appeal within the ten-day reglementary period provided under the POEA Rules and
Regulations.[3] Petitioners alleged therein that in order to perfect an appeal to the NLRC, private
respondents should have posted a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary
award of the POEA within ten (10) days from receipt of the POEA decision. The bond in this
case was posted beyond the reglementary period provided by the POEA Rules and Regulations.
On 29 November 1993, public respondent NLRC, unperturbed by the serious objection of
petitioners based on jurisdictional grounds, reversed the POEA decision and dismissed the
complaints of petitioners for lack of merit. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on
15 April 1994. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed on 14
July 1994.
Petitioners assail the resolutions of public respondent NLRC on the following grounds:
I
2 of 4
1/20/2016 9:49 PM