6 Assailed Decision, pp. 2-7; rollo, pp. 34-39. 7 This case was deemed submitted for decision on December 5, 2003, upon this Court’s receipt of respondent’s Memorandum -- signed by Atty. Elvira de Vera Bitonio. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Attys. Benilda V. Abrasia-Tejada, Irahlyn P. Sacupayo-Lariba and Marino M. Buban Jr. -- was received by this Court on November 7, 2003. 8 Petition, p. 8; rollo, p. 16. 9 Rollo, pp. 100-110. 10 356 Phil. 811, September 16, 1998. 11 Id., p. 824. 12 See Retuya v. Dumarpa, 408 SCRA 315, August 5, 2003. 13 Alfaro v. CA, 416 Phil. 310, August 28, 2001. 14 Ibid. See also PNOC Dockyard & Engineering Corp. v. NLRC, 353 Phil. 431, June 26, 1998; KAMADA v.Ferrer-Calleja, 344 Phil. 67, September 5, 1997; Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union v. Laguesma, 350 Phil. 35, February 24, 1998; Tan v. NLRC, 359 Phil. 499, November 24, 1998. 15 §3(a) of RA 8042 defines migrant worker as "a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state in which he or she is not a legal resident; to be used interchangeably with overseas Filipino worker." (Emphasis ours.) 16 Paragraph 8 of the employment pass states: "If there is a change in the Designation or Duties as declared in the application form for an Employment Pass, a fresh application is required. It is an offence under the Immigration Regulations for failing to do so." (Annex "5-a" to Comment; rollo, p. 120.) 17 Petition, p. 3; rollo, p. 11. 18 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 22; rollo, p. 178. 19 Annex "2" to Comment; rollo, pp. 113-114. 20 178 SCRA 569, 580-581, October 16, 1989, per Cortes, J. 21 §3(a), RA 8042; also §§2(a) and (e), Rule II of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act. 22 Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 348 Phil. 714, January 23, 1998. 23 Paguio Transport Corp. v. NLRC, 356 Phil. 158, August 28, 1998; Tan v. NLRC, supra; Pascua v. NLRC, 351 Phil. 48, March 13, 1998; Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC, supra. 24 Serrano v. NLRC, 387 Phil. 345, May 4, 2000. 25 Fernandez, v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 65, January 28, 1998. "Art. 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 trust 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." 26 "Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. – The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the [Department] of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or 27