4/20/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
412 Phil. 614
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 142314, June 28, 2001 ]
MC ENGINEERING, INC., AND HANIL DEVELOPMENT CORP., LTD.,
PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND ARISTOTLE BALDAMECA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking
the reversal of the Resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals dated December 27, 1999 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 56298 and its subsequent Resolution[2] dated March 3, 2000 denying
petitioners' motion for reconsideration thereto. The December 27, 1999 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' Petition for Certiorari[3] dated December 17,
1999 for failure to comply with the requirements regarding the certification of nonforum shopping and explanation of service by registered mail.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Hanil") is the overseas employer of
all contract workers deployed by petitioner MC Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter "MCEI")
under a Service Contract Agreement between the two petitioners. Contract workers
deployed by MCEI for Hanil for overseas work enter into an employment contract with
MCEI in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth by Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (hereinafter "POEA") Regulations and the Service Contract
Agreement between MCEI and Hanil[4].
On 18 September 1992, private respondent Aristotle Baldameca entered into an
Employment Agreement[5] with MCEI for deployment as a plumber in Tabuk, Saudi
Arabia. He commenced working for petitioner Hanil in Saudi Arabia on September 21,
1992. The contract was for a term of twelve (12) months.
For some reason, private respondent was not able to finish the full term of his contract
and he was repatriated back to Manila on January 19, 1993. On October 19, 1993,
private respondent filed a complaint with the POEA against petitioners for illegal
dismissal. In his complaint, private respondent prayed for the payment of his salaries
for the unexpired portion of his employment agreement and the reimbursement of his
airfare[6].
In March of 1996, the case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission
(hereinafter "NLRC") Arbitration Division as by then it was this agency which had
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52244
1/7