Tierra International Const. Corp vs NLRC : 101825 : April 2, 1996 : J...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/101825.htm
ordered to do which they refused to execute - whether to dig and excavate canals and to haul
bags of cement, cement pipes, heavy plumbing equipments and large electric cables, as they
claimed, or only to do household chores consisting of keeping the work place clean, as the
company alleges - is the question in this case. The fact is that private respondents refused to
work as ordered and for this, they were dismissed on January 28, 1989 and sent back to the
Philippines.
The company offered to pay the final fees representing their salaries from December 26,
1988 to January 28, 1989, but private respondents demanded as well the payment of their
salaries corresponding to the balance of their employment contracts. Private respondents made
their formal demand on petitioners on February 27, 1989, claiming that, in violation of their
contract of employment, they had been required to perform work not related to the jobs for which
they had been hired. As their demand was denied, private respondents filed on March 20, 1989
a complaint for illegal dismissal with the POEA. They sought recovery of unpaid salaries and
salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment contracts.
Private respondents alleged that they had been required by the company to dig and
excavate canals and to haul bags of cement and cement pipes, heavy plumbing equipment and
electric cables which was outside the work for which they had been recruited and that because
they refused to carry out their supervisors order, they were dismissed and immediately sent back
to the Philippines.
Petitioners denied the allegations of private respondents and claimed that the latters
dismissal was for cause. Petitioners claimed that, on January 27, 1989, private respondents
were merely requested by the plant supervisor, Terrance Filby, to do housekeeping job since
they were idle for the rest of the day. Because private respondents did not do what they had
been ordered to do, they were confronted by Filby. This led to an altercation between Filby and
private respondents. When brought before the project manager, private respondents allegedly
said that they refused to execute Filby s order because it involved doing the menial job of
cleaning up the mess. They allegedly said in the vernacular, Nakakahiya naman yatang
magpulot kami ng basura.1 According to petitioners, because private respondents were
unyielding, they were given three options: (1) apologize to their supervisors; (2) go back to work;
or (3) repatriation.2 Private respondents refused to go back to work and instead asked to be
repatriated. Accordingly, they were sent home on January 28, 1989.
The POEA dismissed private respondents claim that they had been required to do work
other than that for which they had been hired. The POEA said no evidence had been presented
to support this allegation. But finding that private respondents had not been paid their salaries, it
ordered petitioners as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay
complainants the following, in Philippine Currency at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of
payment:
Manuel S. Cruz - FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY ONE & 34/ 100 (US$551.34) US DOLLARS - representing
salaries for the period December 26, 1988 to January 28, 1989;
Raymundo G. Nepa - FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE and 46/100 US DOLLARS (US$559.46) representing salaries for the period December 26, 1988 to January 28, 1989;
Rolando F. Cario - SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY SIX and 48/100 (US$766.48) US DOLLARS representing salaries for the period December 26, 1988 to January 28, 1989.
Private respondents appealed to the NLRC. In its decision rendered on February 22, 1991,
the NLRC found private respondents to have been illegally dismissed. Accordingly, it modified
2 of 5
1/20/2016 9:05 PM