6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Adjudication Office of the POEA.
Private respondent asseverates that he bad been terminated pursuant to the provision
of Section 1 (d) of the employment agreement which refers to termination of an
employee who is unqualified. He maintains that such ground for termination did not
exist in his case and, thus, his dismissal was without cause.[5]
On January 24, 1984, the POEA Administrator rendered the assailed Decision ordering
petitioners to pay private respondent medical compensation benefits in the amount of
U.S.$1,110.00 or its peso equivalent. Notwithstanding an explicit finding made in the
assailed Decision that "there can be no dispute that complainant could be terminated
for medical reasons," still petitioners were found to have failed to perform its obligation
to give private respondent his "daily allowance for each day of work disability, including
holidays."[6]
Believing that the POEA Administrator erred in finding them liable for private
respondent's medical compensation benefits, petitioners appealed to the NLRC. In a
Resolution[7] promulgated on March 25, 1986, the NLRC affirmed in toto the assailed
Decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Petitioners thus came to this Court on a petition for certiorari[8] seeking the voiding of
the Resolution of the NLRC. In the meantime, petitioners prayed that a temporary
restraining order be issued to enjoin the POEA from enforcing the assailed Resolution.
As prayed for, we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the POEA and the
NLRC from enforcing the assailed Resolution.[9]
On November 17, 1986, the Solicitor General filed a Comment "as his own, considering
that he is unable to agree with the position adopted by public respondent National
Labor Relations Commission."[10] The Solicitor General does not dispute private
complainant's entitlement, under Saudi Arabia law, to medical benefits corresponding
to the period of his physical incapacity. It is his position, however, that while payment
of said medical benefits is explicitly mandated by the Social Insurance Law of Saudi
Arabia,
"x x x the same law x x x is equally explicit that the liability decreed therein
devolves ‘at the General Organization's expense,’ and not on the employer of
the private respondent."[11]
Significantly, neither the private nor the public respondent has filed any pleading to
refute the aforementioned postulate of the Solicitor General.
Understandably, the sole error attributed to the NLRC and the POEA is that there is no
legal basis to require petitioners to pay private respondent medical compensation
benefits equal to 75% of his salaries for four (4) months.
Petitioners are correct.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33843
2/5