1/5/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 234296, November 27, 2019 ]
ERNESTO P. GUTIERREZ, PETITIONER, VS. NAWRAS MANPOWER
SERVICES, INC., AL-ADHAMAIN CO. LTD., AND ELIZABETH BAWA,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CARANDANG, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision[2] dated March 20, 2017 and the Resolution[3] dated September
14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 143185. The CA affirmed the
National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Resolution and the Labor Arbiter's (LA)
Decision finding petitioner Ernesto P. Gutierrez entitled to (1) a refund of placement
fee; (2) salary for the unexpired portion of petitioner's contract; and (3) 10%
attorney's fees. However, the CA modified the awards granted to petitioner by reducing
the salary award from 40,250.00 Saudi Arabia Riyal (SR40,250.00) to SR13,800.00,
deleting petitioner's entitlement to a refund of the excess airfare paid for his
repatriation, and omitting the award of attorney's fees for lack of basis.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner is an Overseas Filipino Worker. He was hired by respondent NAWRAS
Manpower Services, Inc. (NAWRAS) to work as respondent Al Adhamain Co. Ltd.'s (AlAdhamain) "driver vehicle road" in Saudi Arabia for two years.[4] Petitioner was offered
a monthly salary of SR2,300.00.[5] According to petitioner, other perks include
SR300.00 food allowance, free accommodation, two hours' worth of daily overtime, and
a service vehicle. He was deployed to Saudi Arabia on July 31, 2013.[6]
Upon arrival, petitioner claimed that he was initially placed on floating status. He
received his first salary only in November 2013 and received two months' worth of
salary on December 2, 2013. He received a service vehicle on December 3, 2013 but
he had to personally shoulder the gasoline expenses going to Al-Adhamain's asphalt
plant. On February 15, 2014, the workshop supervisor informed petitioner that he
would be transferred to another site and was made to report to Al-Adhamain's
administrator. At the administrator's office, he was only given a clearance form. In a
meeting with Al-Adhamain's owner, petitioner was told that his contract would be
terminated and he would be repatriated as soon as petitioner completes his clearance.
Petitioner then called NAWRAS about the pre-termination of his contract but was
refrained from filing a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Labor Office in order to
allow NAWRAS to talk to Al-Adhamain. Petitioner thus proceeded to submit the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65786
1/10