1/5/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
requirements for his clearance in the last week of February 2014. On March 15, 2014,
petitioner was given his remaining salary (sans 1-month salary) and a refund of his two
months' salary bond. He was then told to book his own flight back to the Philippines
and that he would be reimbursed later on. However, of the SR3,100.00 that he spent
for the airfare, Al-Adhamain's owner only reimbursed him for SR2,000.00.[7]
Upon repatriation, petitioner filed a complaint for actual illegal dismissal with claims for
underpaid overtime pay, unpaid salaries, and transportation expenses, termination pay,
damages, and attorney's fees against respondents.[8]
Respondents averred that petitioner was validly dismissed because of his poor
performance. After petitioner's three-month probationary period, Al-Adhamain informed
him of his unsatisfactory performance. Petitioner was thus transferred to a different site
to afford him a chance to change his working attitude. They claimed that petitioner was
given several chances to change his work attitude to no avail. Despite extending
several opportunities for petitioner to improve, petitioner opted to request for his last
salary, benefits, termination pay, and return ticket. Lastly, respondents alleged that
they complied with the notice and hearing requirement before terminating petitioner's
employment.[9]
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On March 30, 2015, the LA rendered a Decision[10] finding petitioner illegally
dismissed.
The LA rejected respondents' claim that petitioner was dismissed for just cause. It
noted that respondents failed to produce any evidence supporting their claim.
Respondents failed to give any detail on how they measured petitioner's performance
to conclude that petitioner's work was unsatisfactory.[11]
The LA then granted petitioner's claim for refund of his SR2,300.00 placement fee due
to respondents' failure to rebut such claim. On the amount of unpaid salary, the LA
awarded petitioner 17.5 months' worth of salary because petitioner was only able to
work for six months and two weeks of his two-year contract. Petitioner's request for
refund of the excess airfare ticket of SR1,100.00 was likewise granted. Petitioner's
claims for overtime pay, moral damages, and exemplary damages were denied for lack
of evidence justifying the same.[12]
Aggrieved, respondents appealed the LA's decision with the NLRC.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
In its July 30, 2015 Resolution,[13] the NLRC affirmed the LA's Decision in toto.
The NLRC found petitioner illegally dismissed because of respondents' unsubstantiated
claim of petitioner's poor performance. The NLRC reiterated this Court's ruling that poor
performance, equivalent to inefficiency under Article 282[14] of the Labor Code, must
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65786
2/10