In a Decision dated May 14, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that:
"A careful reading of the instant petition would disclose that it involves disputed facts, which are improper in certiorari. Petitioner corporation banks on
the irreconcilability of the labor arbiter’s finding that there was illegal dismissal, as opposed to the NLRC’s finding of pre-termination of contract. To the
mind of this Court, however, the fact remains that petitioner corporation was not able to prove that private respondents’ dismissal was for just, valid or
authorized causes. It was not able to prove before either the labor arbiter or the NLRC, its allegation that Shin Kwan Enterprise Co., Ltd. is a subcontractor of Formosa Plastics Corporation, or that St. Pronto is the management comptroller of Formosa Plastics Corporation. We are not bound, and
cannot take judicial cognizance of the statements in the Order of the POEA dated 01 December 1998, banked upon by petitioner corporation. There
must be an independent proof of the same, and it behooves upon petitioner corporation to prove that both the labor arbiter and NLRC’s rulings were
attended with grave abuse of discretion to warrant issuance of the writ prayed for. Moreover, if Shin Kwan Enterprises Co., Ltd. is indeed a legitimate
sub-contractor of Formosa Plastics Corporation, this Court wonders why there would be a need ‘x x x to find ways how (private respondents) can be
absorbed by Shin Kwan and be given another job that would best suit their best qualifications x x x’ and why there was a need to ‘persuade Shin Kwan
to take them (private respondents)’. Moreover, the Report dated 19 May 1997 to Mr. Armando Fernandez about the complaint of fifteen OFWs, private
respondents, inter alia, against JSS Indochina was not attached to the petition.
Under the fifth paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the ‘Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,’ ‘(i)n
case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.’
Petitioner corporation, having failed to prove that private respondents’ dismissal was for just, valid or authorized causes, it must necessarily be
adjudged liable under the above Section 10 of RA 8042, in solidum with principal, Formosa Plastics Corporation."
On June 5, 2002, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution dated November 21, 2002.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner’s grievance is that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in affirming the NLRC’s Resolutions finding that respondents were illegally dismissed
from work and are entitled to an award representing their three (3) months salary and a refund of placement fee.
The sole legal issue for our Resolution is whether respondents were illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner.
There is no question that petitioner violated its contract with respondents. As found by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Appellate Court,
petitioner did not assign them as construction workers for Formosa Plastics Corporation. Instead, they were directed to work as cable tray/pipe tract
workers at Shin Kwan Enterprise Co., Ltd.
The Labor Arbiter found that respondents’ "decision to resign from their employment were made by force of circumstances not attributable to their own
fault," and "it was not their fault that they were left out from among those workers who were considered for employment by the foreign employer."
Likewise, the NLRC held that respondents’ "decision to go home to the Philippines was justified in view of the evident breach of contract" by
petitioner, as "it clearly appeared that upon their arrival at the jobsite, there was no employer on hand." Clearly, both labor tribunals correctly
concluded, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that they were forced to resign and to pre-terminate their employment contracts in view of petitioner’s
breach of their provisions. Undoubtedly, the termination of respondents’ services is without just or valid cause.
Section 10 of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, provides:
"SECTION 10. Money Claims. — x x x
xxx
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law orcontract, the worker shall be entitled
to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
x x x x x x."
Verily, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, respondents who were unjustly dismissed from work are actually entitled to an amount representing
their three (3) months salary considering that their employment contract has a term of exactly one (1) year; plus a full refund of their placement fee,
with no ceiling, with interest at 12% per annum.
In Olarte vs. Nayona,6 we ordered petitioner Olarte to pay respondent Nayona, an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, an amount
corresponding to her 3 months salary and to reimburse her placement fee ofP23,000.00, with legal interest of 12% per annum.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 14, 2002 and Resolution dated November 21, 2002 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51114 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.