Agoy vs NLRC : 112096 : January 30, 1996 : J Francisco : Third Division 3 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/112096.htm Foreman, was later asked by respondent Al-Khodari to sign a new contract at a reduced salary rate of SR1,200.00 or suffer termination and repatriation. Complainants refusal to sign the new contract eventually resulted in his dismissal from employment on March 26, 1990. After being paid the remaining balance of his salary, petitioner executed a Final Settlement4 releasing respondent Al-Khodari from all claims and liabilities. On April 5, 1990, petitioner received a letter dated April 2, 1990 with subject Termination of Services Within the Probation Period5 which he was forced to sign and consent to. Petitioner was finally repatriated to Manila on April 6, 1990. Thereafter, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for payment of salary for the unexpired portion of his contract, salary differential and damages against respondents Eureka and Al-Khodari. Denying petitioners claim of illegal dismissal, respondent Eureka alleged that petitioner was actually hired by respondent Al-Khodari only as Road Foreman with a monthly salary of SR1,750.00 equivalent to $460.00 because petitioner failed to qualify as Road Engineer during his interview. Moreover, according to respondent Eureka, upon request of petitioner, respondent Al-Khodari gave petitioner two chances to qualify for the position of Road Engineer, both of which he failed. As petitioner refused to work as a Road Foreman, Al-Khodari terminated his services in accordance with paragraph 14 of the contract stipulating that the employer has the right to dismiss the employee during the probationary period. Respondent agency maintained that petitioner made no objection to his dismissal as evidenced by the Final Settlement that he executed and the Letter of Termination dated April 2, 1990 to which he affixed his signature.6 In its decision dated April 10, 1991, the POEA dismissed petitioners complaint after finding that the evidence on record clearly indicated that petitioner himself voluntarily consented to his termination and repatriation. It also found as self-serving and hardly credible petitioners allegation that he was merely forced by his employer to indicate agreed to his notice of termination, absent any clear and convincing proof to corroborate the same. Moreover, the POEA upheld respondent employers right to dismiss petitioner within the probationary period on the ground that he failed to meet its performance standard.7 Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the POEA and held private respondents liable for illegal dismissal. According to the NLRC, petitioners termination from service during the probationary period has no factual and legal basis on account of the following: x x x In the first place, it was not proven what are the standards being used to determine the performance of the complainant as not satisfactory. Secondly, there is a presumption that complainant is qualified to the position since he was hired by Eureka and interviewed by a representative of Al-Khodari. Thirdly, complainant should have passed the necessary trade test, or else, he will not be hired. All these show that complainant possessed all the qualifications to the job and in the absence of showing how he really failed to the standards required to the position, the act of relegating him to a lower position with a lower salary other than what is provided for in the contract is considered already as illegal dismissal.8 The NLRC also ruled that contrary to the findings of the POEA, petitioner was forced to resign and execute all the necessary documents for his repatriation as he was helpless in a foreign land because of threats to his freedom or life in case he disagreed with his employer. Thus, the NLRC declared as a nullity all documents releasing respondents from all liabilities and claims for not having been voluntarily executed by petitioner, and held respondents liable for the sum of SR39,674.00 representing petitioners unpaid salaries under his contract.9 As earlier mentioned, both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration with private respondents assailing the reversal of the POEAs decision, while petitioner, not content with the monetary award granted by the NLRC, further claimed salary differentials, overtime pay, moral damages, temperate damages, exemplary damages, nominal damages, refund of placement fees, attorneys fees, cost of suit, fines for alleged illegal exaction, misrepresentation 1/20/2016 8:48 PM