6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
326 Phil. 640
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 104215, May 08, 1996 ]
ERECTORS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, HON. JULIO ANDRES, JR. AND FLORENCIO BURGOS,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Petitioner Erectors, Inc. challenges the jurisdiction of respondent Labor Arbiter Julio F.
Andres, Jr. to hear and decide the complaint[1] for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of overtime pay filed by private respondent Florencio Burgos, an overseas
contract worker.
The facts are undisputed:
In September 1979, petitioner recruited private respondent to work as service contract
driver in Saudi Arabia for a period of twelve (12) months with a salary of US$165.00
and an allowance of US$165.00 per month. They further agreed that private
respondent shall be entitled to a bonus of US$ 1,000.00 if after the 12-month period,
he renews or extends his employment contract without availing of his vacation or home
leave. Their contract dated September 20, 1979, was duly approved by the Ministry of
Labor and Employment.
The aforesaid contract was not implemented. In December, 1979, petitioner notified
private respondent that the position of service driver was no longer available. On
December 14, 1979, they executed another contract which changed the position of
private respondent into that of helper/laborer with a salary of US$105.00 and an
allowance of US$105.00 per month. The second contract was not submitted to the
Ministry of Labor and Employment for approval.
On December 18, 1979, private respondent left the country and worked at petitioner's
Buraidah Sports Complex project in Saudi Arabia, performing the job of a
helper/laborer. He received a monthly salary and allowance of US$210.00, in
accordance with the second contract. Private respondent renewed his contract of
employment after one year. His salary and allowance were increased to US$231.00.
Private respondent returned to the Philippines on August 24, 1981. He then invoked his
first employment contract. He demanded from the petitioner the difference between his
salary and allowance as indicated in the said contract, and the amount actually paid to
him, plus the contractual bonus which should have been awarded to him for not
availing of his vacation or home leave credits. Petitioner denied private respondent's
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33758
1/7