EMS Manpower & Placement Services vs NLRC : 107723 : July 24, 1...
2 of 3
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/107723.htm
pay complainant the peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of the following:
1. FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND HONG KONG DOLLARS (HK$55,000.00) as her
salaries for the unexpired portion of her contract;
2. Five (5%) per centum of the total award, as and by way of attorneys fees.
The claims for moral and exemplary damages are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied in the resolution of October 26,
1992, the instant petition was filed.
The lone issue for resolution is whether Luisa Manuel was illegally dismissed or if her
termination was for a just and valid cause.
We see no reason to depart from the NLRCs decision. Not only is it supported by the facts
and the law, but there is also no showing that it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
The assailed judgment must be affirmed and the petition, consequently, dismissed.
EMS argues that Yee was justified in pre-terminating Luisas employment due to the fact that
the latter apparently hit her employers child, as evidenced by a photocopy of a telex[7] allegedly
transmitted by the latter herself. This action supposedly constituted serious misconduct under
Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended,[8] and misconduct under Clause 12(b-ii)[9] of the
employment contract. Even assuming arguendo that Luisas act does not fall within the ambit of
said Clause 12(b-ii), her termination would still be valid in accordance with Clause 12(a).[10]
These contentions are not persuasive. As correctly ruled by the NLRC, the telex could hardly
be recognized as sufficient, let alone substantial evidence of Luisas purported misconduct. It
was a single document, totally uncorroborated and easily concocted or fabricated to suit ones
personal interest and purpose. The best supporting evidence would have been a statement from
the childs teacher who allegedly witnessed the incident, but none was presented. In the same
manner, the affidavit[11] of a certain Nestor M. Palomar, to the effect that he used to meet fellow
domestic helper Luisa at the Center Square Garden in August 1989, thereby debunking the
latters claims that Yee prevented her from congregating with other Filipinos, is at best hearsay
evidence because Palomar was not presented to testify at the POEA hearings, even though he
was available.
This Court is convinced that Luisa was dismissed from her employment without any valid or
just cause, in contravention of her security of tenure, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the
Labor Code, as amended. Under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Charter, (t)he State shall afford full
protection to labor, local and overseas, and all workers shall be entitled to security of tenure. In
basically the same tenor, the Labor Code provides in Article 279 that (i)n cases of regular
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by this Title (on termination of employment).
Finally, contrary to the claim of EMS that there was no illegal dismissal in the case at bar
because Yee adequately complied with the employment contract by paying Luisa a one-month
separation pay in lieu of notice and shouldering her repatriation expenses, suffice it to say that
said contract is not in conformity with our laws inasmuch as it failed to stipulate the just causes
for the termination of the contract or of the service of the workers, as mandated by Section
14(e), Rule V, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed
decision of November 29, 1991, and resolution of October 28, 1992, of the National Labor
Relations Commission are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
1/24/2016 9:32 PM