6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly an employee. Article 65(4) thereof indicated that the employer could terminate the employment without notice by simply paying the employee a severance pay computed on the basis of the period within which the notice should have been given.[50] The employee under the ESA could be immediately dismissed without giving him the opportunity to explain and defend himself. The provisions of the ESA are patently inconsistent with the right to security of tenure. Both the Constitution[51] and the Labor Code[52] provide that this right is available to any employee. In a host of cases, the Court has upheld the employee's right to security of tenure in the face of oppressive management behavior and management prerogative. Security of tenure is a right which cannot be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and nebulous basis.[53] Not only do these provisions collide with the right to security of tenure, but they also deprive the employee of his constitutional right to due process by denying him of any notice of termination and the opportunity to be heard.[54] Glaringly, these disadvantageous provisions under the ESA produce the same evils which the Court vigorously sought to prevent in the cases of Pakistan International and Sameer Overseas. Thus, the Court concurs with the CA that the ESA is not applicable in this case as it is against our fundamental and statutory laws. In fine, as the petitioners failed to meet all the four (4) requisites on the applicability of a foreign law, then the Philippine labor laws must govern the overseas employment contract of Arriola. No authorized cause for dismissal was proven Article 279 of our Labor Code has construed security of tenure to mean that the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by law.[55] Concomitant to the employer's right to freely select and engage an employee is the employer's right to discharge the employee for just and/or authorized causes. To validly effect terminations of employment, the discharge must be for a valid cause in the manner required by law. The purpose of these two-pronged qualifications is to protect the working class from the employer's arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of its right to dismiss.[56] Some of the authorized causes to terminate employment under the Labor Code would be installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses and the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking.[57] Each authorized cause has specific requisites that must be proven by the employer with substantial evidence before a dismissal may be considered valid. Here, the petitioners assert that the economy of Madagascar weakened due to the global financial crisis. Consequently, SNC-Lavalin's business also slowed down. To prove its sagging financial standing, SNC-Lavalin presented a copy of a news item in the Financial Post, dated March 5, 2009. They insist that SNC-Lavalin had no choice but to minimize its expenditures and operational expenses.[58] In addition, the petitioners elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61749 12/16