Tierra International Const. Corp vs NLRC : 101825 : April 2, 1996 : J... 3 of 5 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/101825.htm the decision of the POEA and ordered petitioners to pay private respondents salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contracts, in addition to the salaries ordered paid to them by the POEA. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but their motion was denied on April 19, 1991 for lack of merit. Hence this petition. Petitioners contend that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and/or acted in excess of its jurisdiction by (1) deciding the wrong issue of the case; (2) not considering the evidence presented; (3) rendering a decision which is not supported by substantial evidence; and (4) rendering a decision not based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties. The question in this case boils down to whether private respondents were dismissed because they had been required to dig canals and haul construction materials and they refused to do so, or whether they had simply been asked to do housekeeping chores which they refused to do because they thought it was menial work and beneath their dignity to do. Petitioners claim that the NLRC assumed that private respondents had been required to do work other than that for which they were hired, which was contrary to the finding of the POEA that the allegations that they [private respondents] were required, in addition to their regular jobs, to perform work which were not in any way connected with their jobs, was not supported even by a single evidence. Petitioners argue that the decision of the POEA was not based on the provision of employment contract giving the company the power to assign any employee to some other type of work of which he is capable but on two documents submitted, (1) the letter-report of the companys Site Administration Officer and (2) the termination notices given to private respondents which they did not dispute. As the Solicitor General states, the burden of proving that private respondents had been dismissed for cause was on petitioners, as employers. While it is true that in the letter-report dated January 27, 1989 of the Site Administration Officer it was stated that private respondents had been merely asked to do some housekeeping around their work area as they will not have something to do for the day, we think the NLRC correctly found that what they had actually been ordered to do was to dig canals and haul construction materials. First, as private respondents stated in their Position Paper: If it were mere HOUSEKEEPING CHORES, they would not have refused specially if they were not then performing their respective jobs. Everybody knows that it is difficult to secure a job in the Philippines for abroad and, if one has a job in the Philippines, one would find difficulty sustaining the needs of the family because the salary is insignificant compared to the high cost of living and prices. That is why the job with the respondents is welcome. Complainant Cruz stands to receive the equivalent of more than P8,000.00 a month, while complainant Cario stands to receive the equivalent of more than P 10,500.00 a month, excluding overtime pay. . . . They would have willingly performed the simple housekeeping chores, even if they know that this is not covered by their employment contracts, merely to keep their jobs. BUT SUCH WAS NOT THE CASE. In addition to their regular jobs, they were required to perform different and completely foreign jobs not called for in their contract of employment. When they refused to do these heavy, grievous and oppressive works, their services were unlawfully terminated. Second, petitioners own counsel, in denying respondents demand for the payment of salaries for the balance of their contracts, invoked paragraphs I (b) and XIII (b)(1) of the contracts which provided: Paragraph 1(b): 1/20/2016 9:05 PM