6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In their Rejoinder,[13] the petitioners presented a copy of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) of Ontario, which was duly authenticated by the Canadian authorities and certified by the Philippine Embassy. The LA Ruling In a Decision,[14] dated May 31, 2010, the LA dismissed Arriola's complaint for lack of merit. The LA ruled that the rights and obligations among and between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the foreign employer/principal were governed by the employment contract pursuant to the EDI-Staffbuilders case. Thus, the provisions on termination of employment found in the ESA, a foreign law which governed Arriola's employment contract, were applied. Given that SNC-Lavalin was able to produce the duly authenticated ESA, the LA opined that there was no other conclusion but to uphold the validity of Arriola's dismissal based on Canadian law. The fallo of the LA decision reads: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[15] Aggrieved, Arriola elevated the LA decision before the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In its decision, dated November 30, 2010, the NLRC reversed the LA decision and ruled that Arriola was illegally dismissed by the petitioners. Citing PNB v. Cabansag,[16] the NLRC stated that whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoyed the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. Thus, the Labor Code of the Philippines and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers Act, as amended, should be applied. Moreover, the NLRC added that the overseas employment contract of Arriola was processed in the POEA. Applying the Philippine laws, the NLRC found that there was no substantial evidence presented by the petitioners to show any just or authorized cause to terminate Arriola. The ground of financial losses by SNC-Lavalin was not supported by sufficient and credible evidence. The NLRC concluded that, for being illegally dismissed, Arriola should be awarded CA$81,920.00 representing sixteen (16) months of Arriola's purported unpaid salary, pursuant to the Serrano v. Gallant[17] doctrine. The decretal portion of the NLRC decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding complainant-appellant to have been illegally dismissed. Respondentsappellees are hereby ordered to pay complainant-appellant the amount of CA$81,920.00, or its Philippine Peso equivalent prevailing at the time of payment. Accordingly, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated May 31, 2010 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61749 3/16