4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly As to seniority, at the time the notice of termination was given to him, Logarta’s employment was eight (8) months, clearly, he has not accumulated sufficient years to claim seniority. As to proof of claimed financial losses, the NLRC itself has recognized the drastic reduction of Petrocon’s work allocation, thereby necessitating the retrenchment of some of its employees.[30] As for the notice requirement, however, contrary to petitioner’s contention, proper notice to the DOLE within 30 days prior to the intended date of retrenchment is necessary and must be complied with despite the fact that respondent is an overseas Filipino worker. In the present case, although respondent was duly notified of his termination by Petrocon 30 days before its effectivity, no allegation or proof was advanced by petitioner to establish that Petrocon ever sent a notice to the DOLE 30 days before the respondent was terminated. Thus, this requirement of the law was not complied with. Also, petitioner’s contention that respondent freely consented to his dismissal is unsupported by substantial evidence. Respondent’s recourse of finding a new employer during the 30-day period prior to the effectivity of his dismissal and eventual return to the Philippines is but logical and reasonable under the circumstances. Faced with the eventuality of his termination from employment, it is understandable for respondent to seize the opportunity to seek for other employment and continue working in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, petitioner’s insistence that the case of Jariol v. IMS should be applied in the present case is untenable. Being a mere decision of the NLRC, it could not be considered as a precedent warranting its application in the case at bar. Suffice it to state that although Article 8 of the Civil Code[31] recognizes judicial decisions, applying or interpreting statutes as part of the legal system of the country, such level of recognition is not afforded to administrative decisions.[32] Anent the proper amount of separation pay to be paid to respondent, petitioner maintains that respondent was paid the appropriate amount as separation pay. However, a perusal of his Payroll Check Details,[33] clearly reveals that what he received was his compensation for the month prior to his departure, and hence, was justly due to him as his salary. Furthermore, the amounts which he received as his “End of Contract Benefit” and “Other Earning/Allowances: for July 1998”[34] form part of his wages/salary, as such, cannot be considered as constituting his separation pay. Verily, respondent is entitled to the payment of his separation pay. However, this Court disagrees with the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, that respondent should be paid his separation pay in accordance with the provision of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. A plain reading of the said provision clearly reveals that it applies only to an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker or a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause, the pertinent elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54674 8/11