4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
THE 30-DAY NOTICE TO DOLE PRIOR TO RETRENCHMENT IS NOT
APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT
RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE DID NOT CONSENT TO HIS SEPARATION FROM
THE PRINCIPAL COMPANY.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT
JARIOL VS. IMS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT
RESPONDENT DID NOT RECEIVE THE SEPARATION PAY REQUIRED BY LAW.
[19]
Petitioner argues that the 30-day notice of termination, as required in Serrano v. NLRC,
[20] is not applicable in the case at bar, considering that respondent was in fact given
the 30-day notice. More importantly, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 nor its Implementing Rules do not require
the sending of notice to the DOLE, 30 days before the effectivity of a retrenchment of
an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) based on grounds under Article 283 of the Labor
Code.
Petitioner maintains that respondent has consented to his termination, since he raised
no objection to his retrenchment and actually sought another employer during his 30day notice of termination. Respondent even requested from Petrocon a No Objection
Certificate, which the latter granted to facilitate respondent’s application to other Saudi
Arabian employers.
Petitioner also posits that the CA should have applied the case of Jariol v. IMS[21] even
if the said case was only decided by the NLRC, a quasi-judicial agency. The said case
involved similar facts, wherein the NLRC categorically ruled that employers of OFWs are
not required to furnish the DOLE in the Philippines a notice if they intend to terminate a
Filipino employee.
Lastly, petitioner insists that respondent received his separation pay.
Moreover,
petitioner contends that Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 does not apply in the present
case, since the termination of respondent was due to a just, valid or authorized cause.
At best, respondent is only entitled to separation pay in accordance with Article 283 of
the Labor Code, i.e., one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every
year of service, whichever is higher.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54674
4/11