4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly NLRC be vacated and another one be issued dismissing the complaint of the respondent. Finding no grave abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the Decision of the labor tribunal. The Court’s Ruling The following are the assignment of errors presented before this Court: I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SECOND CONTRACT NOVATED THE FIRST CONTRACT. A. THERE WAS NO NOVATION OF THE FIRST CONTRACT BY THE SECOND CONTRACT; THE ALLEGATION OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL UNDER THE FIRST CONTRACT MUST BE RESOLVED SEPARATELY FROM THE ALLEGATION OF FAILURE TO DEPLOY UNDER THE SECOND CONTRACT. B. THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL DISMISSAL UNDER THE FIRST CONTRACT TRANSPIRED MORE THAN THREE (3) YEARS AFTER THE CASE WAS FILED AND THEREFORE HIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR BEING BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION. II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL UNDER THE SECOND CONTRACT. A. IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL WHEN THE EMPLOYMENT HAS NOT YET COMMENCED. B. ASSUMING THERE WAS OMISSION UNDER THE SECOND CONTRACT, PETITIONERS CAN ONLY BE FOUND AS HAVING FAILED IN DEPLOYING PRIVATE RESPONDENT BUT WITH VALID REASON. III. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT EVEN ASSUMING THERE WAS BASIS FOR HOLDING PETITIONER LIABLE FOR “FAILURE TO DEPLOY” RESPONDENT, THE POEA RULES PENALIZES SUCH OMISSION WITH A MERE “REPRIMAND.”[18] The petitioners contend that the first employment contract between them and the private respondent is different from and independent of the second contract elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32800 4/11