6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Code together with its implementing rules and regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case. x x x. By our laws, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be terminated for a just or authorized cause and after compliance with procedural due process requirements. (Citations omitted.) Since respondent's Employment Contract was executed in the Philippines on February 3, 2003, Philippine Constitution and labor laws governed respondent's employment with petitioners and SAENCO. An employee's right to security of tenure, protected by the Constitution and statutes, means that no employee shall be dismissed unless there are just or authorized causes and only after compliance with procedural and substantive due process. A lawful dismissal by an employer must meet both substantive and procedural requirements; in fine, the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary due process of notice and hearing.[44] It is undisputed that when respondent was dismissed from employment and repatriated to the Philippines in June 2004, her original six-month Employment Contract with SAENCO had already expired. Per the plain language of respondent's Employment Contract with SAENCO, her employment would be enforced for the period of six months commencing on the date respondent departed from the Philippines, and extendible by another six months by mutual agreement of the parties. Since respondent left for South Korea on September 6, 2003, the original six-month period of her Employment Contract ended on March 5, 2004. Although respondent's employment with SAENCO was good for six months only (i.e., September 6, 2003 to March 5, 2004) as stated in the Employment Contract, the Court is convinced that it was extended under the same terms and conditions for another six months (i.e., March 6, 2004 to September 5, 2004). Respondent and petitioners submitted evidence establishing that respondent continued to work for SAENCO in Ulsan, South Korea even after the original six-month period under respondent's Employment Contract expired on March 5, 2004. Ideally, the extension of respondent's employment should have also been reduced into writing and submitted/reported to the appropriate Philippine labor authorities. Nonetheless, even in the absence of a written contract evidencing the six-month extension of respondent's employment, the same is practically admitted by petitioners, subject only to the defense that there is no proof of their knowledge of or participation in said extension and so they cannot be held liable for the events that transpired between respondent and SAENCO during the extension period. Petitioners presented nine vouchers to prove that respondent received her salaries from SAENCO for nine months. Petitioners also did not deny that petitioner Moldes, President of petitioner PTCPI, went to confront respondent about the latter's outstanding loan at the Seaman's Seven Club in Ulsan, South Korea in June 2004, thus, revealing that petitioners were aware that respondent was still working for SAENCO up to that time. Hence, respondent had been working for SAENCO in Ulsan, South Korea, pursuant to her Employment Contract, extended for another six-month period or until September 5, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 18/27