Previous 11 / 12 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [38] CONSTITUTION, Article XIII. Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. [39] Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, G.R. No. 205703, March 7, 2016. [40] LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPiNES, Amended and Renumbered, July 21, 2015. [41] CA rollo, p. 70. [42] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Article 1306. The contracting parties muy establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they arc not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. (1255a) [43] Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, supra note 36 at 46. [44] Id. [45] Article 18. Ban on Direct-Hiring. - No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps, international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision. (Labor Code of the Philippines, Amended & Renumbered, July 21, 2015.) [46] Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, supra note 39. [47] Datuman v. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc., 591 Phil. 662, 673-674 (2008). [48] EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 563 Phil. 1, 28-29 (2007). [49] Universal Staffing Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 581 Phil. 199, 209-210 (2008). [50] Id. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 11/12

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rutcher T. Dagasdas vs. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation, G.R. No. 205727, January 18, 2017

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 205727

Division: PH Supreme Court First Division

Date of decision: Ene 18, 2017

Year of decision: 2017

Nature of the case: TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

MRO Case Type

2-notice rule in valid dismissal proceedings
Appeal to the NLRC
Breach of contract
Contract substitution is prohibited
Grounds for dismissal
Illegal dismissal
Interpretation of overseas employment contract
Joint and solidary liability of agency and employer
Management prerogatives and security of tenure of OFWs
Money claims
Release, waiver and quitclaim
Termination of employment

Summary of outcome: The Court ruled in favor of Dagasdas. It found that prior to his deployment, Dagasdas was made to sign a POEA-approved contract with GPGS, on behalf of ITM. However, upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, ITM made him sign a new employment contract (which became the basis for his dismissal).

ITM failed to show that it set and communicated work standards for Dagasdas to follow, and on which his efficiency (or lack thereof) would be determined.

The Court also ruled that the new contract was void and in clear violation of Dagasdas' right to security of tenure.

The new contract was not shown to have been processed through the POEA. It breached Dagasdas' original contract as it was entered into even before the expiration of the original contract approved by the POEA. The Court declared that its terms and conditions, including reserving in favor of the employer the right to terminate an employee without notice during the probationary period, were void.

Dagasdas was likewise not afforded procedural due process when he was dismissed from work. There was no prior notice of the purported infraction. He was not given any opportunity to explain on any accusation made against him. He was simply given a notice of termination. The twin-notice requirement was not complied with.

Lastly, although Dagasdas executed a quitclaim, the same did not preclude him from filing the suit. GPGS and ITM failed to show that Dagasdas had indeed voluntarily waived his claims against the employer.

Observatory: Migrant Workers Rights

Affected Sector

Migrant Worker / Former Migrant Worker

Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.

Combined geolocations

Latitude: 14.57223

Longitude: 120.99233

: Geolocation 1Geolocation 2Geolocation 3

Primary Documents

2017Rutcher T. Dagasdas vs. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation_january.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Rutcher T. Dagasdas vs. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation, G.R. No. 205727, January 18, 2017

Primary Documents

Notifications