Previous 3 / 12 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly only a probationary employee since he worked for ITM for less than three months.[28] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On November 27, 2009, the LA dismissed the case for lack of merit. The LA pointed out that when Dagasdas signed his new employment contract in Saudi Arabia, he accepted its stipulations, including the fact that he had to undergo probationary status. She declared that this new contract was more advantageous for Dagasdas as his position was upgraded to that of a Superintendent, and he was likewise given an allowance of SR2,045.00 aside from his salary of SR5,112.00 per month. According to the LA, for being more favorable, this new contract was not prohibited by law. She also decreed that Dagasdas fell short of the expected work pe1formance; as such, his employer dismissed him as part of its management prerogative. Consequently, Dagasdas appealed to the NLRC. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission On March 29, 2010, the NLRC issued a Resolution finding Dagasdas' dismissal illegal. The decretal portion of the NLRC Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED, and the respondent[s] are hereby ordered to pay the complainant the salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract amounting to SR46,008 (SR5112 x 9 months, or from May 1, 2008 to January 31, 2009), plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees. The respondents are jointly and severally liable for the judgment awards, which are payable in Philippine currency converted on the basis of the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment. SO ORDERED.[29] The NLRC stated that Dagasdas, who was a Civil Engineering graduate, was "recruited on paper" by GPGS as Network Technician but the real understanding between the parties was to hire him as Superintendent. It held that GPGS erroneously recruited Dagasdas, and tailed to inform him that he was hired as a "Mechanical Superintendent" meant for a Mechanical Engineer. It declared that while ITM has the prerogative to continue the employment of individuals only if they were qualified, Dagasdas' dismissal amounted to illegal termination since the mismatch between his qualifications and the job given him was no fault of his. The NLRC added that Dagasdas should not be made to suffer the consequences of the miscommunication between GPGS and ITM considering that the government obligates employment agencies recruiting Filipinos for overseas work to "select only medically and technically qualified recruits."[30] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 3/12

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