6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Superintendent in the field of Civil Engineering, he being a Civil Engineering graduate with vast experience in said field. He stresses that he was terminated because of a "discipline mismatch" as his employer actually needed a Mechanical (Engineer) Superintendent, not a Civil Engineer. In addition, Dagasdas insists that he did not voluntarily back out from his work. If not for the discipline mismatch, he could have performed his job as was expected of him. He also denies that the new employment contract he signed while in Saudi Arabia was more advantageous to him since the basic salary and allowance stipulated therein are just the same with that in his Job Offer. He argues that the new contract was even disadvantageous because it was inserted therein that he still had to undergo probationary status for three months. Finally, Dagasdas contends that the new contract he signed while in Saudi Arabia was void because it was not approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). He also claims that CA should have closely examined his quitclaim because he only signed it to afford his plane ticket for his repatriation. On the other hand, GPGS maintains that Dagasdas was fully aware that he applied for and was accepted as Network Technician. It also stresses that it was Dagasdas hirnself who decided to accept from ITM a new job offer when he arrived in Saudi Arabia. It further declares that Dagasdas' quitclaim is valid as there is no showing that he was compelled to sign it. Issue Was Dagasdas validly dismissed from work? Our Ruling The Petition is with merit. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, this rule allows certain exceptions, including a situation where the findings of fact of the courts or tribunals below are conflicting.[35] In this case, the CA and the NLRC arrived at divergent factual findings anent Dagasdas' termination. As such, the Court deems it necessary to re-examine these findings and determine whether the CA has sufficient basis to annul the NLRC Decision, and set aside its finding that Dagasdas was illegally dismissed from work. Moreover, it is well-settled that employers have the prerogative to impose standards on the work quantity and quality of their employees and provide measures to ensure compliance therewith. Non-compliance with work standards may thus be a valid cause for dismissing an employee. Nonetheless, to ensure that employers will not abuse their prerogatives, the same is tempered by security of tenure whereby the employees are guaranteed substantive and procedural due process before they are dismissed from work.[36] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 5/12