6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Based on the foregoing, there is no clear justification for the dismissal of Dagasdas other than the exercise of ITM's right to terminate him within the probationary period. While our Civil Code recognizes that parties may stipulate in their contracts such terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, these terms and conditions must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or policy.[42] The above-cited clause is contrary to law because as discussed, our Constitution guarantees that employees, local or overseas, are entitled to security of tenure. To allow employers to reserve a right to terminate employees without cause is violative of this guarantee of security of tenure. Moreover, even assuming that Dagasdas was still a probationary employee when he was terminated, his dismissal must still be with a valid cause. As regards a probationary employee, his or her dismissal may be allowed only if there is just cause or such reason to conclude that the employee fails to qualify as regular employee pursuant to reasonable standards made known to the employee at the time of engagement.[43] Here, ITM failed to prove that it informed Dagasdas of any predetermined standards from which his work will be gauged.[44] In the contract he signed while still in the Philippines, Dagsadas was employed as Network Technician; on the other hand, his new contract indicated that he was employed as Superintendent. However, no job description - or such duties and responsibilities attached to either position - was adduced in evidence. It thus means that the job for which Dagasdas was hired was not definite from the beginning. Indeed, Dagasdas was not sufficiently informed of the work standards for which his performance will be measured. Even his position based on the job title given him was not fully explained by his employer. Simply put, ITM failed to show that it set and communicated work standards for Dagasdas to follow, and on which his efficiency (or the lack thereof) may be determined. Second, the new contract was not shown to have been processed through the POEA. Under our Labor Code, employers hiring OFWs may only do so through entities authorized by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment.[45] Unless the employment contract of an OFW is processed through the POEA, the same does not bind the concerned OFW because if the contract is not reviewed by the POEA, certainly the State has no means of determining the suitability of foreign laws to our overseas workers.[46] This new contract also breached Dagasdas' original contract as it was entered into even before the expiration of the original contract approved by the POEA. Therefore, it cannot supersede the original contract; its terms and conditions, induding reserving in favor of the employer the right to terminate an employee without notice during the probationary period, are void.[47] Third, under this new contract, Dagasdas was not afforded procedural due process elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 7/12