Anderson vs NLRC : 111212 : January 22, 1996 : J Mendoza : Second... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/111212.htm The rule is that an employee cannot be dismissed except for cause as provided by law (i.e., [12] If an employee is Labor Code, Arts. 282-283) and only after due notice and hearing. dismissed without cause, he has a right to be reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other [13] privileges and to be paid full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits. If he is dismissed without notice and hearing, although for a just cause, he will be entitled to the [14] payment of indemnity. If the contract is for a fixed term and the employee is dismissed without just cause, he is [15] entitled to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract. In this case, as petitioners contract was for two years and his dismissal was not for a just cause, he is entitled to be paid his salary for 15 months corresponding the balance of the contract. The grant to him of a termination pay under his employment contract may be considered indemnity for his dismissal without prior notice and hearing. As the POEA found, petitioners salary should be US$525.00, as determined in the exit permit granted to petitioner, and not US$320.00 as paid to him by private respondents. It follows that the termination pay to be given to him, which is equivalent to one month for every year of service, must also be increased by US$205.00 as petitioner was paid only US$320.00. WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is SET ASIDE and that of the POEA Administrator is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner should be paid the additional amount of US$205.00 representing the difference between the amount paid as termination pay and his actual monthly salary. SO ORDERED. Regalado (Chairman), Romero and Puno, JJ., concur. [1] [2] [3] Rollo, p. 38. Rollo, p. 42. Rollo, p. 49. [4] Hernandez v. NLRC, 176 SCRA 269 (1989); Manila Midtown Commercial Corp. v. Nuwhrain, 159 SCRA 212 (1988). [5] [6] [7] Gatmaitan v. MRR, 21 SCRA 191 (1967). See Aurelio v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 432 (1993); San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, 180 SCRA 281 (1989). Cf. A.M. Oreta & Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 176 SCRA 218 (1989). [8] Bristol Laboratories Employees Association v. NLRC, 187 SCRA 118(1990); Columbia Development Corp. v. DOLE, 146 SCRA 421 (1986) and Haverton Shipping Limited v. NLRC, 135 SCRA 685 (1985). [9] Haverton Shipping Ltd. v. NLRC, supra note 8. [10] [11] [12] 5 of 6 Supra note 8. Supra note 8. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Bk V. Rule XIV, 1. 1/20/2016 7:54 PM