PI Manpower Placements Inc vs NLRC : 97369 : July 31, 1997 : J. M... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/97369.htm Worker Agreement and the travel exit pass (TEP) show LPJ Enterprises to be the local deploying agent of private respondent. Denying it was guilty of misrepresentation, petitioner claims that Cuenta read the documents before he left for abroad. Petitioner disputes the NLRCs assessment that reprocessing of applications was evil and asserts that agencies, like itself, which refer applicants to other agencies for employment, help reduce unemployment in the country. Petitioner maintains that its suspension for four months should be sufficient to answer for its misrepresentation or for whatever indiscretions it may have committed in the use of its license. The petition has no merit. The facts of this case amply support the NLRCs findings that Cuenta was not dismissed for cause and that petitioner was privy to Cuentas contract of employment by taking an active part in the latters recruitment, justifying thereby the finding that petitioner is jointly and solidarily liable with LPJ Enterprises and Al-Jindan. First. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid grounds for dismissal rests upon the employer.[8] Considering this rule and the evidence of petitioner, particularly the telegram sent by Cuentas foreign employer to Danny Alonzo, we find no reason to disturb the NLRCs findings that Cuenta was denied a hearing before he was dismissed from employment. In fact, petitioner does not deny that private respondent was asked to leave his job without any notice and investigation at all. The telegram[9] claimed to have been sent by Mohd Abu Dawood, general manager of Al Jindan, has no probative value to prove just cause for Cuentas dismissal. There is no proof of its due execution and no concrete evidence to support its contents. It does not prove the charge that Cuenta was a dangerous person who carried deadly weapon to work and who failed to meet the minimum requirements set by his employer. Petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove its allegations. Nor is there any merit in petitioners claim that private respondent was a probationary employee who could be dismissed any time. Private respondent was an employee hired for a fixed term whose employment was to end only at the expiration of the period stipulated in his contract.[10] But even if he was a probationary employee, he is nonetheless entitled to constitutional protection of security of tenure that no worker shall be dismissed except for cause provided by law[11] and after due process.[12] Second. Cuenta was accepted for immediate deployment. This is shown by the following undisputed facts: Rivera wrote a letter to the Bureau of Land Transportation to facilitate the processing of Cuentas papers, received from the latter the P3,000.00 as partial payment of the required fees, and the P7,080.00 balance thereof, signed the order of payment accepting the partial payment made by him and approving Cuentas application for processing, and delivered to Cuenta his employment and travel documents at the airport.[13] As pointed out by the Solicitor General, certain circumstances in this case such as the fact that Rivera sent Cuenta a letter informing him that an employer was asking for his (Cuentas) employment papers as soon as possible and the issuance by petitioner of the order of payment showing that Cuentas papers were approved for processing indicate that Rivera indeed recruited Cuenta within the meaning of the Labor Code, which defines recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not . . .[14] Petitioner does not question these facts attributed to Rivera. Instead, it avers that Rivera acted in her personal capacity and denies that it received the money paid by private respondent. Petitioner claims that its general manager did not approve the order of payment because no position was available to accommodate private respondents application. This is a self serving claim. The mere fact that the order of payment was not signed by petitioners general manager does not prove that petitioner did not receive the money paid by 3 of 6 1/24/2016 9:50 PM