6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly e) Twelve (12) days vacation leave with pay; and f) Attorney’s fees of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). SO ORDERED.[12] Issues Hence, this appeal, whereby Centro Project submits that the AE categorically fixed the period of stay of Naluis; and that even the primary Employment Contract clearly set the date for its expiration. Naluis counters that the handwritten date of May 3, 1998 was inserted in the primary Employment Contract only after he had signed it, as distinguished from all other stipulations that had been typewritten. Did the expiration date contained in the AE issued by the Department of Labor and Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands validly cut short Naluis’ stay and thus justified the pre-termination of his work? Ruling of the Court The appeal lacks merit. There is no dispute that Naluis did not complete the 12-month period stipulated in the primary Employment Contract. However, the NLRC concluded that Centro Project had been justified in repatriating him because the AE had stipulated a limit of stay for him. The NLRC thereby relied on a loose interpretation of the AE and the primary Employment Contract. In finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in so concluding, the CA observed that: x x x the document upon which the employer predicated its action to terminate and repatriate the petitioner i.e., the Authorization of Entry issued by the immigration authorities of CNMI does not appear to limit the employee’s stay in the said country. The authorization upon its face simply shows that the person to whom it is issued should enter CNMI not later than May 13, 1998 as a general rule or, if he is an employee, not later than three months from its issuance. We submit that an authorization of entry is different from a limitation of stay in the country visited, which is not indicated in any of the documents submitted by the respondent.[13] We concur with the CA. The burden of proof to show that the employment contract had been validly terminated pertained to the employer.[14] To discharge its burden, the employer must rely on the strength of its own evidence. However, Centro Project’s reliance on the AE limiting Naluis’ stay was unwarranted, and, worse, it did not discharge its burden of proof as the employer to show that Naluis’ repatriation had been justified. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60923 3/8