Asian Center for Career & Employment Services v NLRC & Ibno Mediales

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

ASIAN CENTER FOR CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM AND SERVICES, INC. (ACCESS), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and IBNO MEDIALES, respondents.

G.R. No. 131656
October 12, 1998

Facts:

petitioner hired respondent IBNO MEDIALES to work as a mason in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with a monthly salary of 1,200 Saudi Riyals (SR). The term of his contract was two (2) years, from February 28, 1995 until February 28, 1997. On May 26, 1996, respondent applied with petitioner for vacation leave with pay and was granted. While en route to the Philippines, his co-workers informed him that he has been dismissed. respondent filed a complaint with the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal. And found guilty and to pay the unexpired portion of the respondent ‘s contract which is 1,200 multiplied by 8 months representing the unexpired portion. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but the latter affirmed the decision of labor arbiter but modified the appealed decision by deleting the order of refund of excessive placement fee for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner moved for reconsideration with respect to the labor arbiter’s award by invoking Section 10 RA 8042 that a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less that is why it should be three years should be used for the unexpired portion. NLRC denied the motion. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the monetary awards granted by the NLRC to private respondent is correct?

Held:

The SC affirmed the decisions of NLRC with modifications regarding the basis of amount that the petitioner will pay to the respondent for the unexpired portion of employment contract. In the case at bar, petitioner’s illegal dismissal from service is no longer disputed. Petitioner merely impugns the monetary awards granted by the NLRC to private respondent. The effectivity of Section 10 RA 8042 took effect a year earlier from his vacation leave. Hence, it applies to the case. The respondent should be paid by petitioner the 3 months unexpired portion of the contract.