Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
TIERRA INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PERINI/MONENCO, CHERRY LYNN S. RICAFRENTE and KENNETH BUTT, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, MANUEL S. CRUZ, RAYMUNDO G. NEPA and ROLANDO F. CARIÑO, respondents.
G.R. No. 101825
April 2, 1996
Facts:
Private respondents Manuel S. Cruz, Raymundo C. Nepa and Rolando F. Cariño were recruited by petitioner Tierra International Construction Corporation to work as transit mixer, truck driver, and batch plant operator, respectively, in a construction project at Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory.
Private respondents had barely started work in the foreign assignment when they had a disagreement with the plant supervisor, Engineer Terrance Filby. What exactly they had been ordered to do which they refused to execute — whether to dig and excavate canals and to haul bags of cement, cement pipes, heavy plumbing equipments and large electric cables, as they claimed, or only to do household chores consisting of keeping the work place clean, as the company alleges — is the question in this case. The fact is that private respondents refused to work as ordered and for this, they were dismissed on January 28, 1989 and sent back to the Philippines.
Petitioners denied the allegations of private respondents and claimed that the latter's dismissal was for cause. Petitioners claimed that, on January 27, 1989, private respondents were merely requested by the plant supervisor, Terrance Filby, to do housekeeping job since they were idle for the rest of the day. Because private respondents did not do what they had been ordered to do, they were confronted by Filby. This led to an altercation between Filby and private respondents. When brought before the project manager, private respondents allegedly said that they refused to execute Filby's order because it involved doing the menial job of cleaning up the mess. They allegedly said in the vernacular, "Nakakahiya naman yatang magpulot kami ng basura." According to petitioners, because private respondents were unyielding, they were given three options: apologize to their supervisors; (2) go back to work; or (3) repatriation. Private respondents refused to go back to work and instead asked to be repatriated. Accordingly, they were sent home on January 28, 1989.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed?
Held:
The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment is recognized. Let there be no doubt about this. This right, aptly called management prerogative, gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work. But the exercise of this right must be in keeping with good faith and not be used as a pretext for defeating the rights of employees under the laws and applicable contracts.
Petitioners assert that private respondents were dismissed because they refused to go back to work and instead opted for repatriation. According to the report of the company's Site Administration Officer, private respondents were given three "options:" (1) to go back to work; (2) to apologize to their supervisor; and (3) to be repatriated. What private respondents were given were not really "options." They were given the choice of apologizing for their refusal to work and then resume working as ordered, or, else, resign and be sent back home. Under the circumstances they really had no choice but to resign. It was not pride or arrogance which made them refuse to work as ordered, but the assertion of their right not to be made to work outside of what they had been hired to do. For asserting their right, private respondents should not be punished. We, therefore, hold that private respondents' dismissal was illegal and that for this reason they are entitled to be paid their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment contract, in addition to their unpaid salaries prior to their dismissal, as found by both the POEA and the NLRC.
Acknowledgment: Peter De Guzman
No comments:
Post a Comment