Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. v. Cabiles, GR 170139, 5 August 2014, En Banc,

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. v. Cabiles, GR 170139, 5 August 2014, En Banc, 


FACTS: 

•  Joy Cabiles (“Cabiles”) was contracted by Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. (“Sameer”), with whom she signed a one-year employment contract for a monthly salary of New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 15,360.00. Cabiles also alleged that she was required to pay a placement fee of P70,000 upon signing.  
• She started working for Taiwan Wacoal (“Wacoal”) on June 26, 1997. Whereas she alleged that she agreed to work as quality control for one year, she was instead asked to work as a cutter. 
•  On July 14, 1997, or barely a month into her work, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal, without prior notice, terminated her contract. She was asked to immediately report to their office to gather her salary and passport, and to prepare for immediate repatriation.  
• From June 26, 1997 to July 14, 1997, Cabiles alleged that she received only NT$9,000 and that Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.  
• On October 15, 1997, Cabiles filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) against Sameer and Wacoal. She asked for (a) the return of her placement fee [P70,000], (b) the amount withheld for her plane ticket [NT$3,000], (c) payment for her salary for 23 months, and (d) moral and exemplary damages. She identified Wacoal as Sameer’s foreign principal. 
•  For its part, Sameer contended that Cabiles was terminated due to her (a) inefficiency, (b) negligence in her duties, and (c) failure to comply with the work requirements of Wacoal. Sameer also denied asking for a placement fee by showing an Official Receipt dated June 10,1997 bearing the amount P20,360. 
• In addition, Sameer claimed that Wacoal’s accreditation with it (Sameer) was already transferred to Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (“Pacific”); thus, as Sameer claimed, it has already been substituted by Pacific.  
• Pacific moved for the dismissal of Cabiles’s complaint against it, alleging the absence of an employer employee relationship between them, thereby making the claims outside the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction.
• LABOR ARBITER: On July 29, 1998, Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro Ramos (“Ramos”) dismissed Cabiles’s complaint, ruling that her complaint was based on mere allegations and that there was no excess payment of placement fees. 
• Cabiles thus appealed to the NLRC.  NLRC: On March 31, 2004, the NLRC reversed and ruled that Cabiles was illegally dismissed, reiterating the rule that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause rests on the employer. 
• The NLRC found that there was no sufficient proof that Cabiles was inefficient or non-compliant with company requirements. In addition, the NLRC found that Sameer violated procedural due process in terminating Cabiles.  
• The NLRC awarded Cabiles (a) 3 months worth of salary or NT$46,080, (b) the reimbursement of the withheld NT$3,000, and (c) attorney’s fees of NT$300. NLRC denied Sameer’s Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the latter to petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.  
• COURT OF APPEALS: On June 27, 2005, the CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision with respect to the (a) finding of illegal dismissal, (b) award of 3 months’ worth of salary or NT$46,080, (c) reimbursement of the NT$3,000 repatriation expense, and (d) attorney’s fees of NT$300. Still, the CA remanded the case to the NLRC for the sole purpose of addressing the validity of Sameer’s third-party complaint against Pacific. Nevertheless, Sameer filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE/S:  WON equal protection clause was violated - YES. 
 
RULING:
“ Sameer failed to present any just cause for Cabiles’s dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to observe due process of law. 
 
Employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work and impose reasonable rules to ensure compliance with such standards. They cannot be compelled to retain the services of employees who are guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interests. However, this prerogative must not be abused and must be tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure (guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution); employees may not be terminated without a valid or just cause (substantive due process) and without observing proper procedure (procedural due process). 
 
Meanwhile, the Court emphasized that employees have the right to security of tenure even though they move to work at a different jurisdiction, following the principle of lex loci contractus (law of the land where the contract is made), as cited in Triple Eight Integrated Services v. NLRC2 and PCL Shipping Philippines v. NLRC3. Thus, since the contract of employment of Cabiles was perfected in the Philippines, the Labor Code, its IRR, other labor laws, and most especially the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure all apply, both with respect to substantive and procedural rights. 
 
Under the Labor Code therefore, Sameer’s contention that Cabiles was inefficient and negligent in her duties may constitute a just cause under Article 282(b) thereof [gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties], but only if Sameer was able to prove it, since the burden of proof is on the employer. 
 
Thus, to show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, the following requisites must concur: 1. The employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be judged; 2. The standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the employee; and, 3. The communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee's performance assessment. In this case, Sameer failed to present evidence to prove that Cabiles fell short of Wacoal’s work requirements. Moreover, Sameer never specified which requirements or standards Cabiles failed to meet or what acts constituted inefficiency. Neither was there any showing that Cabiles was sufficiently informed of the standards of efficiency and performance of Wacoal. The fact that there was conflict as to what Cabiles’s position was showed that even that basic matter was unclear. Since there is no proof that Cabiles was terminated under a just cause, her termination is thus illegal, as violative of substantive due process. 
 
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is  AFFIRMED  with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. The clause, ‘ or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
Less  in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is
Declared unconstitutional  and, therefore, null and void. SO ORDERED.

​