AVELINO R. GONZALES, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, AND CAMOX PHILIPPINES, INC./ GROUP FIVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. / MS. JENNELYN G. DELOS REY…
DIAMANTE, FRANCHITO N., J.:
Considering the Case Management Information System (CMIS) Verification dated January 28, 2015[2] showed that no Reply Brief has been filed, the petitioner is deemed to have waived the filing thereof and thus, the case at bench is hereby declared submitted for decision sans Reply Brief.
The instant petition traces its root from the complaint filed by petitioner Avelino R. Gonzales and Armando B. Bino against private respondents Group Five International Ltd. (Group Five), Camox Philippines, Inc. (Camox) and its President Ms. Jennelyn G. Delos Reyes for illegal (constructive) dismissal, payment of various money claims, and maltreatment, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 06-09195-13 OFW (L) before the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner averred that on March 25, 2011, he was deployed for overseas employment by Camox, a duly licensed and accredited private local recruitment agency, for and in behalf of its principal, Group Five. Per the Overseas Fillipino Worker (OFW) Information Sheet[3] issued to him by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), he should receive a monthly salary of Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3,000.00) for a period of twelve (12) months as Electrical Supervisor in the Ashanti Gold Mining CAJV Project in the Republic of Ghana. On the date of his employment, however, he was presented with two (2) Employment Contracts, one with a salary of Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3,000.00) and the other, with a salary of One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty US Dollars (US$1,920.00).[4] As Camox was the one which processed his requirements with the POEA, he no longer bothered about the contract he was made to sign stating a lower salary figure.
On November 11, 2011, petitioner received from Group Five a Letter of International Transfer[5] terminating his employment in Ghana and transferring him effective November 12, 2011 to another project in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the assurance that all terms and conditions of his employment would remain unchanged. He said that for the duration of his contracts, he only received a salary of US$1,920.00 per month, instead of US$3,000.00 per month, or a difference of One Thousand Eighty US Dollars (US$1,080.00) per month or a total of Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Pesos (US$12,960.00) from March 2011 to March 2012.
Sometime in May 2012, petitioner signed another Employment Contract with private respondents where he was deployed for 12 months as E & I Supervisor for a project in the Democratic Republic of Congo with a salary of Two Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$2,500.00) per month.[6] However, before he could finish the term of his new contract in Congo, he was made to sign another contract sometime in February 2013, where he was going to be deployed as Quality Control Instrument for twelve (12) months for a project in the Republic of Ghana with a salary of Two Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$2,500.00) per OFW Information.[7]
It was during his new latest stint in Ghana that he noticed that although he held the position of Quality Control Instrument, he was still performing the duties and responsibilities of an E & I Supervisor. He raised this matter to his supervisors but they did not address the same and instead, he was often criticized and verbally abused. Later, he was constrained to resign and to return to the Philippines on May 8, 2013. He then filed a complaint against private respondents for illegal dismissal, alleging that his transfer/reassignment was tantamount to constructive dismissal. He also claimed for underpayment of wages, payment of the unexpired portion of his employment contract and damages.[8]
Private respondents, meanwhile, refuted petitioner’s allegations by holding that the latter had voluntarily resigned from work as evidenced by his e-mail dated April 5, 2013.[9]
They explained that the basis of the documentation of petitioner with the POEA for his deployment in Ghana on March 5, 2011 was the Job Order of private respondent Group Five dated February 4, 2011[10] wherein the position of Electrical Supervisor for Ghana specified a monthly salary of One Thousand Six Hundred US Dollars (US$1,600.00) only.
In the course of processing his documentation, they submitted online to the POEA his application for accreditation[11] and yet, when the POEA issued his OFW Information Sheet,[12] the latter had mistakenly reflected in said document the amount of US$3,000.00 as the monthly salary accredited for petitioner. Thus, when petitioner was deployed to Ghana from April 2011 to July 2011, his payroll reflected his correct salary of One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty One US Dollars (US$1,921.00) per month based on the Employment Contract he signed.
As the project in Ghana was eventually completed, petitioner’s papers were re-processed by private respondents for another project in Congo for the same position and salary. Fortunately, he was actually given a monthly salary of One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Two and 23/100 US Dollors (US$1,972.23), or slightly higher than his indicated salary for a period of three months. On May 15, 2012, he was deployed to Congo for the same position but with a higher monthly salary of US$2,500.00.
Upon his return to the Philippines in November 2012, he expressed interest in working again for private respondents. Despite their findings that petitioner had a non-infectitious hepatitis B, private respondents still accommodated him for work by waiving his medical condition and spending for his vaccination. He was then deployed to Ghana on February 11, 2013 as Quality Control Instrument with a monthly salary of US$2,500.00. It was there while serving his contract in Ghana that petitioner had the chance to compare his salary with that of his co-complainant Armando Bino, who received a much higher salary as Electrical Supervisor. After lodging his verbal complaint with Group Five regarding the matter, he was advised that the same would be addressed accordingly. Petitioner grew impatient and tendered his resignation via email on April 5, 2013.
In the Decision dated January 15, 2014,[13] Labor Arbiter Jenneth B. Napiza dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. She held that petitioner’s previous position as E & I Supervisor wherein he received a monthly salary of US$2,500.00 per his Employment Contract had nothing to do with his new position as Quality Control Instrument. His act of tendering his resignation which was accepted by private respondents and his act of expressing his gratitude to private respondent Group Five belied his contention that he was constructively dismissed from work. Private respondents were able to duly establish that his salary was indeed US$1,921.00 based on the Employment Contract he signed on February 8, 2011. The Job Order and print-out of the online application for accreditation of petitioner indicated that the salary of Electrical Supervisors was only US$1,600.00 per month.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the adverse ruling before public respondent NLRC.
On June 20, 2014, the public respondent issued the assailed Decision dismissing his appeal and affirming the Labor Arbiter’s January 15, 2014 Decision. Petitioner dispensed with the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed Decision and opted to file a petition for certiorari.
Hence, this petition alleging that the public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction:
A.
… IN SIMPLY DISREGARDING THE OFW NOMINATION ISSUED BY THE POEAB.
… IN FAILING TO FIND THAT PETITIONER WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED.C.
… IN FAILING TO FIND RESPONDENTS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.
Before delving into the issues, We have to clarify that a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari to afford the tribunal, board, or office an opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed into before a resort to the courts of justice can be had.[14] However, as an exception to the general rule, there is no need for a party to file a motion for reconsideration when the question raised before the superior court is the same one raised in the court below and passed upon by it.[15] Thus, petitioner’s act of dispensing with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision was justified since the issues raised in the case at bench involving the determination as to whether petitioner was constructively dismissed and whether he is entitled to damages were the same issues raised and duly passed upon and resolved by public respondent.
Going now to substantive issues of the case, We agree with the public respondent in holding that the March 25, 2011 OFW Information Sheet presented by petitioner cannot be relied upon as evidence of his alleged monthly salary of US$3,000.00 in Ghana. The OFW Information Sheet indicating US$3,000.00 per month as his salary cannot be the basis for his claim of underpayment since the “Limited Duration Contract of Employment” entered into between him and private respondents on March 25, 2011 clearly stipulated that he would be paid only US$1,921.00 as per the approved Job Order. While it is true that the computer-generated OFW Information Sheet is an official document issued by the POEA, petitioner is to be reminded that the same is not an employment contract which is the law governing the rights and obligations of the parties. To Our mind, it is merely an information sheet summarizing the pertinent employment details of the overseas worker, which sometimes, through oversight, is susceptible to clerical or typographical errors.
Applying by analogy the ruling in the case of Grand Placement & General Placement Services Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,[16] wherein the Supreme Court held that the OFW Information Sheet indicating a certain amount as “basic salary” cannot serve as basis for the complainant’s claims for a salary differential since a stipulation in her employment contract says otherwise, We hold that the contents of the OFW Information Sheet cannot prevail over the stipulations of the Employment Contract which was voluntarily signed by petitioner.
We also give more credence to private respondents’ explanation that the POEA committed a clear mistake on its part when it issued the OFW Information Sheet showing a salary of US$3,000.00 per month because the Job Order dated February 4, 2011 which clearly indicated that the Electrical Supervisor for Ghana had a specified salary of US$1,600.00. The employment contract signed by petitioner, which is a prerequisite requirement to process his documentations in the POEA prior to his departure, also stated a monthly salary of US$1,921.00 per month. As such, he received the stipulated salary of US$1,921.00 per month for his assignment in Ghana. We also note that in his subsequent deployment to Congo, the OFW Information Sheet issued to him by the POEA had correctly reflected the monthly salary for the position of Electrical Supervisor as US$1,921.00. Except for the erroneous entry in the March 25, 2011 OFW Information Sheet, all the succeeding OFW Information Sheets issued to petitioner showed that monthly salary for the position of Electrical Supervisor never reached US$3,000.00 per month.
We also find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of both public respondent and the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner was not constructively dismissed and that he is not entitled to damages and the rest of his monetary claims.
Constructive dismissal has been defined as a quiting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. It also exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.[17]
Except for petitioner’s general allegation that he was often criticized and subjected to verbal abuse, public respondent correctly noted that petitioner failed to specify what were those criticisms and verbal abuse said to him or those harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions he was made to suffer. It is basic in the rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[18]
While the resignation of petitioner was apparently due to his unresolved personal issues with management regarding the alleged discrepancy of his monthly salary with his co-employee Armando Bino,[19] private respondents were able to sufficiently explain the difference between petitioner and his co-employee’s salary. Private respondents averred that Bino’s salary as Electrical Supervisor was higher than petitioner because by the time Bino was employed, there was already an increase in the prevailing rate for the position of Electrical Supervisor as such he was given a monthly salary of US$3,000.00.
Moreover, Petitioner’s acts of expressing his gratitude and addressing his superiors with endearment, referring to them as “Bosses”, in his resignation letter[20] contradict his allegation of animosity or hostile relationship between him and his employers. The content of his resignation letter rather depicted a harmonious and cordial relationship with his superiors.
It must be stressed that resignation is a voluntary act of the employee which is beyond the control of the employer. Once it is accepted by the employer, the employee loses his right to the job.[21] Thus, absent any strong or concrete indication that he was coerced or intimidated by private respondents to leave his employment, petitioner’s resignation was considered voluntary. The records further show that his transfer/reassignment to various projects were brought about by the completion of the project and end of his employment contracts, and for which he was duly and fully compensated[22] in accordance with the stipulations in his contract.
Lastly, considering that there was no illegal or constructive dismissal to speak of, petitioner is not entitled to damages.
Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of facts of the NLRC are accorded with respect and due consideration. Petitioner, having failed to convince Us that the findings of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC are without basis or otherwise capricious or arbitrary,23 the assailed Decision must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the Decision dated June 23, 2014 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, in NLRC LAC OFW (L) 04-000332-14/NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (L) 06-09195-13 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Dimaampao, J. B., Chairperson, and Manahan, C.S., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 23-40
[2] Id. at 281 (back page)
[3] Rollo, p. 94
[4] Per the “Limited Duration Contract of Employment”, petitioner’s monthly salary is US$1,921.00, and not US$1,920.00 as alleged in his petition; Id. at 96
[5] Id. at 102
[6] Rollo, pp. 105-109
[7] Id. at 111
[8] Id. at 90
[9] Id. at 172
[10] Id. at 138-140
[11] Id. at 141
[12] Id. at 94, 142
[13] Rollo, pp. 42-54
[14] Jennifer Abraham vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 143823, March 6, 2001
[15] Cosmos Bottling Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 111155, October 23, 1997;
[16] G.R. No. 142358, January 31, 2006
[17] Elmer M. Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 4, 2004 citing Blue Dairy Corporation vs. NLRC, 373 Phil. 179, 186, September 14, 1999
[18] Hemina M. Ongpauco and Dave Allen M. Majarocon vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Lolita R. Alamayri, G.R. No. 134039, December 21, 2004
[19] Par. 45 of Private Respondents’ Position Paper, Rollo, p. 121
[20] Rollo, pp. 35-36
[21] People’s Security, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 96451, September 8, 1993 citing Intertrod Maritime, Inc. vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 318, 323 [1991]
[22] Rollo, pp. 39-42
[23] Master Shirt Co., Inc., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 124957, December 29, 1998