SANTA FE CONSTRUCTION CO. AND SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, JAIME F…

SANTA FE CONSTRUCTION CO. and SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES,
INC., in this petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, assail the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in POEA Case No. (L)88-01-041 affirming the decision of respondent
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) which found unjustified
the dismissal of private respondents from their employment with petitioners,
and which ordered the latter to pay the former their salaries for the unexpired
portion of their contracts.

Private respondents were hired on a one-year contract of
employment by petitioner Santa Fe International Services, Inc. (SFISI), through
its local agent, petitioner Santa Fe Construction Co. (SFCC), to work in the
off-shore oil rig Key Largo in Luanda, Angola. On 22 March 1987, the employment of Jesus E. Abijay, Ernesto S. Arias
and Noli G. Reyes commenced; on 14 April 1987 that of Jaime F. Cañete, Marcelo
M. Generalao, Rico B. Codilla, and Roy A. Arriesgado; and, on 12 May 1987, that
of Nerio G. Polinar, Marcelo V. dela Cruz, Baltazar C. Ramada, Jr., Armando E.
Servino and Tito L. Detuya.

On 1 December 1987, petitioner SFISI allegedly granted private
respondents vacation leave of fifteen (15) days. Their papers and plane tickets were prepared by petitioner SFISI
which advanced their transportation expenses. However, their salaries for the month of November 1987 were not paid.

When private respondents reported to the office of petitioner
SFCC to inquire about the schedule of their return to their place of work, the
latter informed them that their employment had been terminated.

In their complaint filed with POEA, private respondents prayed
for back wages and overtime pay for the month of November 1987, salaries
corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contracts, and moral and
exemplary damages.

On 11 January 1989, POEA rendered its decision finding that the
employment of private respondents was illegally terminated. It found no merit in petitioners’
contentions that private respondents resigned en masse on 1
December 1987 by surrendering their passports; that despite the alleged mass
resignation and refusal to work by private respondents, petitioners failed to
counteract this concerted activity, which confirms the claim of private
respondents that they were not allowed to return to work after petitioners had
approved their vacation leave. The POEA
ordered petitioners to pay private respondents their unpaid salaries for the
month of November 1987, and salaries for the unexpired portion of their
contracts or their equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of
payment. However, it denied the claim
of private respondents for moral and exemplary damages.

Not satisfied with the decision, petitioners appealed to
NLRC. On 19 April 1991, respondent NLRC
issued a resolution affirming the decision of POEA. After careful examination of the records, respondent NLRC found
that two (2) of the private respondents, Jaime F. Cañete and Tito L. Detuya,
worked on 27, 28, 29 and 30 November 1987 contrary to petitioners’ allegation
that they refused to work starting 27 November 1987; that it considered
doubtful petitioners’ extraordinary act of generosity in advancing respondents’
transportation expenses in going to Manila despite their knowledge that private
respondents instigated the mass resignation from work. Respondent NLRC ruled that in view of the
devaluation of the Philippine peso against the US dollar, the payment of the
award in Philippine currency should not be at the rate of exchange prevailing at
the time of payment but rather at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time
the cause of action of private respondents accrued, or at the time they were
illegally terminated in December 1987, citing Republic v. Laureano
Bros., Inc.^[1] Hence, this petition.

On 2 September 1991, we issued a temporary restraining order
against the enforcement of the assailed resolution.

The issue raised by petitioners is whether there was grave abuse
of discretion on the part of respondent NLRC in not giving weight to their evidence
showing that private respondents were not illegally terminated but resigned en
masse. Petitioners contend that
respondent NLRC capriciously affirmed POEA when it ruled that petitioners
failed to present sufficient evidence of mass resignation because the only
acceptable proof of such fact would be the individual letters of resignation
and the physical production of passports of private respondents.

Petitioners also submit that the timecards of respondents Cañete
and Detuya showing that they worked from 27 to 30 November 1987 should not have
been accepted as evidence because they were merely unauthenticated photocopies,
the originals of which were not presented during the proceedings. To this, petitioners add that their claim of
mass resignation on the part of private respondents was shown from the accounts
of twenty-two (22) fellow contract workers stating that private respondents
refused and did not, in fact, report for work on 27 to 30 November 1987. As to why they paid the transportation
expenses of private respondents in going home to Manila despite the mass
resignation, petitioners argue that it was merely complying with the POEA Rules
and Regulations which placed on the recruitment agency the responsibility and
burden of shouldering the repatriation expenses of workers it recruited for
overseas employment.

In his comment^[2] on
behalf of respondent NLRC, the Solicitor General alleges that in their joint
affidavit, private respondents positively asserted that they left Angola on 1
December 1987 when they were given by petitioners a fifteen-day vacation leave
with pay believing that after
such time they would return to their place of employment; that considering this
circumstance, it is understandable why not all of private respondents took with
them copies of their timecards; that when respondents Cañete and Detuya were
able to present their timecards, a close examination thereof shows that
petitioner SFISI’s operations manager Carl Clark himself reported in the
timecards that Cañete and Detuya did work between 27th and 30th of November
1987. The Solicitor General contends
that if petitioners doubted the authenticity of the copies of the timecards,
they should have presented in evidence the original copies thereof; failure to
do so meant that what was presented by private respondents were faithful
reproductions of the originals. Further, the Solicitor General maintains that the affidavits of
twenty-two other contract workers stating that private respondents resigned
from work cannot be considered as credible as they could not have executed the
affidavits without being subjected to some pressure from petitioners who were
still their employers.

The rule is settled that the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of this Court to review a decision of respondent NLRC in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its
evaluation of the evidence but confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is thus incumbent upon petitioners to satisfactorily
establish that respondent Commission acted capriciously and whimsically in
total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy, in
order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie.^[3]

Petitioners have failed to show that respondent NLRC has
committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that private respondents were
illegally terminated from their employment and in awarding them their unpaid
salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contracts, as follows:

There is no justifiable basis for disturbing the finding of the
NLRC that substantial evidence exists to grant private respondents’
claims. This is clearly supported by
the evidence of record and conforms to law and jurisprudence. Findings of administrative agencies which
have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Judicial review by this Court on labor cases
does not go as far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the
labor officer or office has based his or its determination but is limited to
issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.^[5]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the questioned
Resolution of respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated 19 April
1991 is AFFIRMED. The temporary
restraining order we issued on 2 September 1991 is LIFTED. With costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
No. L-25055, 25 April 1968, 23 SCRA 214.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 133.

^[3]
Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96191, 4 March
1991, 194 SCRA 633.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 23.

^[5]
A.M. Oreta and Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 74004, 10 August 1989, 176
SCRA 218.