PAN PACIFIC OVERSEAS RECRUITING SERVICES, INC., AND ALMABANI GENE­RAL CONTRACTORS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COMMISSIONERS DIEGO P. ATIEN­ZA, GERONIMO Q. QUADRA AND CLETO T. VIL…

Impugned in this special civil action of certiorari is the
decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission, affirming that of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, which declared petitioners
Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. and Almabani
General Contractors guilty of having illegally dismissed private respondent
Allan P. Brazil, and ordered them, jointly and severally, to pay his salaries
corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract, accrued leave credits
for 15 days, and attorney’s fees.

Brazil
was hired by Almabani through its agent, Pan Pacific,
to work in Saudi Arabia
as a heavy equipment foreman at a monthly salary of 2,650 rials for a
period of two (2) years commencing on December
10, 1981.^[1]

The petitioners allege that before the end of his first year of
employment, Brizal had (1) organized a labor strike;
(2) caused heavy equipment to cross a flooded area at nighttime against the
instructions of the project management; (3) repeatedly and unjustifiedly
absented himself from work; and (4) without due authority traveled outside the
project site using a company vehicle.1 The
petitioners further aver that on being apprised that the commission of these
acts was not only sufficient ground to terminate his employment but also
rendered him amenable to criminal prosecution under Saudi Arabian laws, Brazil
proposed that he be allowed to resign from his work and leave Saudi
Arabia.  Almabani
agreed, and consequently decided to forego the filing of administrative and
criminal charges against him.2

Brazil
resigned.  However, according to the
petitioners, he requested that a certificate of eligibility for re-employment
be issued to him so that he would not be “black-listed” and might in
the future have a chance to work once more in Saudi
Arabia. 
Again his employer agreed.  The
requested certificate was issued to him under date of November 30, 1982.3 On December 13, 1982 Brazil
signed a “clearance of account” in
which he acknowledged having received all remuneration due him, and
waived any further claims against Almabani.4 He was
then given a one-way airplane ticket to the Philippines,
and his passport was stamped with an exit visa only.5 He
arrived in the Philippines
on December 23, 1982.

On January 18, 1983,
however, Brazil
filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) a complaint
for illegal dismissal, claiming that his employer had dismissed him without
notice while he was on his fifteen-day vacation in the Philippines
in December, 1982.6 On October 12, 1984, the POEA rendered judgment in favor of Brazil
and against Almabani and Pan Pacific.7 The judgment was affirmed by the National Labor
Relations Commission by Resolution dated July
9, 1985.8 Two
motions for reconsideration of that resolution having proved futile, Almabani and Pan Pacific filed the instant petition with
this Court.

The petitioners contend that material evidence was ignored
showing that Brazil’s employment was not illegaly
terminated, but that it was in fact he who had proposed and agreed to resign
and pre-terminate his employment contract to avoid criminal and administrative
sanctions under Saudi Arabian law resulting from his own wrongful acts.9

A perusal of the record and the impugned decision reveals that
material evidence was indeed ignored for unstated reasons, to wit:  the certificate of re-employment dated
November 30, 1982;10 the
certification of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia to the effect
that Brazil left Saudi Arabia with an exit
visa only;1 and the clearance of account with waiver dated
December 13, 1982.2

The certificate of re-employment, which Brazil admittedly caused
to be prepared, clearly proves that as early as November, 1982 he already knew
that his employment contract was expiring the following month, this being
stated in the certificate.  That
certificate, issued even before completion of the first year of his two-year
contract, contradicts his claim that he was merely on vacation leave in
December, 1982.  Brazil’s explanation
that he asked for the certification merely as a favor or a token of remembrance is too shallow to merit
serious consideration.

Another document unaccountably ignored by the NLRC was the
certification of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia declaring that
Brazil left the country with an exit visa only.  If Brazil was departing merely on a 15-day
vacation in the Philipines, as is his claim, his
passport would have contained a re-entry
visa.  But his passport had none.  The absence of such a re-entry visa is a
clear indication that he was leaving Saudi Arabia with no definite date of
return, and therefore, Brazil was no longer expected back by Almabani.  It is true
that Brazil submitted a copy of his alleged passport to show that a re-entry
visa was stamped thereon.  But this copy
cannot be given any weight.  It was not
duly authenticated; it does not in any case, definitely show any re-entry visa
impressed thereon; and the certification of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs definitely has comparatively greater probative value.

That Brazil was given only a one-way airplane ticket out of Saudi Arabia, as impliedly
admitted by him,3 further shows that when he
returned to the Philippines in December, 1982, he had already been separated
from employment.  Otherwise, if he were
simply going on vacation, he would have been issued an “excursion round trip
ticket,” this being
stipulated in Section 9 of his employment contract.

Finally, the “clearance of account” which bears the
date of December 13, 1982, or 10 days before Brazil’s return to the
Philippines, sets forth not only the computation of the separation pay due to
him but also a statement of receipt of all “salaries, holidays,
rewards and rights with the Company”
(sic) and a waiver or negation of “rights to return to the company in sign of
request or claim in the future”
(sic).

To be sure, Brazil denied having signed the clearance of account,
claiming that his purported signature therein had been forged.  His denial is unavailing.  For one thing, the clearance of account has
been authenticated by the proper government agencies of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia and the Philippines.  For another,
not only did Brazil admit that the document was really presented to him for
signature,4 but he also failed to follow up
and insist on his challenge that the same be submitted for verification of his
signature by the National Bureau of Investigation.

It thus appears that the NLRC whimsically and capriciously
disregarded evidence material to and even decisive of the controversy.  In doing so, it acted with grave abuse of
discretion justifying the issuance of the corrective writ of certiorari.1 As the Solicitor General points out,
“private respondent acted in bad
faith when he made a false claim that he was dismissed while on vacation leave,
although he knew even on the basis of his own evidence, that he had already
resigned from Almabani when he left Saudi Arabia **
(but) notwithstanding the absence of credible evidence to substantiate his
claim, and the presence of no less than four (4) documents negating his claim,
it is surprising that the decision was still rendered in his favor **
(awarding) more or less the equivalent of P200,000.00 in benefits which were unworked for, on the basis of a prevaricated claim.  ** (S)uch a
decision will open the floodgates for the filing of similar false claims which
will undermine and eventually destroy the overseas employment program of the
Philippines.”

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the National Labor Relations
Commission dated July 9, 1985, as well as those dated October 18, 1985 and
March 4, 1986, are nullified and set aside, and private respondent’s complaint
for illegal termination of employment is dismissed.  Costs against private respondent.

Teehankee, C.J., Cruz, Paras, and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 70

1 Annexes A and B, petition

2 Rollo, p. 147

3 Annex C, petition

4 Annex D, id.

5 Annex R, id.

6 Annex E, Petition

7 Annex J, id.

8 Annex L, id.

9 Rollo, pp. 10-11

10 Annex C, petition, supra

1 Annex R, id., supra

2 Annex D, id., supra

3 See the prayer in his complaint: 
Annex G, petition

4 Annex Q

1 Hamoy
v. Hon. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 106 Phil. 1046,
1054, citing Tan v. People, April 27, 1951, and Abad
Santos v. Province of Tarlac, 67 Phil. 480; Buiser v. Leogardo, Jr.,
131 SCRA 152, 1549, citing Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration v.
Lucero, 125 SCRA 337, 343, Fajardo v. Garda, 98 SCRA 514, 518