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…

Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services versus Almabani General Contractors

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari brought by Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Incorporated and Almabani General Contractors against the National Labor Relations Commission and its commissioners, together with the private respondent Allan P. Brazil. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the labor tribunals' finding that they illegally dismissed Brazil and their order that they pay him, jointly and severally, his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, fifteen days of accrued leave credits, and attorney's fees. The case matters because it is a clean lesson on the corrective writ of certiorari in labor cases: when a labor tribunal whimsically and capriciously disregards evidence that is material and even decisive, it acts with grave abuse of discretion, and the Supreme Court will not hesitate to strike the award down.

Procedural History

Brazil filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The Administration rendered judgment in his favor and against Almabani and Pan Pacific. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed that judgment by resolution. Two motions for reconsideration proved futile, and the Commission issued further resolutions denying them. Almabani and Pan Pacific then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, and the Court nullified the Commission's resolutions and dismissed Brazil's complaint.

Facts

Almabani, acting through its agent Pan Pacific, hired Brazil to work in Saudi Arabia as a heavy equipment foreman at a monthly salary of 2,650 rials, for a period of two years commencing on December 10, 1981. Before the end of his first year, the petitioners alleged that Brazil organized a labor strike, caused heavy equipment to cross a flooded area at nighttime against the instructions of the project management, repeatedly and unjustifiably absented himself from work, and traveled outside the project site using a company vehicle without due authority.

On being told that these acts were not only sufficient ground to terminate his employment but also exposed him to criminal prosecution under Saudi Arabian law, Brazil proposed that he be allowed to resign and leave Saudi Arabia. Almabani agreed and decided to forego administrative and criminal charges. Brazil resigned, but asked for a certificate of eligibility for re-employment so that he would not be blacklisted, and the certificate was issued to him dated November 30, 1982. On December 13, 1982 he signed a clearance of account acknowledging receipt of all remuneration due him and waiving further claims. He was given a one-way airplane ticket to the Philippines, and his passport bore an exit visa only. He arrived in the Philippines on December 23, 1982.

On January 18, 1983, however, Brazil filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that his employer had dismissed him without notice while he was on a fifteen-day vacation in the Philippines in December 1982. The labor tribunals ruled in his favor, and the employers brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disregarding evidence material and decisive of the controversy.
• Whether or not Brazil was illegally dismissed, or whether he in fact resigned and pre-terminated his employment contract.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statute or contract provision as a block of text; it refers to Section 9 of Brazil's employment contract, which stipulated the issuance of an excursion round trip ticket. That stipulation bears on the case because Brazil received only a one-way ticket, which shows that he was not merely going on vacation but had been separated from employment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission whimsically and capriciously disregarded evidence material to and even decisive of the controversy, and that in doing so it acted with grave abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of the corrective writ of certiorari. The Court pointed to four documents that were ignored for unstated reasons: the certificate of re-employment dated November 30, 1982; the certification of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia that Brazil left with an exit visa only; the clearance of account with waiver dated December 13, 1982; and the one-way airplane ticket.

The certificate of re-employment, which Brazil admittedly caused to be prepared, proved that as early as November 1982 he already knew his employment contract was expiring the following month, contradicting his claim that he was merely on vacation leave. The Saudi certification showed that his passport carried no re-entry visa, a clear indication that he was leaving with no definite date of return; his unauthenticated copy of an alleged passport could not outweigh it. The one-way ticket, as against the excursion round trip ticket stipulated in Section 9 of his contract, further showed he had already been separated from employment. And the clearance of account set forth not only the computation of separation pay but also a statement of receipt of all salaries, holidays, rewards and rights with the company, and a waiver of rights to return or claim in the future.

On the second issue, the Court held that Brazil's denial of having signed the clearance, on a claim of forgery, was unavailing, because the document had been authenticated by the proper government agencies of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, and because Brazil admitted the document was presented to him for signature yet failed to follow up on his challenge that it be submitted for verification by the National Bureau of Investigation. The Court adopted the Solicitor General's observation that Brazil acted in bad faith in making a false claim that he was dismissed while on vacation leave, although he knew on the basis of his own evidence that he had already resigned when he left Saudi Arabia, and warned that such a decision would open the floodgates for similar false claims that would undermine and eventually destroy the overseas employment program.

Doctrine

A labor tribunal commits grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari when it whimsically and capriciously disregards evidence that is material to and even decisive of the controversy. Findings of fact that rest on a misreading or suppression of the record cannot stand. A claim of forgery against a document authenticated by the proper government agencies, and which the claimant admits was presented to him for signature, is unavailing where he fails to pursue verification of his signature. An employee who resigns and pre-terminates his contract, acknowledges full payment, waives further claims, and accepts a one-way ticket and an exit visa without a re-entry visa cannot later claim illegal dismissal on the pretense of being on vacation leave.

Disposition

The Court nullified and set aside the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission and dismissed Brazil's complaint for illegal termination of employment, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a labor tribunal acts with grave abuse of discretion when it whimsically and capriciously disregards evidence material and decisive of the controversy. Examiners use this case to test certiorari against labor tribunals and the weight of documentary evidence, such as an exit visa without a re-entry visa and a one-way ticket, in overseas employment disputes.