ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOP­MENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COM­MISSION AND TITO B. BARBO, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari seeking to annul the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity) which affirmed the
decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA, for
brevity) finding private respondent’s dismissal illegal and directing the
petitioner to pay the private respondent the following amounts:

“1.    US$2,430.00 representing salaries for the
unexpired portion of the Contract;

“2.    US$1,128.00 covering unremitted
70% allotment for March, April,
May and June, 1986; and

“3.    US$540.00 covering complainant’s (private respondent’s) withheld reserve travel fund.”

(p. 5, Comment; p. 96, Rollo)

On October 4, 1985,
the petitioner hired the private respondent as a steel fixer for the third time
in its project at Iraq.  After about seven months, when the steel fixing works were near completion, the
petitioner transferred the private respondent to the
waterproofing division.  After three days
of performing waterproofing works, private respondent was ordered to leave his
work without explanation by his German supervisor.  The following day, private respondent was
informed by the petitioner’s project site manager, Mr. Rodito
Sunga, that he was being
terminated allegedly for insubordination.

Upon learning that his German supervisor was dissatisfied with
his waterproofing works, private respondent pleaded that he be reassigned to
steel fixing jobs, but was denied. 
Despite requests for reconsideration of the matter, private respondent
was sent back to the Philippines.  Allotments from his salaries were withheld by
the petitioner and his travel expenses to and from Iraq
were charged to him.

Thus, on June 26, 1986,
private respondent filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal against the petitioner with the POEA.

Traversing, the petitioner claimed that private respondent
resented his transfer from steel fixing to waterproofing works and that he was terminated due to
insubordination.  The petitioner
submitted an affidavit of Mr. Rodito Sunga, alleging that on several occasions, private
respondent had refused to carry hollowblocks despite
orders of his superior.  (Annex B)

On July 9,
1987, the POEA rendered a decision finding private respondent’s
dismissal illegal or without justifiable cause. 
Said decision was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.

We find the petition to be devoid of merit.

The allegation that private respondent was terminated due to
insubordination is a sweeping statement. 
Aside from the self-serving affidavit of its project site manager, the
petitioner failed to present evidence to support
the said statement.

On the other hand, the finding of illegal dismissal by the POEA
Administrator was grounded on the following:

“It is, therefore, safe to
surmise that complainant was told to leave his work because his German
supervisor had observed that he did not know waterproofing works.  There is no showing that he was given instructions or training which he
wilfully disobeyed such as to make him liable for
insubordination.  His non-familiarity
with waterproofing can not be gainsaid considering that he was in the job only
3 days and it must have been this lack of experience that impelled Mr. Boswau to order him to leave his work on June 20,
1986.  The self-serving statements of
Messrs. Rodito Sunga and Lamberto Perez are pure hearsay and do not deserve any
consideration.”

(pp. 100-101, Rollo)

In affirming this finding, the NLRC
further explained:

“We are more inclined to give more credence to the version
of complainant-appellee that he worked for three (3)
days, was made to leave his work on the third day, and dismissed on the
following day.  We cannot give weight to
the affidavit of Mr. Sunga who is respondent’s
representative on the site.  Moreover,
the core of this case is the transfer of complainant from steel fixing to water
proofing work.  Although the contract of
employment allows this transfer, it does not mean that a worker can be
transferred outright to a new job, from a technical position which he had been
thoroughly familiarized for about three (3) years, without undergoing an actual
training commensurate to the latter.  As
correctly observed by the POEA Administrator, ‘His non-familiarization with
water-proofing cannot be gainsaid considering that he was in the job only three
(3) days and it must have been the lack of experience that impelled Mr. Boswau to order him to leave his work on June 20,
1986.'” (pp. 101-102, Rollo)

Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings of
administrative bodies are entitled to great weight and these findings are
accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by substantial
evidence as in this case.

In Ambraque International Placement and
Services vs. NLRC et al. (157 SCRA 431), this Court ruled in favor of a
Filipino contract worker who was repatriated to the Philippines barely five
days after arrival at his jobsite due to alleged misconduct.  In said decision, this Court noted the
observations of the Solicitor General, to wit:

“It is very
unlikely that private respondent would have been guilty of the negative conduct
imputed to him by petitioner.  x x x one who goes to the Middle
East for employment does so at a great sacrifice.  In addition to leaving his family, the worker
also has to suffer the cultural shock of living in a society with entirely
different customary practices, religion and traditions.  But the worker is willing to bear all these
just so he could earn money to send hack to his family.  With this primary aim, the worker knows
better than doing anything that would jeopardize his contract of work.”

In view of the foregoing, We have no
doubt that the dismissal of the private respondent is illegal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.