G.R No.

205953
June 6, 2018
DIONELLA A. GOPIO, doing business under the name and style, JOB ASIA MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
petitioner, vs. SALVADOR B. BAUTISTA, respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Bautista was illegally dismissed from employment and whether or not he is entitled to
his monetary claims.

FACTS:
Job Asia Management Services is engaged in the business of recruitment, processing, and deployment of
land-based manpower for overseas work. Salvador A. Bautista was hired as a Project Manager for 31
months for Shorncliffe (PNG) Limited in Papua New Guinea through Job Asia Management Services.
However, just 9 months after deployment, Bautista was served a notice of termination on ground of
unsatisfactory performance and failure to meet the standards of the company. He was paid his salary,
annual leave credits and one-month pay net of taxes and was repatriated.

Bautista filed a complaint with the arbitration branch of the NLRC against Job Asia, Gopio and Shomcliffe
for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The respondents argued that Bautista’s employment was
terminated because he failed to meet Shomcliffe’s standards submitting performance evaluation report
on him. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Bautista declaring that he was illegally dismissed as the
dismissal was not proven to be for a just cause and Schomcliffe failed to observe due process. The Labor
Arbiter also rejected the argument that Bautista’s employment was terminated on the basis of Article
4.3 of the employment contract by giving him 1-month salary in lieu of 1 month’s written notice which is
contrary to Philippine laws which uphold the sanctity of workers’ security of tenure.

The respondents appealed to the NLRC which set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and denied
Bautista’s Motion for Reconsideration. The NLRC held that the parties were bound by the terms and
conditions of the employment contract that bore the stamp of approval of the POEA. Hence, Bautista
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which annulled and set aside the NLRC decision
and reinstated that of the Labor Arbiter holding that Article 4.3 of the labor contract violates the
provisions of the Labor Code on security of tenure since it gives employer the option to do away with
the notice requirement as long as he grants one-month salary to the employee in lieu thereof depriving
the employee of due process, and that the respondents failed to substantiate their claim that Bautista
was dismissed for performing below standards as it was not backed by any proof. Thus, the case was
elevated to the Supreme Court.

RULING:
The Court of Appeals is correct in its observation that the evaluation report dated beyond the date of
the termination of Bautista was made as an afterthought. Thus, Bautista’s incompetence as the alleged
cause for his dismissal was not proven by substantial evidence. Bautista was also not accorded due
process which is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. The Labor Code requires both
notice and hearing; notice alone will not suffice. Bautista was not given the chance to defend himself.
Clearly, he was denied his right to due process.

To emphasize, overseas workers, regardless of their classification, are entitled to security of tenure, at
least for the period agreed upon in their contracts. This means that they cannot be dismissed before the
end of their contract terms without due process. The law recognizes the right of an employer to dismiss
employees in warranted cases, but it frowns upon the arbitrary and whimsical exercise of that right
when employees are not accorded due process. If they were illegally dismissed, the workers’ right to
security of tenure is violated.

DOCTRINE:
The Philippine Constitution and laws guarantee special protection to workers here and abroad. Overseas
workers, regardless of their classification, are entitled to security of tenue, at least for the period agreed
upon in their contracts.