FACTS: Petitioner Sevillana was contracted to work, as a driver by I.T. for its foreign accredited principal, Samir Maddah in Saudi Arabia. He argues however, that only 1/3 of his salary was received. After working 12 months, he said that he was repatriated without any valid and justifiable reason. He filed a complaint with the POEA for underpayment of salaries and illegal dismissal against I.T., and Samir Maddah. The company argued that his blood pressure was considered critical and when his blood pressure did not stabilize and began affecting his work as driver due to frequent headaches and dizziness, he was repatriated to avoid further injury and complication. I.T. claimed that after he had received all the benefits accorded to an employee consisting of full salaries and separation pay, he refused to be repatriated and instead decided to run away and since then, his whereabouts were unknown and I.T. only heard about him when he reported to their office in the Philippines and later on filed the complaint. The POEA Adjudication Office, held the private respondents herein jointly and severally liable to the petitioner. The NLRC reversed this saying that I.T. is a recruitment agency and is not the employer itself and at most it is an agent of the employer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sevillana was illegally dismissed.
HELD: The SC held that there was illegal dismissal, I.T. cannot be considered as an agent of its foreign principal. The NLRC disregard the rule regarding the solidary liability of the local employment agency with its foreign principal in overseas employment contracts. Private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment. The solidary liability imposed is to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him. Also the Labor Code puts the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause on the employer. For a dismissal to be valid it must be for a valid cause and there must be due process. The record shows that neither of the 2 conditions was shown to have been complied with. All I.T. did was to really on its claim that petitioner was repatriated by its foreign principal. Under Section 8, Rule 1, Book, VI of the Rules and Regulations Implementation the Labor Code, for a disease to be a valid ground for dismissal, the continued employment of the employee is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or the health of his co-employees. And there must be a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a state that it cannot be cured within a period of 6 months, even with proper medical treatment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment