Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49794:gr-156964-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:56:25+00:00

Document:
MAGRO PLACEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES, registered in the name of Marina G. Sobremesana, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ, Respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated September 12, 2002 and the Resolution2 dated January 16, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67264.
Magro Placement and General Services (petitioner) is a duly licensed recruitment agency. It is the local agency of Orbit Recruitment Office of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (K.S.A.).
After successfully undergoing a battery of interviews and trade tests, respondent was hired as Auto Electrician of Al Yamama Est. (Al Yamama) in Jeddah, K.S.A. for a two-year contract with a basic monthly salary of US$450.00 for 10 hours a day, 6 days a week regular working hours, 15 days vacation leave and 15 days sick leave with full pay per year of service, and free food allowance of US$50.00 a month with free suitable housing.5 Thus, he resigned from Toyota Pasong Tamo, Inc.
On January 16, 2000, respondent left for Jeddah, K.S.A. Respondent worked at the Al Yamama as an electrician. Because of lack of equipment or tools, the work became harder. After 10 days, his employer took his passport and brought him to Orbit. His employer told the agency that respondent did not know his job as electrician. Respondent explained that since he used to repair Japanese cars only, he needed time to adjust to American cars. Respondent further stated that he was willing to continue his job. When respondent was subjected to a trade test using an American car, he failed.
On March 3, 2000, respondent was repatriated to the Philippines. When he sought financial assistance from petitioner, the latter offered the sum of P2,000.00 only.
CONFORMABLY WITH THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
Respondents, in solidum are however, ordered to pay complainant's one half month salary in the sum of US$185.00 or its peso equivalent.
The Labor Arbiter held that there was no illegal dismissal; respondent was ill-equipped to work as an Auto Electrician for American cars, per his revelation and admission, since he had only worked on Japanese model cars in his previous employment at Toyota Pasong Tamo, Inc.; since he was not equal to the challenge of the work, respondent himself asked to be repatriated, without any complaint against his foreign employer or agency.
The Labor Arbiter, however, ordered petitioner to pay respondent US$185.00, or its peso equivalent, for the 15-day period (January 16 to 30, 2000) when he worked with Al Yamama.
Dissatisfied, respondent appealed to the NLRC, docketed as NLRC OFW Case No. L-03-0507-2000.13 On June 25, 2001, the NLRC rendered a Decision14 affirming the findings of the Labor Arbiter.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is partially GRANTED and the assailed Decision dated June 25, 2001 issued by public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as well as the Resolution dated July 17, 2001 in NLRC CA 026624-00 are hereby MODIFIED by ordering private respondents to pay petitioner separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, his unpaid salary, and his proportionate 13th month pay and, in addition, full backwages from the time his employment was terminated on January 30, 2002 until the expiration of his two-year contract of employment when the decision herein becomes final.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration21 but it was denied by the CA in a Resolution22 dated January 16, 2003.
In the present case, petitioner argues that the purpose of the written notice requirement was achieved when respondent issued the three statements where he was given the chance to air his side before his termination.
Al Yamama failed to satisfy the two-notice requirement. Without prior notice or explanation, Al Yamama took respondent's passport and simply brought him to petitioner's foreign principal, Orbit, and told the latter that respondent did not know his job as electrician. Respondent heard his employer's complaint against him at that instance only.
Considering the foregoing, the Court deems the amount of P30,000.00 as sufficient nominal damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,33 to vindicate or recognize respondent's right to procedural due process which was violated by his employer, Al Yamama.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated September 12, 2002 and the Resolution dated January 16, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67264 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Magro Placement and General Services is ORDERED to pay respondent Cresenciano E. Hernandez the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages for failure to comply fully with the notice requirement as part of due process, in addition to payment of respondent's one half month salary in the sum of US$185.00 or its peso equivalent. No pronouncement as to costs.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong, CA rollo, p. 147.
13 Id. at 59 (also NLRC OFW Case No. (L)00-03-0507-00 in some parts of the record).
14 Penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Angelita A. Gacutan, id. at 18.
20 387 Phil. 345, 356 (2000).
21 CA rollo, p. 177.
24 Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 356, 363-364; Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., G.R. No. 167462, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 323, 330.
25 Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., id.; Electro System Industries Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 165282, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 199, 203; Tan v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil. 499, 516 (1998).
26 G.R. No. 143384, February 4, 2005, 450 SCRA 465.
29 G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573, 610-611.
30 See Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission, 327 Phil. 648, 652 (1996).
31 Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 29, at 617.
33 Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 152616, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 302, 318; Durban Apartments Corporation v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 167136, December 14, 2005, 477 SCRA 801, 811, Amadeo Fishing Corporation v. Nierra, G.R. No. 163099, October 4, 2005, 472 SCRA 13, 35; Central Luzon Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161976, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 711, 713; Caingat v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154308, March 10, 2005, 453 SCRA 142, 155.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.