Gopio vs. Bautista, 864 SCRA 463, G.R. No.

205953 June 6, 2018

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

FACTS

Bautista filed a complaint before NLRC against Job Asia, Gopio and Shorncliffe for illegal dismissal and
monetary claims.

He alleged that he was hired as Project Manager for Shorncliffe in Papua New Guinea through Job Asia
Management Services, a business owned by Gopio who is engaged in recruitment services. Bautista’s
contract stated that his employment shall be valid and effective for 31 months with a net monthly salary
of Php 40,000.00.

Barely nine months after his deployment, he was served a notice of termination on the ground of alleged
unsatisfactory performance and failure to meet the standards of the company. He was paid salary for the
one month period plus annual leave credits.

Bautista contends that he was terminated without just cause since there had been no job evaluation
conducted prior to the dismissal. Thus, he is entitled for monetary claims. He further stated that while his
contract contained an understated monthly income of Php 40,000.00, he was actually being paid the
amount of Php 115,80.00.

For their defense, Job Asia, Gopio and Shorncliffe argued that Bautista’s termination was valid because
he failed to meet the company standards. To support their claim they submitted in evidence the work
performance evaluation report of Bautista. (incapable, incompetent). They further contend that the basis
of the termination was Article 4.3 of employment contract which provides that :

4.3. The Employer or Employee may terminate this contract on other grounds. The Employer
should give one month’s writ ten notice of his intention to terminate or in lieu thereof pay the
Employee a sum equivalent to one month’s salary. The Employee may likewise terminate this
Contract by giving three months’ notice to the Employer.

In addition, Gopio that she should not be held jointly and severally liable with Shorncliffe for the
payment of monetary awards to Bautista as she had no control over the manner of implementation of the
employment contract, she had no hand whatsoever in Bautista’s dismissal, and that her agency was
extinguished as soon as the employee was deployed to and have worked in Shorncliffe’s construction
project in Papua New Guinea.

Trial ensued.

The Labor Arbiter rendered decision finding Bautista have been illegally dismissed as the dismissal was
not proven to be for a just cause and Shorncliffe failed to observe due process. The work performance
evaluation report which was submitted as evidence was only more than one month after Bautista’s
dismissal.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not Bautista was illegally dismissed?

RULING

1. Yes.

In termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law and
jurisprudence that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and valid
causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and is,
therefore, illegal.25 Taking into account the character of the charges and the penalty meted to an
employee, the employer is bound to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence
to prove that the dismissal is valid and legal.26 This is consistent with the principle of security of
tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by Article 292(b)27 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines.

In the present case, since the work evaluation report, which was presented as evidence, were
conducted more than one month after Bautista’s dismissal, it is considered as self serving only.

Thus, the alleged just cause was not proven by substantial evidence.

2. No.

The due process requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. Its
disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in
response to man’s innate sense of justice. To meet the requirements of due process, the employer
must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of
employment can be legally effected, i.e.: (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the sub sequent notice after
due hearing which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

In the case at bar, Bautista was notified on July 6, 2009 that his services will be terminated
effective on the close of business hours on July 10, 2009, allegedly because his performance was
 “unsatisfactory and did not meet the standards of the Company.”37 He was also paid one-month
salary in lieu of one month’s notice of the termination of his employment.38 Surely, this cannot
be considered compliance with the two-notice requirement mandated by the Labor Code in
effecting a valid dismissal. The Labor Code requires both notice and hearing; notice alone will
not suffice. The requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the
employer’s intent to dismiss him and the reason for the proposed dismissal. On the other hand,
the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s charges
against him and accordingly defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected.39 In this case,
Bautista was not given a chance to defend himself. Five days after the notice was served, he was
repatriated. Clearly, he was denied his right to due process.

We cannot sustain the validity of Article 4.3 of the employment contract as it contravenes the
constitutionally-protected right of every worker to security of tenure.

3. No. Both Gopio and Shornecliff are solidary liable.

Pursuant to 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of
Land Based Overseas Workers provides that :

Rule II. Issuance of License

Every applicant for license to operate a private employment agency shall submit a written
application together with a verified undertaking stating that the applicant :

3) Shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and
liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract,
including but not limited to payment of wages, death and disability compensation and
repatriations.

Further, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 provides:

Sec. 10. Money Claims.—x x x

The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/place-ment agency for any and
all claims under this section shall be joint and several. 

Petitioner thus cannot evade liability by claiming that she did not have any control over the
foreign employer and had nothing to do with Bautista’s dismissal, because her liability is defined
by law and contract.

R.A. No. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of
OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs
seeking to work abroad.60 In Sameer, we explained that the provision on joint and several
liability in R.A. No. 8042 is in line with the state’s policy of affording protection to labor and
alleviating workers’ plight. It assures overseas workers that their rights will not be frustrated by
 difficulties in filing money claims against foreign employers. Hence, in the case of overseas
employment, either the local agency or the foreign employer may be sued for all claims arising
from the foreign employer’s labor law violations. This way, the overseas workers are assured that
someone — at the very least, the foreign employer’s local agent — may be made to answer for
violations that the foreign employer may have committed. By providing that the liability of the
foreign employer may be “enforced to the full extent” against the local agent, the overseas worker
is assured of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. The local agency that is held
to answer for the overseas worker’s money claims, however, is not left without remedy. The law
does not preclude it from going after the foreign employer for reimbursement of whatever
payment it has made to the employee to answer for the money claims against the foreign
employer.

FINAL DISPOSITION BY THE COURT

Petition denied.