SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238101. September 30, 2020.]
ALEXANDER T. GABRIEL, petitioner,vs. QUINTINIANS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. AND PRIMA EMPLOYMENT SRL/CALUNSAD IMELDA BENAVIDES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238101 (Alexander T. Gabriel v. Quintinians Placement Agency, Inc. and Prima Employment SRL/Calunsad Imelda Benavides). — The petition is bereft of merit.
As a general rule, only questions of law raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are reviewable by this Court. Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence. 1 However, the case at bar falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the rule, that exception being when the findings of the Labor Arbiter (LA) conflict with those of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). 2 Thus, the Court is inclined to exercise its function of judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. HTcADC
The Court, in Dee Jay's Inn and Café v. Rañeses, 3 citing Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas, 4 held that "[i]n illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee's dismissal was legal. However, to discharge this burden, the employee must first prove, by substantial evidence, that he had been dismissed from employment." The CA ruled that petitioner Alexander T. Gabriel (Gabriel) failed to prove by substantial evidence his claim of maltreatment and that the pre-termination of his overseas employment contract was not attributable to him, but to respondent Quintinians Placement Agency, Inc. (Quintinians). After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the CA did not err in dismissing the petition. As aptly held by the CA:
Petitioner's allegations are unsubstantiated. It cannot be denied that he refused to sign the Romanian labor contract. In the text messages that he exchanged with Tandara, marked as Annex D in his reply to private respondents' position filed with the Labor Arbiter, [it can] be inferred that Tandara informed him that only a Romanian labor contract is recognized in Romania and not the Philippine labor contract, and by his own admission in the instant petition for certiorari, petitioner refused to sign the Romanian contract that Tandara gave him because allegedly it was fake. Nonetheless, other than stating that it was different from the Romanian contract that Atty. Stefan showed him, petitioner gave no other basis why the Romanian contract Tandara gave him should be considered a sham. Without offering this [c]ourt a copy of Tandara's contract as well as the contract that Atty. Stefan allegedly showed him and sufficient, valid basis why Tandara's contract is counterfeit, petitioner has nothing to anchor his claim upon. 5
As can be gleaned from the records, Gabriel's refusal to sign the Romanian Labor Contract, which was necessary for the issuance of alien identification card and to validly stay in Romania, was based on his belief that Mihaela Tandara 6 was giving him a falsified labor contract. However, he failed to present any evidence to prove such claim. Settled is the rule that he who alleges must prove. Bare allegations of falsity of the contract will not suffice. In Gabriel's Reply 7 to Quintinians' Position Paper submitted before the LA, he admitted that he went to Piata Roman, as advised by Atty. Stefan. There he met with Marius and an immigration officer, wherein he wrote a letter stating that he was no longer interested to work for Marius. Thus, Gabriel's unjustified refusal to sign the Romanian Labor Contract was the cause of the pre-termination of his overseas employment contract, as his stay in Romania became illegal. Thus, Gabriel is not entitled to his salaries for the unexpired portion of overseas employment contract. In the same vein, that he is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages, as he failed to prove bad faith on the part of Quintinians. CAIHTE
As to Gabriel's allegation of maltreatment through confiscation of mobile phone, cutting off of Wi-Fi connection and not giving him sufficient food, the same should likewise be dismissed for lack of evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148534 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., 819 Phil. 483, 493 (2017).
2.Raza v. Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc., 765 Phil. 61, 79 (2015).
3. 796 Phil. 574 (2016).
4. 759 Phil. 479, 493 (2015).
5.Rollo, pp. 42-43.
6. Also referred to as Miheala Tandara and Micheala Tandra in some parts of the rollo.
7.Rollo, p. 143.