Salamoding v. Verdant Manpower Mobilization Center, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250843. September 21, 2022-2021.]

FERNANDO L. SALAMODING, petitioner, vs.VERDANT MANPOWER MOBILIZATION CENTER, INC. AND ORION PROJECT SERVICE (PNG) LTD., 1respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 21, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250843 (Fernando L. Salamoding v. Verdant Manpower Mobilization Center, Inc. and Orion Project Service (PNG) Ltd.). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 3 dated July 19, 2019 and the Resolution 4 dated December 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160186, which denied the Petition for Certiorari5 filed by Fernando L. Salamoding (Salamoding).

Salamoding was an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) who worked in Papua New Guinea in 2017. Abroad, he was employed by Orion Project Service (PNG) Ltd. (Orion), a manpower company providing specialist recruitment services across a range of sectors including oil and gas. His employment therein was facilitated by Verdant Manpower Mobilization Center, Inc. (Verdant), a private recruitment agency here in the Philippines. Both Orion and Verdant (collectively, respondents) are impleaded by Salamoding in this action for illegal dismissal. 6

On March 7, 2017, Salamoding went to Verdant to apply for a job overseas. Verdant offered him the position of "Coded Welder" with Orion in Papua New Guinea, which he accepted. 7

Thereafter, Verdant processed Salamoding's application for his employment visa. On March 15, 2017, the Papua New Guinea Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority issued Salamoding a "Restricted Employment Visa" (REV) 8 which would allow him to stay and work in Papua New Guinea for a maximum of 30 days. 9

Two days later, or on March 17, 2017, Salamoding and Verdant executed a Master Employment Contract 10 which provided, among others, that: 1) Salamoding would be employed as a welder; 2) his hourly rate would be 36.63 Papua New Guinean Kina (PGK); 3) his employer would be Orion; and 4) the duration of the contract was "Twelve (12) months commencing from employee's departure from the point of hire (Manila) to the site of employment."11

On March 19, 2017, Salamoding flew to Papua New Guinea to work in Orion's Monadelphous Project. After one month, or on April 19, 2017, he returned to the Philippines. 12

Intending to send Salamoding back to Papua New Guinea, Verdant again facilitated his application for a second visa. On April 20, 2017, he was issued another REV 13 for 30 days. Verdant assured him that it would still help him in his application for a one-year visa. 14

On April 29, 2017, Salamoding and Verdant executed another Master Employment Contract 15 which provided, among others, that: 1) Salamoding would be employed as a coded welder; 2) his hourly rate would be USD14.40; 3) his employer would be Orion; and 4) the duration of the contract was "Thirteen (13) months commencing from employee's departure from the point to the site of employment."16 On the same day, Salamoding was deployed back to Papua New Guinea. He resumed work as a welder for Orion in the Monadelphous Project. 17

On May 17, 2017, before the expiration of his 30-day visa, Salamoding received a letter 18 from Orion, which reads as follows:

Subject: Cessation of work from Monadelphous PNG Ltd.

Dear Mr. Salamoging: [sic]

Please be advised that your assignment as Welder with Monadelphous PNG Limited will cease as advised by the Monadelphous management due to completion of assignment. Your last day of employment will be 17 May 2017.

If there is any equipment, tools, documents that Monadelphous PNG Limited has issued to you, kindly return them to the management on or before your last day of work at the camp.

You are also reminded that you have signed a non-disclosure agreement, thus you are not to divulge any information to other parties unless with prior approval from the Orion management or from Monadelphous PNG Limited.

We would like to thank you for a job well done and we hope for a bright future ahead of you. We will do our best to source a placement with another Project. 19

An officer from Orion told Salamoding that he would be given a call when a new assignment becomes available. That same day, he returned to the Philippines. 20

Six days later, or on May 23, 2017, Salamoding executed an End of Contract Waiver, 21 which reads in full, as follows:

END OF CONTRACT WAIVER

I, FERNANDO SALAMODING, Filipino, of legal age, (single or married, etc.) and a resident of BRGY.-6-BANADERO, LEGASPI CITY, Philippines hereby depose and say that:

1. That I understand all the terms and conditions on my OEC processing under Verdant Manpower Mobilization Center, Inc.

2. That I am aware that the employer which is ORION PROJECT SERVICES (PNG) LTD. requested for the processing.

3. That by these presents, I hereby state that I have voluntarily submitted my application to Verdant Manpower Mobilization Center, Inc.

4. That I hereby certify, that the said Employer and Agency have not collected any over payment from me or ask to pay non-related fee during my application.

5. That the contract is terminated due to just cause as explained to me clearly.

6. As such, I finally make manifest that I have no further claim(s) or cause of action against my employer, their registered agent or against any persons connected with the administration and operation of the latter and forever release the latter from any and all liability.

7. That this may also serve as proof that Verdant Manpower Mobilization Center, Inc. and its client do not have any claim(s) against me and forever release me from any and all liability whatsoever. 22

Two days later, or on May 25, 2017, Verdant notified the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) through a letter 23 that "the 63 workers deployed using the REV have been demobilized, their 1 year contract cancelled and are safely back in the Philippines awaiting the approval of their one (1) year work permit, which will be stamped here in the Philippines." Salamoding was among the said workers. 24

On June 8, 2017, the Department of Labour and Industrial Relations of Papua New Guinea issued a one-year General Work Permit 25 in favor of Salamoding. However, considering his End of Contract Waiver, Verdant did not deploy him to any assignment abroad. 26

Five months later, or on November 21, 2017, Salamoding lodged a Complaint 27 for illegal dismissal against respondents, praying for the payment of wages representing the unexpired portion of his contract, which he estimated to be ten months. 28

In a Decision 29 dated January 30, 2018, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The LA found that Salamoding was not dismissed from his employment and he waived his rights under the two Master Employment Contracts when he accepted his deployment to Papua New Guinea through a REV, which he knew to be effective for only 30 days. Thus, the LA held that he was not entitled to the claims he prayed for. 30 Aggrieved, Salamoding elevated his case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

In a Decision 31 dated May 23, 2018, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the LA and found that Salamoding was illegally dismissed. It held that (1) Salamoding was clearly terminated from his work on May 17, 2017 through the Cessation of Work Letter he received from Orion; (2) despite knowing that a REV was effective only for 30 days, Verdant still presented Salamoding with 12-month contracts; (3) Verdant prematurely terminated his employment without any justifiable reason; and (4) Salamoding was not estopped from assailing his dismissal, despite going to Papua New Guinea with the knowledge that his visa was only for 30 days each trip. Accordingly, the NLRC awarded Salamoding wages representing the unexpired portion of his contract, as well as attorney's fees. 32

On July 9, 2018, Verdant filed a Motion for Reconsideration 33 where it argued that (1) the issuance of the 30-day REV was a supervening event permitting deviations from the Master Employment Contracts; (2) Salamoding was fully aware of the implications of being issued a REV; and (3) he voluntarily terminated his contract with Verdant through the End of Waiver Contract. 34

On July 31, 2018, Verdant filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration 35 where it averred that (1) the use of REVs is a practice allowed by the POEA; (2) the POEA was aware that Salamoding was deployed to Papua New Guinea under REVs while waiting for the issuance of a one-year work permit; and (3) he was indeed given a one-year employment visa on June 8, 2017. 36

On September 28, 2018, the NLRC issued a Resolution 37 reversing its Decision dated May 23, 2018. It reinstated the LA's Decision dated January 30, 2018 which dismissed Salamoding's complaint for lack of merit. In reconsidering its earlier ruling, the NLRC held that: (1) REVs are issued by the government of Papua New Guinea for immediate, urgent, and short-term purposes, such as Orion's Monadelphous Project; (2) since Verdant could no longer request for REVs because the Monadelphous Project already ceased on May 17, 2017, Verdant had no other recourse but to wait for the issuance of his one-year work permit which it had been applying for from the start; (3) the one-year work permit/visa was eventually issued by the government of Papua New Guinea, unfortunately, Salamoding already severed his contract with Verdant by executing the End of Contract Waiver; and (4) in all, there was no illegal dismissal because Salamoding agreed to the short-term deployments to Papua New Guinea while waiting for the issuance of his one-year visa. 38

On October 22, 2018, Salamoding filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 39 which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution 40 dated December 21, 2018. Thus, Salamoding filed a Petition for Certiorari41 before the CA arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that he was not illegally dismissed and when it failed to award his money claims. 42

In the assailed Decision 43 dated July 19, 2019, the CA denied Salamoding's Petition for Certiorari. The CA found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it reconsidered its original Decision and ruled that Salamoding was not illegally dismissed from his employment. 44 Salamoding's Motion for Reconsideration 45 was subsequently denied in a Resolution 46 dated December 9, 2019.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari47 before the Court where Salamoding argued that: (1) the CA committed grave error when it ruled that Salamoding failed to prove the fact of his dismissal; and (2) the CA committed grave error when it failed to award his salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract, as well as attorney's fees. 48

In a Resolution 49 dated June 17, 2020, the Court required respondents to file their respective Comments on the Petition.

In their Comment, 50 respondents argued that the issues raised by Salamoding are questions of fact which do not fall within the exceptions under jurisprudence. Salamoding was not illegally dismissed; hence, he is not entitled to the salary for the unexpired portion of his contract nor to the award of attorney's fees.

The sole issue for consideration is whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Salamoding's complaint for illegal dismissal.

We rule in the affirmative, hence, the Petition must be denied.

To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. 51

In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Likewise, grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. 52

Prescinding from the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, We find that the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it reversed its initial decision and reinstated that of the LA's which dismissed Salamoding's complaint for illegal dismissal.

In illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is likewise incumbent upon an employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from employment by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss. The evidence must be clear, positive and convincing. Mere allegation is not proof or evidence. 53

In this case, Salamoding sought to establish the fact of his dismissal through the following pieces of evidence: (1) his repatriation on April 19, 2017; 54 and (2) the Cessation of Work Letter served upon him on May 17, 2017. However, as correctly found by the NLRC and the CA, the same are not sufficient.

With respect to his repatriation during the effectivity of his Master Employment Contract, We agree with the CA that while the same could be reasonably viewed as a breach of contract, it cannot, in any way, equate to his illegal dismissal. The records show that he was repatriated to the Philippines solely because of the expiration of his 30-day REV. There was no other allegation, much less proof, that he was being repatriated because his employment with Orion was being terminated. To conclude that his repatriation constitutes illegal dismissal, absent any showing of intent on the part of Orion to dismiss him from work, would be to erroneously expand the logical and rational consequences of repatriation.

With regard to the service of the Cessation of Work Letter, a meticulous reading thereof shows that what was terminated by Orion was Salamoding's engagement with the Monadelphous Project, and not his employment with the company. This is evidenced by the statement in the letter which reads "Cessation of work from Monadelphous PNG LTD." Also, the same clearly states that it was his assignment as welder with Monadelphous LNG Ltd. which ceased. Further, and more importantly, the letter explains that such cessation was upon the advice of the Monadelphous management, and that Orion committed to do its "best to source a placement with another Project."

Clearly, there was no intent on Orion's part to dismiss Salamoding from work. On the contrary, it was indubitably established that Salamoding voluntarily terminated his employment through the End of Contract Waiver 55 which he executed on May 23, 2017 in exchange for a reciprocal release from liability from Orion. Absent any showing that his consent was vitiated when he executed the waiver, the same is considered valid. In De Jesus v. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., 56 We held that:

Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.

All told, the inevitable conclusion is that Salamoding failed to discharge the burden of proving the fact of his dismissal — a necessary prerequisite in illegal dismissal cases. Having established that he was not illegally dismissed from work, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it reversed its original Decision dated May 23, 2018 and reinstated the LA's Decision dated January 30, 2018 which dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated July 19, 2019 and December 9, 2019, respectively, of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. SP No. 160186, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." Gesmundo, C.J., on official business.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Also "Orion Project Services (PNG) Ltd." or "Orion Project, Ltd." in other parts of the record.

2.Rollo, pp. 12-35.

3.Id. at 36-45. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Robeniol and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.

4.Id. at 47-47a.

5.Id. at 49-76.

6.Id. at 37.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 207-209.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 117-120.

11.Id. at 37-38 and 117.

12.Id. at 38.

13.Id. at 141-143.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 121-123.

16.Id. at 121.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 128.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 39.

21.Id. at 149.

22.Id.

23.Id. at 145.

24.Id. at 39-40.

25.Id. at 214.

26.Id. at 40.

27.Id. at 111.

28.Id. at 40.

29.Id. at 163-168. Penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Jose C. Del Valle, Jr.

30.Id. at 40.

31.Id. at 94-108. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and concurred in by Commissioners Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap.

32.Id. at 41.

33.Id. at 196-206.

34.Id.

35.Id. at 251-255.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 77-83.

38.Id. at 41-42.

39.Id. at 288-294.

40.Id. at 87-91.

41.Id. at 49-76.

42.Id. at 42.

43.Id. at 36-45.

44.Id. at 43.

45.Id. at 315-324.

46.Id. at 47-47a.

47.Id. at 12-35.

48.Id. at 21.

49.Id. at 325.

50.Id. at 333-348.

51.Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr., 820 Phil. 653, 664 (2017), citing Sta. Isabel v. Perla Compañia De Seguros, Inc., 798 Phil. 165, 173 (2016).

52.Atienza v. Orophil Shipping International Co., Inc., 815 Phil. 480, 491-492 (2017).

53.Expedition Construction Corporation v. Africa, 822 Phil. 1044, 1058 (2017).

54.Rollo, p. 23.

55.Id. at 149.

56. G.R. No. 203478, June 23, 2021, citing Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission, 264 Phil. 1115, 1122 (1990).