G.R. No. 85866 July 24, 1990
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TITO B. BARBO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Asian Construction and Development Corporation hired private respondent Tito B. Barbo as a steel fixer for its project in Iraq. After about seven months, with steel fixing work nearing completion, Barbo was transferred to the water-proofing division. After only three days of performing this new task, his German supervisor ordered him to leave his work without explanation. The following day, the project site manager informed Barbo that he was being terminated for alleged insubordination. Barbo pleaded for reassignment to his original steel fixing job, but this was denied. He was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines, with the petitioner withholding his salary allotments and charging him for travel expenses. Barbo then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
The petitioner contested the complaint, claiming Barbo resented the transfer and was insubordinate, specifically alleging he refused orders to carry hollow blocks. In support, it submitted an affidavit from its project site manager. The POEA rendered a decision finding the dismissal illegal, a ruling later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on appeal. The petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding that Tito B. Barbo was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court upheld the factual findings of the POEA and NLRC, which are accorded great weight and finality when supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner’s allegation of insubordination was deemed a mere sweeping statement, insufficiently supported by credible evidence. The affidavit from the project manager was correctly considered self-serving and hearsay, lacking corroboration.
The legal logic centers on the failure of the employer to substantiate a just cause for termination. The evidence showed Barbo was unfamiliar with water-proofing work, having been assigned to it for only three days after years as a steel fixer. The Court agreed with the lower bodies that his lack of experience in the new task, not willful disobedience, led to his removal. A transfer, while potentially allowed by contract, does not permit dismissal for poor performance in an unfamiliar role without adequate training or a showing of deliberate misconduct. The ruling emphasizes the protective principle in labor law, noting that overseas workers undertake great sacrifice and are unlikely to willfully jeopardize their employment. Therefore, the dismissal, being unsupported by just or authorized cause, was illegal.