G.R. No. 112629. July 7, 1995. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PNCC), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, BONIFACIO M. ROQUERO, and ALFREDO I. DAVILA, respondents.
FACTS:

Private respondents Bonifacio Roquero and Alfredo Davila, employed as security guards by petitioner PNCC since 1980, were assigned to an overseas project in Iraq. They were issued POEA-approved Master Employment Contracts stipulating a monthly salary of US$350. Before their departure on May 14, 1985, they were made to sign blank printed forms. At the airport, they discovered these completed forms now indicated a reduced salary of US$260 per month. Throughout their deployment, they were paid at this lower rate and received only two hours of overtime pay despite rendering four hours of daily overtime work. Davila was repatriated before his contract expired due to a workforce reduction.
PNCC resisted their subsequent POEA complaint for salary differentials and other benefits, arguing the Master Contracts were mere unaccepted offers and the binding contracts were those providing for the US$260 salary. The POEA ruled in favor of the private respondents, ordering payment of differentials and unexpired salary. The NLRC dismissed PNCC’s appeal, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the POEA and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the valid employment contracts of private respondents were the POEA-approved Master Contracts providing for a US$350 monthly salary, not the subsequently signed contracts providing for US$260.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC resolution. The legal logic is clear: the POEA-approved Master Employment Contracts, which stipulated a US$350 salary, constituted the valid agreements. The act of private respondents assenting to work overseas after being offered that salary constituted an implied acceptance of those terms under Article 1320 of the Civil Code. The subsequent contracts providing for a lower salary were executed through fraud, as complainants were made to sign blank forms and only received the completed documents at the airport. This alteration violated Article 34(i) of the Labor Code, which prohibits the substitution or alteration of duly approved employment contracts without DOLE approval. The subsequent contracts were not POEA-approved.
Furthermore, the Court found PNCC’s defense of laches unavailing, as it was raised for the first time in the certiorari petition and thus beyond the scope of review limited to jurisdictional issues or grave abuse of discretion. The ruling is consistent with a prior case involving PNCC and similarly situated employees. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the findings of the POEA and NLRC.