GR 129584; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129584 December 3, 1998
TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES, JR. and ERLINDA OSDANA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. recruited private respondent Erlinda Osdana for employment with Gulf Catering Company (GCC) in Saudi Arabia. The original contract was for 36 months as a Food Server, but she was made to sign a different POEA-approved contract for 12 months as a waitress. Upon deployment, Osdana was assigned tasks unrelated to her designation, such as washing dishes and janitorial work, for grueling 12-hour shifts without overtime pay. The strenuous work caused her to develop Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, necessitating two surgeries.
She was not paid salaries during her hospital confinements and periods when she was not given work. She was eventually dismissed on the ground of illness without separation pay. Upon returning to the Philippines, Osdana filed a complaint for monetary claims against Triple Eight. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. Triple Eight filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision awarding monetary claims to Osdana.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s decision with modification. The legal logic is clear: First, the constitutional requirement for decisions to state facts and law was satisfied as the Labor Arbiter’s decision, while concise, contained sufficient bases for its conclusions. Second, Osdana’s dismissal due to illness was illegal. An illness must be so grave that the employee cannot perform her duties, and the employer must have acted in good faith. Here, Osdana’s condition, while serious, did not render her completely unfit, especially for light work as advised by her doctor. Her abrupt dismissal without separation pay constituted bad faith.
Third, the award of damages was proper due to the employer’s bad faith in imposing illegal working conditions and effecting an unjust dismissal. Finally, on liability, the Court clarified that petitioner was held solely liable because it was the only named respondent in the complaint; the labor tribunals did not acquire jurisdiction over the foreign principal, GCC. This does not preclude petitioner from seeking reimbursement from GCC. The monetary awards were recalculated and affirmed as modified.