GR 157010; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157010 ; June 21, 2005
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. FLORENCE O. CABANSAG, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Florence O. Cabansag was hired in late 1998 as a Credit Officer for the Singapore branch of Philippine National Bank (PNB). She was issued an Overseas Employment Certificate by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, certifying her as a bona fide contract worker. Her employment was initially temporary, subject to a three-month probation. Barely three months into her employment, the branch’s General Manager, Ruben C. Tobias, informed her through intermediaries that she must resign as a “cost-cutting measure” due to the branch’s impending sale or transformation into a remittance office. Cabansag refused to resign. Subsequently, Tobias demanded her resignation under the pretext of needing a Chinese-speaking officer and threatened to blemish her record with a dismissal notation. On April 20, 1999, she received a termination letter from Tobias.
ISSUE
Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over Cabansag’s illegal dismissal case despite her being a locally-hired employee in PNB’s Singapore branch.
RULING
Yes, Philippine labor tribunals have jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the rulings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, which found Cabansag to have been illegally dismissed. The legal logic rests on the principle that the protective mantle of Philippine labor laws extends to all Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas. This protection cannot be diminished by foreign laws or agreements. The Court found that Cabansag was a “local hire” in name only. The critical facts establishing Philippine jurisdiction are that PNB is a Philippine corporation, her employment was approved by PNB’s President in Manila, and she was processed and certified as an overseas contract worker by Philippine authorities. Therefore, her employment contract was effectively entered into in the Philippines, and her dismissal had a direct connection to PNB’s Manila head office. The termination was illegal as it was not for any just or authorized cause under the Labor Code. The proffered reasons of cost-cutting and redundancy were unsubstantiated and not communicated formally by the head office, rendering the dismissal a mere pretext. Consequently, PNB is liable for illegal dismissal.