GR 205953; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205953 , June 06, 2018
DIONELLA A. GOPIO, doing business under the name and style, JOB ASIA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Petitioner vs. SALVADOR B. BAUTISTA, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Salvador Bautista was hired as a Project Manager in Papua New Guinea through petitioner Job Asia Management Services. His employment contract was for 31 months. After nine months, he was terminated on grounds of unsatisfactory performance and failure to meet company standards. He was paid his salary up to his termination date, annual leave credits, and one-month pay. Bautista filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing the termination lacked just cause and due process. He claimed entitlement to salaries for the unexpired 22 months of his contract. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal illegal due to insufficient proof of just cause and lack of due process, awarding full backwages for the unexpired term. The NLRC reversed, upholding the termination for just cause based on performance reports but found a due process violation, awarding only nominal damages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding Bautista was illegally dismissed and entitled to full salaries for the unexpired portion of his fixed-term contract.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic centers on the employer’s failure to prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. The performance evaluation report was created over a month after Bautista’s dismissal, rendering it a self-serving, post-hoc justification that cannot validate the termination. Furthermore, the employer failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement of due process. The Court rejected the argument that Article 4.3 of the POEA-approved contract, allowing termination with one-month pay in lieu of notice, justified the dismissal. Such a stipulation, permitting termination at the employer’s whim upon payment, is a contract of adhesion that circumvents the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. It is void for being contrary to law, public order, and public policy. Consequently, the dismissal being illegal, Bautista is entitled under the law (RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022) to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. The award of full backwages for the unexpired term serves as indemnity for the wrongful deprivation of employment.