G.R. No. 75602 . December 29, 1989.
TRANS-ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTRACTORS, INC. and JOINT VENTURE YIT-VESIPEKKA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. ELMOR D. JURIDICO and DIOSDADO P. VILLARAMA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners hired private respondent Diosdado Villarama, Jr. as a camp physician for their jobsite in Baghdad, Iraq, under a one-year contract with a 90-day probationary period. The contract stipulated that employment could be terminated if the employee failed to meet skill requirements, adjust to rules, or conflicted with local laws. During his probation, Villarama diligently performed his medical duties, working long hours due to 24-hour operations. He also wrote several memos to the Personnel Manager, Seppo Havia, addressing critical camp issues such as the lack of a reliable ambulance service, inadequate safety equipment for workers causing injuries, poor sanitation, and the serving of spoiled food causing illnesses among workers.
Instead of addressing these concerns substantively, Havia responded by testing the food samples and, subsequently, terminated Villarama’s employment on October 16, 1981. Villarama protested the termination and was later paid his salary only up to the date of dismissal. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which ruled in his favor, ordering petitioners to pay his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract and travel expenses. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the POEA decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether public respondents (NLRC and POEA) gravely abused their discretion in ruling that Villarama was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the findings of illegal dismissal. Petitioners contended that Villarama, as a probationary employee, was validly terminated for failing to meet performance standards, asserting a management prerogative to assess fitness for regularization. The Court, however, found this argument unmeritorious. The grounds for termination under the contract were specific: lack of skill, failure to adjust to rules, or conflict with local laws. Villarama’s core competency as a physician was never questioned; no complaints were lodged against his medical skills. The alleged administrative lapses (e.g., clinic cleanliness, replenishment of first-aid kits) were satisfactorily explained and were merely corollary to his primary duties.
The evidence demonstrated that Villarama was terminated not for any contractual ground but because petitioners resented his memos highlighting serious camp deficiencies, which they perceived as detrimental to their interests. The Court upheld the factual findings of the NLRC and POEA, noting that such findings are generally binding and not subject to review via certiorari in the absence of a showing that they are utterly devoid of evidentiary support. Since no such showing was made, and public respondents did not act capriciously, their decision was sustained. The dismissal was deemed illegal, warranting the payment of back salaries for the unexpired contract period.