G.R. No. L-74009 August 27, 1987
Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc., and Almabani General Contractors, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Commissioners Diego P. Atienza, Geronimo Q. Quadra and Cleto T. Villatuya of the National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Allan P. Brazil, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Allan P. Brazil was hired by petitioner Almabani General Contractors through its agent, Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc., to work in Saudi Arabia as a heavy equipment foreman under a two-year contract commencing December 10, 1981. Petitioners alleged that before the end of his first year, Brazil committed several infractions, including organizing a labor strike, disobeying instructions, repeated absences, and unauthorized use of a company vehicle. Apprised that these acts constituted grounds for termination and possible criminal prosecution under Saudi law, Brazil allegedly proposed to resign and leave Saudi Arabia to avoid charges. Almabani agreed, issued him a certificate of eligibility for re-employment dated November 30, 1982, and on December 13, 1982, Brazil signed a clearance of account acknowledging receipt of all dues and waiving future claims. He departed with an exit visa only and a one-way ticket to the Philippines, arriving on December 23, 1982.
On January 18, 1983, Brazil filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), claiming he was dismissed without notice while on a fifteen-day vacation in the Philippines in December 1982. The POEA ruled in his favor, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioners filed this certiorari action, contending the NLRC ignored material evidence proving Brazil resigned voluntarily to avoid sanctions.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the POEA’s decision declaring the dismissal illegal, despite allegedly disregarding material evidence indicating voluntary resignation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the NLRC whimsically disregarded decisive evidence contradicting Brazil’s claim of being on vacation when dismissed. The certificate of re-employment dated November 30, 1982, issued before his contract’s first year ended, explicitly stated his contract was expiring, negating his vacation claim. The certification from the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs showed he left with an exit visa only, not a re-entry visa, indicating no expected return. His receipt of a one-way ticket, contrary to the contract’s stipulation for a round-trip ticket for vacations, further evidenced separation. Finally, the authenticated clearance of account with a waiver, which Brazil failed to substantively challenge as forged, confirmed a final settlement.
The legal logic is that administrative bodies like the NLRC must consider all relevant evidence; capricious disregard of material and conclusive documents constitutes grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari. The confluence of these documents—the re-employment certificate, exit visa certification, one-way ticket, and signed clearance—irrefutably established that Brazil voluntarily resigned pursuant to a mutual agreement to pre-terminate the contract, not that he was illegally dismissed while on leave. Consequently, the NLRC resolutions were annulled and the complaint dismissed.