G.R. No. L-74218 December 14, 1987
MANUELA S. CATAN/M.S. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AMELIA DE PEREIRA and EDUARDO DE PEREIRA, respondents.

FACTS

Eduardo de Pereira was recruited by petitioner M.S. Catan Placement Agency for employment as an electrical maintenance operator in Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract. The contract entitled him to a 30-day paid vacation leave after twelve months of continuous service, subject to his employer’s scheduling based on work convenience. After completing one year, Pereira requested his vacation leave. He alleged that his employer, accompanied by police, detained him and his companions, falsely accused them of sabotage, and forced them to sign a new two-year contract written in Arabic as a condition for their release. Pereira eventually secured repatriation by paying his own plane fare and fees. Upon returning to the Philippines, he filed a complaint for damages against the recruitment agency for breach of contract.
The POEA adjudication office ruled in Pereira’s favor, ordering the agency to pay salaries for the unexpired contract period, unpaid wages, reimbursement for repatriation costs, and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. The recruitment agency then filed this petition for certiorari, challenging the NLRC’s findings.

ISSUE

Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of damages to Pereira based on his evidence?

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found Pereira’s sworn statements inherently illogical and improbable, thus undeserving of credence. Specifically, the Court noted the unexplained contradiction in Pereira’s claim that he was forced to sign a document he could not understand, yet he knew it was a new two-year contract. Furthermore, the allegation that his employer would accuse him of sabotage but simultaneously insist on renewing his employment for another two years defied common experience and logic.
The legal logic centers on the principle that evidence, to be believed, must not only come from a credible witness but must also be consistent with common knowledge and probability. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC’s failure to account for these patent inconsistencies in Pereira’s narrative constituted capriciousness and whimsicality, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Since Pereira’s foundational evidence was deemed unworthy of belief, his cause of action against the agency collapsed. Consequently, the Court nullified the decisions of the POEA and NLRC and dismissed Pereira’s complaint.