Posted by: Michelle M. Bacarra on July 27, 2018
FACTS:
Asian Center for Career (ACC) hired respondent Ibno Mediales to work as a mason in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with a monthly salary of 1,200 Saudi Riyals (SR). The term of his contract was two (2) years, from Feb respondent ruary 28, 1995 until February 28, 1997.
On May 26, 1996, Mediales applied with petitioner for vacation leave with pay which was granted. While en route to the Philippines, he learned from his co-workers that he has been dismissed from service.
He filed a complaint before the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, refund of transportation fare, illegal deductions, non-payment of 13thmonth pay and salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract on June 17, 1996.
On March 17, 1997, ACC was adjudged guilty of illegal dismissal, and was ordered Mediales to pay SR13,200 as payment for the unexpired portion of his contract, refund of P5,000.00 placement fee, and attorneys fees.
It is noteworthy, however, that in the body of his decision, the labor arbiter applied Section 10 R.A. 8042, the law relative to the protection of Filipino overseas-workers, and computed private respondents salary for the unexpired portion of his contract as follows: SR1,200 x 3 months = SR3,600.
ACC appealed the decision, the NLRC affirmed the factual findings but modified the appealed decision by deleting the order of refund of excessive placement fee for lack of jurisdiction.
ACCP filed a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the award od SR13,200 for the unexpired portion of his contract, contending that, under Sec. 10 of R.A. 8042, that its liability for respondents salary was only for three (3) months, which then should only be SR3,600 (SR 1,200 x 3 months) for the unexpired portion of respondents employment. NLRC
NLRC denied the motion and ruled that R.A. 8042 does not apply because Mediales' employment started in February 1995, which occurred prior to its effectivity on July 15, 1995.
ACV petitioned for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not NLRC erred in ruling that since Mediales employment started only on February 28, 1995, R.A. 8042, which took effect on July 15, 1995, would not apply.
HELD:
Yes. As a rule, jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of the commencement of the action. In the case, Mediales cause of action did not accrue on the date of his date of his employment or on February 28, 1995. His cause of action arose only from the-time he was illegally dismissed by petitioner from service in June 1996, after his vacation leave expired. It is thus clear that R.A. 8042 which took effect a year earlier in July 1995 applies to the case at bar.
Under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,whichever is less.
In the case at bar, the unexpired portion of private respondents employment contract is eight (8) months. Private respondent should therefore be paid his basic salary corresponding to three (3) months or a total of SR3,600.[8]
We note that this same computation was made by the labor arbiter in the body of his decision. Despite said computation in the body of the decision, however, the labor arbiter awarded higher sum (SR13,200) in the dispositive portion.
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.
We find that the labor arbiters award of a higher amount in the dispositive portion was clearly an error for there is nothing in the text of the decision which support the award of said higher amount. We reiterate that the correct award to private respondent for the unexpired portion of his employment contract is SR3,600.
FACTS:
Asian Center for Career (ACC) hired respondent Ibno Mediales to work as a mason in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with a monthly salary of 1,200 Saudi Riyals (SR). The term of his contract was two (2) years, from Feb respondent ruary 28, 1995 until February 28, 1997.
On May 26, 1996, Mediales applied with petitioner for vacation leave with pay which was granted. While en route to the Philippines, he learned from his co-workers that he has been dismissed from service.
He filed a complaint before the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, refund of transportation fare, illegal deductions, non-payment of 13thmonth pay and salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract on June 17, 1996.
On March 17, 1997, ACC was adjudged guilty of illegal dismissal, and was ordered Mediales to pay SR13,200 as payment for the unexpired portion of his contract, refund of P5,000.00 placement fee, and attorneys fees.
It is noteworthy, however, that in the body of his decision, the labor arbiter applied Section 10 R.A. 8042, the law relative to the protection of Filipino overseas-workers, and computed private respondents salary for the unexpired portion of his contract as follows: SR1,200 x 3 months = SR3,600.
ACC appealed the decision, the NLRC affirmed the factual findings but modified the appealed decision by deleting the order of refund of excessive placement fee for lack of jurisdiction.
ACCP filed a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the award od SR13,200 for the unexpired portion of his contract, contending that, under Sec. 10 of R.A. 8042, that its liability for respondents salary was only for three (3) months, which then should only be SR3,600 (SR 1,200 x 3 months) for the unexpired portion of respondents employment. NLRC
NLRC denied the motion and ruled that R.A. 8042 does not apply because Mediales' employment started in February 1995, which occurred prior to its effectivity on July 15, 1995.
ACV petitioned for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not NLRC erred in ruling that since Mediales employment started only on February 28, 1995, R.A. 8042, which took effect on July 15, 1995, would not apply.
HELD:
Yes. As a rule, jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of the commencement of the action. In the case, Mediales cause of action did not accrue on the date of his date of his employment or on February 28, 1995. His cause of action arose only from the-time he was illegally dismissed by petitioner from service in June 1996, after his vacation leave expired. It is thus clear that R.A. 8042 which took effect a year earlier in July 1995 applies to the case at bar.
Under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,whichever is less.
In the case at bar, the unexpired portion of private respondents employment contract is eight (8) months. Private respondent should therefore be paid his basic salary corresponding to three (3) months or a total of SR3,600.[8]
We note that this same computation was made by the labor arbiter in the body of his decision. Despite said computation in the body of the decision, however, the labor arbiter awarded higher sum (SR13,200) in the dispositive portion.
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.
We find that the labor arbiters award of a higher amount in the dispositive portion was clearly an error for there is nothing in the text of the decision which support the award of said higher amount. We reiterate that the correct award to private respondent for the unexpired portion of his employment contract is SR3,600.
