View full case

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FLORENCE O. CABANSAG

FACTS:

Florence O. Cabansag applied for employment at the Singapore branch of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and was offered a temporary appointment as a Credit Officer. Three months into her employment, she was told to resign by the General Manager, Ruben C. Tobias, due to cost-cutting measures and the planned sale or transformation of the Singapore branch. Cabansag confronted Tobias and he confirmed the need for her resignation. She filed a complaint with the labor authorities in Singapore but was later terminated by PNB.

Cabansag filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and lack of due process, which was ruled in her favor by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC and CA. PNB appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues of jurisdiction, forum convenience, and the legality of the dismissal.

The Supreme Court noted that in a petition for review on certiorari, its scope of judicial review is generally limited to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. The findings of the labor tribunals, supported by substantial evidence, were affirmed by the CA and are entitled to great respect, unless there is a clear showing of palpable error or arbitrary disregard of evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether labor arbiters and the NLRC have jurisdiction over termination disputes involving overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

  2. Whether the employment pass obtained by the respondent in Singapore implies a waiver of Philippine labor laws and makes her subject to Singaporean laws.

  3. Whether the Complaint for illegal dismissal filed by the respondent constitutes a valid choice of venue.

  4. Whether the respondent was illegally dismissed.

  5. Whether the petitioner complied with the requirements of notice and hearing.

  6. Whether there was a valid cause for the dismissal.

  7. Whether the stipulations, clauses, and terms and conditions of the contract contravened labor law provisions.

  8. Whether the dismissal of the employee was justified or constitutes an act of illegal dismissal.

  9. Whether the award of moral and exemplary damages was proper.

  10. Whether the award of attorney's fees was justifiable.

RULING:

  1. Labor arbiters and the NLRC have jurisdiction over termination disputes involving all workers, including OFWs. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC is specified in Article 217 of the Labor Code, which includes termination disputes as one of the cases within their jurisdiction. Section 10 of RA 8042 further confirms that labor arbiters have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims arising from employer-employee relationships involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment.

  2. The employment pass obtained by the respondent in Singapore does not imply a waiver of Philippine labor laws and does not make her subject to Singaporean laws. The employment pass is a regulatory requirement in Singapore and simply means that the holder has a legal status as a worker in the issuing country. The fact that the respondent applied for and secured an Overseas Employment Certificate from the POEA through the Philippine Embassy in Singapore affirms her status as a contract worker or OFW who is covered by Philippine labor laws and policies. Additionally, the fact that the petitioner is a Philippine corporation doing business through a branch office in Singapore reinforces the presumption that the respondent falls under the legal definition of a migrant worker, subject to Philippine laws and the jurisdiction of the NLRC and labor arbiters.

  3. The court ruled that the respondent has the option to choose the venue of her Complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. The law gives her two choices: (1) at the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) where she resides or (2) at the RAB where the principal office of her employer is situated. Since she has returned to the Philippines and filed her Complaint before the RAB office in Quezon City, it was held that she made a valid choice of proper venue.

  4. The court ruled that the respondent was illegally dismissed. The appellate court correctly held that the respondent was already a regular employee at the time of her dismissal based on Article 281 of the Labor Code. The petitioner recognized her as a regular employee by giving her one month's salary in lieu of a one-month notice.

  5. The court ruled that the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. The respondent was not given the required written notices informing her of the specific acts or omissions for which her dismissal was sought, and she was not given any opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of procedural due process.

  6. The court ruled that there was no valid cause for the dismissal. The petitioner failed to assert any of the valid grounds provided by law for terminating the employment of the respondent. The court stated that the terms and conditions agreed upon in the employment Contract must not be contrary to Philippine labor laws.

  7. The stipulations, clauses, and terms and conditions of the contract must not contravene Philippine labor law provisions.

  8. The dismissal of the employee was illegal and constituted an act of illegal dismissal.

  9. The award of moral and exemplary damages was proper.

  10. The award of attorney's fees was justifiable.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Labor arbiters and the NLRC have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes involving all workers, including OFWs.

  • The employment pass obtained in a foreign country does not waive one's national laws on labor, and the holder of the pass is still subject to their home country's labor laws.

  • Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, regardless of any contract stipulations to the contrary.

  • Laws that have for their object public order, public policy, and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

  • Migrant workers or overseas Filipino workers have the option to choose the venue of their Complaint for illegal dismissal.

  • An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

  • The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of procedural due process.

  • The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was done for valid grounds provided by law.

  • Terms and conditions agreed upon in an employment Contract must not be contrary to law, morals, customs, public policy, or public order.

  • A contract of employment is imbued with public interest, and parties cannot insulate themselves from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other.

  • When there is no clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, it is considered a case of illegal dismissal.

  • Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith, constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

  • Awards for moral and exemplary damages are proper if the employee was harassed and arbitrarily dismissed by the employer.

  • The grant of attorney's fees is justifiable when an action is initiated for the recovery of wages or when employees are forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect their rights and interests.