FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Eleazar Gran against Expertise Search International (ESI), EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. (EDI), and Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB) for underpayment of wages/salaries and illegal dismissal. Gran was recruited by EDI and deployed by ESI to work for OAB in Saudi Arabia. After accepting OAB's offer, Gran signed an employment contract for a monthly salary of USD 850. However, upon arrival in Riyadh, Gran questioned the discrepancy in his monthly salary as indicated in his employment contract and the POEA Information Sheet. With the assistance of EDI, OAB agreed to pay Gran USD 850 per month. After working for OAB for five months, Gran's employment was terminated. Gran received his final pay and executed a Declaration releasing OAB from any financial obligation towards him. Gran then filed a complaint with the NLRC, which initially ruled that there was no underpayment or illegal dismissal. However, the NLRC reversed the decision, finding that Gran did not commit any act that warranted dismissal and that the transfer of Gran's contract from EDI to ESI constituted misrepresentation.

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Expertise Search International, Inc. (EDI) before the Supreme Court. Prior to that, Eleazar Gran filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of salaries against EDI and two other companies. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Gran and ordered the companies to pay him his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and held the companies jointly and severally liable to pay Gran. Gran filed a motion for execution of judgment, but EDI opposed it, arguing that it was not given notice of the appeal and was not given an opportunity to participate in the appellate proceedings. The NLRC denied EDI's motion for reconsideration, prompting EDI to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favor of Gran, finding that his failure to furnish a copy of his appeal memorandum to EDI was a mere formal lapse and not a jurisdictional defect. The CA also found that EDI failed to prove the justifiability of Gran's termination and that Gran was not afforded due process. The CA denied EDI's petition to set aside the NLRC decision, leading to the instant petition before the Supreme Court. The issues raised by EDI include the failure of Gran to furnish a copy of his appeal memorandum to EDI, the justifiability of Gran's termination, whether Gran was afforded due process, and whether Gran is entitled to backwages for the unexpired portion of his contract.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Gran's failure to furnish EDI with a copy of the Appeal Memorandum constitutes a jurisdictional defect and a deprivation of due process.

2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to require Gran to furnish EDI with a copy of the Appeal Memorandum.

3. Whether the failure of the NLRC to ensure that the petitioner was furnished a copy of the Appeal Memorandum before rendering judgment constitutes a violation of procedural due process.

4. Whether Gran's dismissal is justified by reason of incompetence, insubordination, and disobedience.

5. Whether the petitioner has proven that the respondent was incompetent, insubordinate, or disobedient.

6. Whether the order violated by the respondent was reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertains to his duties.

7. Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent was justifiably dismissed.

8. Whether the ruling in Prieto v. NLRC is applicable to the present case.

9. Whether the respondent was afforded due process.

10. Whether the employer provided the employee with the two notice requirement before termination?

11. Whether the employee was afforded due process?

12. Whether the employee is entitled to indemnity for the employer's violation of his right to statutory due process?

13. Whether the employee is entitled to backwages?

14. Is the waiver and quitclaim labeled a Declaration valid?

15. Did Gran voluntarily and freely execute the Declaration?

16. Is the Declaration a contract of adhesion?

17. Whether or not EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. complied with statutory due process in terminating respondent Gran.

18. Whether or not respondent Gran is entitled to nominal damages.

RULING:

1. The failure of appellant to furnish a copy of the appeal to the adverse party is not fatal to the appeal. It is treated as a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and not a jurisdictional defect. The appeal should not be dismissed but should not be given due course either. The NLRC's duty in such a case is to require the appellant to comply with the rule that the opposing party should be provided with a copy of the appeal memorandum.

2. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to require Gran to furnish EDI with a copy of the Appeal Memorandum. Gran's failure to furnish EDI with a copy of the Appeal Memorandum may be excusable, but the NLRC's failure to order him to provide such a copy constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

3. The Supreme Court held that the failure of the NLRC to ensure that the petitioner was furnished a copy of the Appeal Memorandum before rendering judgment constitutes a violation of procedural due process. The court emphasized that this failure deprived the petitioner of its right to procedural due process and violated the principle of fair play and level playing field. However, instead of annulling the dispositions of the NLRC and remanding the case for further proceedings, the Supreme Court resolved the petition based on the records before them to avoid protracted litigation.

4. The Supreme Court ruled that Gran's dismissal was not justified by reason of incompetence, insubordination, and disobedience. The court applied Philippine labor laws in determining the matter since the petitioner failed to prove the pertinent Saudi laws on termination. It is established under Philippine law and jurisprudence that the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and valid causes rests on the employer. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence to prove that Gran's dismissal was justified. As a result, the court held that the dismissal was not valid and legal.

5. The petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent was incompetent, insubordinate, or disobedient.

6. The petitioner failed to show that the order violated by the respondent was reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertains to his duties.

7. The petitioner failed to prove that the respondent was justifiably dismissed.

8. The ruling in Prieto v. NLRC is applicable to the present case.

9. The respondent was not afforded due process.

10. The employer failed to provide the employee with the two notice requirement before termination, as prescribed by the Labor Code. Thus, the employee was not afforded due process.

11. The employer did not schedule a hearing or conference with the employee to defend himself and was denied the chance to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative as provided under Article 277 of the Labor Code.

12. Pursuant to the doctrine laid down in Agabon, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages as indemnity for violating the employee's right to statutory due process. The employer, jointly and solidarily with other parties, is ordered to pay the employee PhP 30,000.00 as indemnity.

13. The employee is entitled to backwages corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, which was equivalent to USD 16,150.

14. The waiver and quitclaim labeled a Declaration is not valid. The Court found it null and void due to the unreasonably low amount paid to Gran upon termination, and the fact that it was significantly lower than the amount Gran was legally entitled to. Additionally, the payment was labeled as salary for services rendered, which is not the proper consideration for a quitclaim.

15. Gran did not voluntarily and freely execute the Declaration. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the document showed that he was forced to sign it, as he was instructed to depart Saudi Arabia and required to pay his plane ticket. He had no other choice but to sign the Declaration in order to receive the payment for his ticket.

16. The Declaration is considered a contract of adhesion, which is contrary to public policy. It leaves the employee in a "take-it-or-leave-it" situation, with no meaningful choice. Such contracts are deemed unjust to the employee and are construed against the employer.

17. EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. is found to have failed to comply with statutory due process in terminating respondent Gran.

18. Respondent Gran is awarded PhP 30,000.00 as nominal damages for the non-compliance with statutory due process.

PRINCIPLES:

• Failure to furnish the adverse party with a copy of the appeal is considered a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and not a jurisdictional defect. The appeal should not be dismissed but should not be given due course either.

• The duty of the NLRC in such a case is to require the appellant to comply with the rule that the opposing party should be provided with a copy of the appeal memorandum.

• Proof of service through registered mail requires the submission of an affidavit proving that the appeal memorandum was mailed together with the registry receipt issued by the post office and the immediate filing of the registry return card.

• The failure to provide procedural due process, including the right to be heard and to defend oneself, constitutes a violation of the Constitution. (Constitutional Law)

• In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the absence of proof of the foreign law, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same as the forum law. (Conflict of Laws)

• In termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and valid causes rests on the employer. Failure to provide clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence to justify the dismissal renders it illegal. (Labor Law)

• An allegation of incompetence should have a factual foundation and can be proven by weighing it against a standard or criterion.

• In order to establish willful disobedience as a valid cause for dismissal, the employee's conduct must be characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and the order violated must be reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertain to his duties.

• The burden of proof lies not only on the foreign-based employer but also on the employment or recruitment agency for claims or liabilities arising from the dismissal of the worker.

• The purpose of a required trade test is to weed out incompetent applicants and ascertain their qualifications for the job. Failure to subject the employee to a trade test weakens the employer's position but should not prejudice the employee.

• Philippine labor laws and regulations shall govern the relationship between the parties in the absence of proof of Saudi laws.

• The requirements of due process include the giving of two written notices, a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested, and a notice of the decision to dismiss based on just cause.

• Employees must be given two notices before their employment could be terminated: a first notice to apprise them of their fault, and a second notice to communicate that their employment is being terminated.

• Between the first and second notice, the employees should be given a hearing or opportunity to defend themselves personally or with counsel.

• Employers must provide employees with due process, including the chance to be heard and defend themselves with the assistance of a representative.

• When an employer violates an employee's right to statutory due process, they are liable to pay nominal damages as indemnity.

• Employees hired for a fixed period of employment, when dismissed without just cause, are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contract.

• A quitclaim or waiver must be voluntarily executed with full understanding of the contents of the document and the rights being forfeited by the employee.

• The consideration for a quitclaim must be credible and reasonable.

• An amount in a quitclaim that is unreasonably low or unconscionable may render the document unenforceable.

• Contracts of adhesion, which leave the weaker party with no meaningful choice, are contrary to public policy and are construed against the party who prepared the contract.

• To prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability of quitclaims, it is advisable to include certain stipulations in the agreement, such as a fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement, a clear explanation to the employee of the rights being relinquished, and the voluntary execution of the document without any undue influence or coercion.

• Quitclaims should be subscribed and sworn to under oath before a designated official, and two witnesses should also sign the document.

• Employers must comply with statutory due process in terminating employees.

• Employees who were terminated without complying with statutory due process may be entitled to nominal damages.