Fausto v. Leogardo, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Policarpio Y. Fausto was hired by McDermott Dubai/Oceanic Contractors, Inc. (McDermott) on October 23, 1979, as a clerk-typist in Saudi Arabia with a monthly salary of $555.00, based on a guaranteed 48 hours straight time and 12 hours overtime per week. Approximately two months later, on December 17, 1979, McDermott issued an inter-office communication proposing amendments to his employment contract, effective January 1, 1980. These amendments aimed to clarify overtime calculations and increase salary by approximately 2%, based on working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. Fausto was advised that refusal to sign the addendum would result in early contract completion on or about January 1, 1980, with the letter serving as official 15-day notice of separation. Fausto refused to sign, believing the addendum would be prejudicial. Procedural History: Fausto filed a complaint for illegal termination with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), National Capital Region. The Regional Director, Francisco L. Estrella, ruled in favor of Fausto, finding the termination illegal and ordering McDermott to reinstate Fausto with full back wages. McDermott moved for reconsideration, arguing the Regional Director lacked jurisdiction and erred in disregarding the addendum approved by the Overseas Employment and Development Board (OEDB). The motion was treated as an appeal and elevated to the Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment. The Petition: The Deputy Minister, in an Order dated January 7, 1985, affirmed the Regional Director's jurisdiction but reversed the latter's decision. The Deputy Minister ruled that Fausto opted for early contract completion by refusing to sign the addendum, which was approved by the OEDB and did not prejudice him economically. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. Fausto then filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Deputy Minister's Order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Regional Director's Order. Whether the termination of Fausto's employment was illegal.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the challenged Order of January 7, 1985, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that Fausto failed to demonstrate that the Deputy Minister's Order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy only when such jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion are present. Since Fausto did not establish these grounds, the Court could not nullify the Deputy Minister's Order. The Deputy Minister's disposition of the jurisdictional issue raised by McDermott was based on applicable case law, and this issue was not pursued by Fausto before the Supreme Court. The Court found no basis to interfere with the Deputy Minister's findings on the merits of the case. On the issue of the propriety of the termination of Fausto's employment: The Supreme Court upheld the Deputy Minister's ruling that Fausto's termination was justified. The Deputy Minister's decision was based on the official approval of the addendum by the Overseas Employment Development Board (OEDB), the agency tasked with securing the best terms for overseas workers. The Court noted that Fausto did not show he would be prejudiced economically or otherwise by the addendum. Furthermore, the addendum actually provided a salary increase of approximately 2% for the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts applies to unreasonable impairments, not to enhancements of employment terms. Therefore, Fausto had no valid reason to refuse the terms and conditions of the addendum if he wished to maintain his employment relationship with McDermott. His refusal constituted cause for termination, which McDermott had the right to implement.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may only be granted if the respondent court or tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In labor cases, an employee's refusal to sign an addendum to an employment contract, which is approved by the Overseas Employment Development Board and does not prejudice the employee, may constitute just cause for termination.