Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles

Facts: Petitioner is a recruitment and placement agency. Responding to an ad it published, respondent Joy C. Cabiles submitted her application for a quality control job in Taiwan. Joy’s application was accepted. She was required to pay a placement fee when she signed the employment contract. 

Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal on June 26, 1997. She alleged in her employment contract that she agreed to work as a quality control for one year, however, she was asked to work as a cutter. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without prior notice, that she was terminated. Wacoal deducted her salary to cover her plane ticket to Manila.

Joy filed a complained with the NLRC against petitioner and Wacoal, claiming she was illegally dismissed. Petitioner also asserted that Wacoal's accreditation with petitioner had already been transferred to Pacific. Pacific moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s claims.

The LA dismissed Joy’s complaint. On appeal, the NLRC declared Joy was illegally dismissed. It also denied the agency’s MR. CA affirmed the NLRC decision.

Issue: Whether the CA erred when it affirmed the NLRC decision.

Held: No. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing Joy’s dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.

Employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work. They may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply with these standards. Failure to comply may be a just cause for their dismissal. This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is “tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure.” Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our Constitution.

To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that: 1) the employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be judged; 2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the employee; and 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee’s performance assessment. In this case, petitioner merely alleged that respondent failed to comply with her foreign employer’s work requirements and was inefficient in her work. No evidence was shown to support such allegations.