SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-56379. April 28, 1983.]
EDIQUILLO CUALES, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHIL-SINGAPORE PORT CORPORATION, and GALAXY CATERING & COMMISSARY SERVICE, INC., Respondents.
Neva B. Blancaver for Petitioner.
Mariano V. Ampil, Jr., for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR ABROAD WITH A DEFINITE PERIOD; EMPLOYMENT NOT TERMINATED UPON REPATRIATION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT; CASE AT BAR. — The contention of respondents that the contract of employment expired or was terminated upon petitioner’s arrival in the Philippines to undergo surgery and medical treatment is untenable where the contract entered into by and between the petitioner and the private respondents provides that the employment of the petitioner is for a definite period of 24 months, its effectivity to commence upon the employee’s actual arrival at the work-site in Saudi Arabia or within five (5) days from his departure from the Philippines, and the contract term of twenty-four months shall terminate upon the employee’s arrival in the Philippines or within five (5) days from the date of departure from the work-site, whichever comes first.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; CERTIFICATION OF FITNESS OF THE OPERATING SURGEON HAS MORE WEIGHT THAN ONE WHO MERELY EXAMINED THE HOSPITAL RECORD OF PATIENT; CASE AT BAR. — There is no merit to respondents’ claim that the petitioner could not be returned to his employment abroad because he was unfit for duty. As between the certification of Dr. Pujalte who performed the surgery and under whose care the petitioner recovered from his ailment, and the unverified opinion of Dr. Orlina, the respondent company’s physician, who merely examined the hospital record of petitioner, without examining the patient, the certification of Dr. Pujalte certainly carries more weight.
3. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAW; PROTECTION TO LABOR; CONTRACT OF RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM IN CASE AT BAR, VIOLATIVE OF SAID POLICY. — The findings of respondent National Labor Relations Commission that the Release and Quitclaim executed by the petitioner is binding to release and forever discharge the private respondents from all claims arising out of the contract of employment, cannot be sustained for being arbitrary and oppressive for the reason that there was no consideration for the said Release and Quitclaim because what was actually paid to the petitioner was the Return and Travel Fund (RTF) which has been regularly deducted by private respondents from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the explicit provisions of the contract of employment. Besides, the Release and Quitclaim is inequitable and incorignious to the declared public policy of the State to afford protection to labor and to assure the rights of workers to security of tenure. It results that the said Release and Quitclaim does not constitute a waiver to demand and decision for his rights under the contract of employment and under the law. Consequently, the petitioner should be paid his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract of employment.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; CERTIFICATION OF FITNESS OF THE OPERATING SURGEON HAS MORE WEIGHT THAN ONE WHO MERELY EXAMINED THE HOSPITAL RECORD OF PATIENT; CASE AT BAR. — There is no merit to respondents’ claim that the petitioner could not be returned to his employment abroad because he was unfit for duty. As between the certification of Dr. Pujalte who performed the surgery and under whose care the petitioner recovered from his ailment, and the unverified opinion of Dr. Orlina, the respondent company’s physician, who merely examined the hospital record of petitioner, without examining the patient, the certification of Dr. Pujalte certainly carries more weight.
3. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAW; PROTECTION TO LABOR; CONTRACT OF RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM IN CASE AT BAR, VIOLATIVE OF SAID POLICY. — The findings of respondent National Labor Relations Commission that the Release and Quitclaim executed by the petitioner is binding to release and forever discharge the private respondents from all claims arising out of the contract of employment, cannot be sustained for being arbitrary and oppressive for the reason that there was no consideration for the said Release and Quitclaim because what was actually paid to the petitioner was the Return and Travel Fund (RTF) which has been regularly deducted by private respondents from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the explicit provisions of the contract of employment. Besides, the Release and Quitclaim is inequitable and incorignious to the declared public policy of the State to afford protection to labor and to assure the rights of workers to security of tenure. It results that the said Release and Quitclaim does not constitute a waiver to demand and decision for his rights under the contract of employment and under the law. Consequently, the petitioner should be paid his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract of employment.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Review on certiorari of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter Ruben A. Aquino in Case No. NCR-STF-8-4823-79, entitled: "Ediquillo Cuales, complainant, versus Phil-Singapore Port Corporation and Galaxy Catering & Commissary Service, Inc., Respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library
The record of the case shows that on November 1, 1977, herein petitioner Ediquillo Cuales was hired as a cook by the respondent Phil-Singapore Port Corporation for its project at Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a total monthly income of not less than
The record of the case shows that on November 1, 1977, herein petitioner Ediquillo Cuales was hired as a cook by the respondent Phil-Singapore Port Corporation for its project at Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a total monthly income of not less than
