PNB versus Cabansag

Facts:
1.) Florence Cabansag went to Singapore as a tourist.
2.) While she was there, she looked for a job and eventually applied with the Singapore Branch of the
Philippine National Bank.
3.) PNB is a private banking corporation, organized and existing under Philippine laws.
4.) She was eventually employed and was issued an employment pass.
5.) In her job offer, it was stated, among others, that she was to be put on probation for 3 months,
and termination of her employment may be made by either party after 1 day notice while on
probation, and 1 month notice or 1 month pay in lieu of notice upon confirmation.
6.) She accepted the terms and was issued an Overseas Employment Certificate by the POEA.
7.) She was commended for her good work.
8.) However, she was informed by Ruben Tobias, the bank president, that she would have to resign,
in line with some cost cutting and realignment measures of the company.
9.) She refused, but was informed by Tobias that if she does not resign, he will terminate her instead.

Issues:
1. Whether or not, the arbitration branch of the NLRC has jurisdiction.
2. Whether or not, the arbitration of the NLRC in the NCR is the proper venue.
3. Whether or not, Cabansag was illegally dismissed.

Held:

1) On the 1st issue, Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over, claims arising from
employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, including OFWs.
2) Here, Cabansag applied for and secured an Overseas Employment Certificate from the POEA through
the Philippine Embassy.
3) The Overseas Employment Certificate authorized her working status in a foreign country, and entitled
her to all benefits and processes under our statutes.
4) Although she may been a direct hire at the commencement of her employment, she became an OFW
who was covered by Philippine labor laws and policies, upon certification by the POEA.
5) When she was illegally terminated, she already possessed the POEA employment certificate.
6) On the 2nd issue, A migrant worker, “refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has
been engaged in a remunerated activity, in a state of which he or she is not a legal resident; to be
used interchangeably with overseas Filipino worker.”
7) Here, Cabansag was a Filipino, not a legal resident of Singapore, and employed by petitioner in its
branch office in Singapore.
8) She is clearly an OFW/migrant worker.
9) Thus, she has the option where to file her Complaint for illegal dismissal.
10) She can either file at the Regional Arbitration Branch where she resides, or the Regional Arbitration
Branch where the employer is situated.
11) Thus, in filing her Complaint before the Regional Arbitration Branch office in Quezon City, she has
made a valid choice of proper venue.
12) On the 3rd issue, The appellate court was correct in holding, that respondent was already a regular
employee at the time of her dismissal, because her three-month probationary period of employment
had already ended.
13) This ruling is in accordance with Article Two eight one of the Labor Code: “An employee who is allowed
to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.”
14) Indeed, petitioner recognized respondent as such at the time it dismissed her, by giving her one
month’s salary in lieu of a one-month notice, consistent with provision number 6 of her employment
Contract.
~End~