CASE: PNB vs.

Cabansag
Date: June 21, 2005
Ponente: J. Panganiban

Facts:

Florence Cabansag went to Singapore as a tourist. While she was there, she looked for a job and
eventually applied with the Singapore Branch of the Philippine National Bank. PNB is a private banking
corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. She was eventually employed and was issued
an employment pass. 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. She accepted the terms
and was issued an OEC by the POEA. She was commended for her good work. 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. She refused but was informed by Tobias that if she
does not resign, he will terminate her instead.

Issues:
W/N the arbitration branch of the NLRC has jurisdiction
W/N the arbitration of the NLRC in the NCR is the proper venue
W/N Cabansag was illegally dismissed

Ruling:

Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations
including termination disputes involving all workers, including OFWs. Here, Cabansag applied for and secured an
OEC from the POEA through the Philippine Embassy. The OEC authorized her working status in a foreign country
and entitled her to all benefits and processes under our statutes. 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. When she was illegally terminated, she already possessed the POEA employment
certificate.

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.”Here, Cabansag was a Filipino, not a legal resident of Singapore, and employed by petitioner in its branch
office in Singapore. She is clearly an OFW/migrant worker. Thus, she has the option where to file her Complaint for
illegal dismissal. She can either file at the Regional Arbitration Branch where she resides or the RAB where the
employer is situated. Thus, in filing her Complaint before the RAB office in Quezon City, she has made a valid
choice of proper venue.

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. This ruling is in
accordance with Article 281 of the Labor Code: “An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period
shall be considered a regular employee.” 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 No. 6 of her
employment Contract.