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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.