SECOND DIVISION
PHIL. EMPLOY
SERVICES
AND RESOURCES, INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
144786
April 15, 2004
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
JOSEPH PARAMIO,
RONALD
NAVARRA, ROMEL
SARMIENTO,RECTO GUILLERMO,
FERDINAND
BAUTISTA AND APOLINARIO CURAMENG, JR.,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is a petition for
review of the decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54744 and its Resolution
denying
the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration therefrom.
As culled from the records,
the antecedents are as follows:
On different dates from
April 1996 to October 1996, respondents Joseph Paramio, Ronald Navarra,
Romel Sarmiento, Recto Guillermo, Ferdinand Bautista and Apolinario
Curameng,
Jr. applied for employment in Taiwan[2]
with petitioner, Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. (PSRI for
brevity),
a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment and deployment of
Filipino
Workers Overseas.[3]
Their applications were processed along with the requisite papers and
documents
in support thereof, and they paid P19,000 each as placement fee.[4]
Thereafter, they executed in the Philippines separate one-year
contracts
of employment with their employer in Taiwan, Kuan Yuan Fiber Co., Ltd.
Hsei-Chang. The respondents were deployed in Taiwan as operators
on different dates[5]
and each of them had a monthly salary of NT$15,360 (New Taiwan
Dollars),
with free food and accommodation.[6]
After the orientation
given by their employer, the respondents were told that their schedule
of work was up to 9:00 p.m.,[7]
except for respondent Navarra who was made to work up to 12:00 midnight.[8]
The respondents were downhearted when they discovered that, upon their
arrival in their quarters, they had no beddings, pillows and blankets.[9]
They encountered worse problems in the course of their employment, viz.:
a). Irregular and deliberate
charging of deductions which were not fully accounted such as the
blankets
issued, charging of penalties amounting to 400 NT to all employees for
a littering violation attributable only to one employee;
b). Mandatory imposition
of overtime work exceeding 10 hours without just overtime compensation
and night shift differentials;
c). Failure to comply
with some stipulations stated in the Employment Contract particularly
those
relating to the accommodation and lodging of the contracted workers;
d). Lack of observance
of safety precautions at work area.[10]
The respondents brought
their problems to the attention of the management. In March of
1997,
Fabian Chua, local manager of the petitioner PSRI, made a surprise
visit
to Kuan Yuan in Taiwan and was apprised of the said complaints.
However,
instead of solving the problems, Chua cautioned the respondents not to
air their complaints and to simply forget about whatever plans they had
in mind.[11]
Disappointed, the respondents, along with their co-workers, contacted
the
Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in Taiwan and sought the
latter’s assistance, only to be frustrated when their requests were not
favorably acted upon.[12]
Sometime in April of
1997, through the intercession of Chih-Hung, the manager of the new
broker
Chen Dard Manpower Co. Ltd., Long Island International Trade Co., Ltd,
the overtime rate of the respondents was increased from 55NT$ to
85NT$.
The respondents discovered, however, that work in the factory increased
because of the increased volume of orders.[13]
Moreover, their working conditions did not improve.cralaw:red
On May 10, 1997, respondent
Navarra and another employee, Pio Gabito, were summoned by the
management
and told that they were to be repatriated, without specifying the
ground
or cause therefor. They pleaded that they be informed of the cause or
causes
for their repatriation, but their requests were rejected.[14]
Worse, the manager of their employer summoned the police, who arrived
and
escorted them to the airport. They were even given time to pack
all
their personal belongings.cralaw:red
Upon respondent Navarra’s
arrival in Manila, the petitioner sought to settle his complaints.[15]
After the negotiations, the petitioner agreed to pay P49,000 to the
said
respondent but, in consideration thereof, the latter executed a
quitclaim
releasing the petitioner from any or all liabilities for his
repatriation.[16]
Meanwhile, when the
other respondents learned that Navarra and Gabito were repatriated,
they
were disheartened at their fate. The respondents also decided to
go home, but their employer and their broker told them[17]
that they would be repatriated two days later, or on May 12,
1997.
They were ready to leave on the aforesaid date, but were informed that
they would have to pay their employer NT$30,000; otherwise, they would
not be allowed to go home. As they were unable to pay the
NT$30,000,
the respondents failed to return to the Philippines.[18]
The management and broker
gave the respondents two (2) options: (a) imprisonment for their
refusal
to pay NT$30,000.00; or (b) sign separate agreements with their
employer.
The respondents had no other recourse but to sign agreements[19]
authorizing their employer to (a) deduct the amount of NT$30,000 from
their
salaries; (b) remit their salaries to the Philippines; and, (c) deduct
NT$10,000 from their salaries as “bond.”[20]
However, the respondents were still not repatriated. The next
day,
or on May 13, 1997, their employer issued a regulation that overtime of
ten hours or more would be implemented.[21]
Thus, the conditions in the respondents’ workplace worsened.cralaw:red
On May 14, 1997, respondent
Paramio got ill as a result of the employer’s failure to give breakfast
on the said date and dinner the night before.[22]
His manager still ordered him to work. When he pleaded that he be
allowed to take some rest, the manager refused. Respondent
Paramio
was, instead, made to carry a container weighing around 30
kilograms.
Due to his condition, the container slipped from his hands and he
injured
his thumb. He was brought to the hospital where he was operated
on
and treated for his wound.[23]
Instead of giving him financial assistance for his hospital bills, his
employer told him a week after his release from the hospital that it
would
be better for him to go home to the Philippines to recuperate. An
official from the Taiwanese Labor Department intervened for respondent
Paramio and his employer was told that it had no right to repatriate
the
respondent because the accident which caused the injury happened while
the latter was at work.[24]
Although his wound had
not yet healed, respondent Paramio was made to report for work. After
eight
hours of working, his broker advised him that as per the doctor’s
orders,
he was still on sick leave from May 14 to June 30, 1997. Hence,
he
could not yet be compelled to work. The respondent then stayed in
his quarters to recuperate.cralaw:red
On June 5, 1997, respondent
Paramio received his paycheck, but was flabbergasted when he discovered
that his employer had deducted NT$4,300 from his salary, representing
his
plane ticket back to the Philippines. Furthermore, his sick leave
from May 14 to June 5 were not included in his check.[25]
Still, he was not repatriated. On July 1, 1997, he reported back
to work, only to be assigned to do the second hardest job in the
company,
carrying containers weighing about 30 kilograms in the dyeing
department.[26]
Although his thumb hurt, respondent Paramio had to endure the pain to
earn
more money.[27]
After a week, respondent
Paramio was transferred to the Lupo Department, the hardest job in the
factory, where he was made to carry about 200 meters of maong
cloth.
He then set it and carried the same to the dyeing department.
When
he could no longer bear the pain in his thumb, he took a break.
When
the manager saw him resting, he was ordered to return to work.
Respondent
Paramio refused and contended that he could not resume work because of
his thumb injury. Incensed, the manager told him that he had to
stop
working and would just have to wait for his plane ticket for his
repatriation.
The respondent did as he was told.cralaw:red
The next day, Fabian
Chua, the local representative of the petitioner PSRI, arrived and
asked
the respondent why he did not report for work. Respondent Paramio
explained that his thumb injury made it impossible for him to perform
his
assigned tasks. On September 23, 1997, he was given his paycheck
and a plane ticket to the Philippines. He was told that the
amount
of NT$3,700 was deducted from his paycheck because he neglected his
duty.
At around eight o’clock that evening, respondent Paramio was
repatriated
to the Philippines.[28]
Meanwhile, PSRI representative
Fabian Chua renewed his warning to the remaining respondents/employees
not to complain about the working conditions. But respondents
Sarmiento,
Guillermo, Bautista and Curameng, Jr. could no longer bear the
worsening
working conditions. In October 1997, they decided to go
home.
Their employer agreed to have them repatriated and to return their
respective
bonds, but required them to write letters of resignation.
Respondents
Sarmiento and Bautista did as they were told and wrote the said letters.[29]
Respondent Curameng, Jr., for his part, signed a mimeographed form
where
he agreed to return to the Philippines.[30]
On October 10, 1997, the said respondents were repatriated, but were
required
to pay for their own plane tickets.[31]
On October 22, 1997,
respondents Sarmiento, Guillermo, Curameng, Jr. and Bautista, together
with respondents Paramio and Navarra, filed separate complaints before
the NLRC Arbitration Branch against Bayani Fontanilla for illegal
dismissal,
non-payment of overtime pay, refund of placement fee, tax refund,
refund
of plane fares, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The
cases
were docketed as NLRC-OFW Cases No. (L) 97-10-4332 to 97-10-4335.[32]
In their position paper,
the respondents raised the issue of whether or not the petitioner PSRI
and Bayani Fontanilla were liable for the reimbursement of their
respective
placement fees, nightshift differentials, overtime pay and damages, and
their salaries for the unexpired portion of their respective contracts.[33]
The respondents argued
that under Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the
Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, PSRI was solidarily liable
with Kuan Yuan for their claims. Since they were repatriated
prior
to the expiration of their respective contracts for no valid reason,
PSRI
was liable to pay their salaries for the unexpired portion of their
contracts.cralaw:red
The petitioner denied
any liability on the respondents’ claims and asserted that the latter
were
validly dismissed. It averred that respondent Paramio was
dismissed
pursuant to Nos. 5 and 6, Article VIII of his employment
contract.
According to the petitioner, the said clauses allow the termination of
a contract of employment prior to its expiration when the employee is
(a)
suffering from HIV positive antibody or other diseases; (b) heavily
wounded
or has stool parasite and cannot be cured within one month; or (c)
found
to have lost the ability to work. It averred that since
complainant
Paramio could no longer do his job because of his thumb injury, the
termination
of his contract was valid, and his dismissal proper.[34]
Anent respondent Navarra’s
claim, the petitioner PSRI ratiocinated that the termination of his
services
was for a valid cause because of an altercation he had with his
supervisor.
The petitioner further averred that respondent Navarra had demanded
that
he be paid the amount of P50,000 and after some negotiation, agreed to
receive P49,000. Respondent Navarra received the said amount and
executed on May 23, 1997, a deed of release and quitclaim in favor of
the
petitioner.[35]
As for the claims of
the other respondents, the petitioner alleged that the respondents
Guillermo,
Bautista and Curameng, Jr. voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by their
respective letters and agreement with the petitioner.[36]
Moreover, the termination of their employment was legal, and their
repatriation
based on valid grounds. The petitioner contended that the
respondents
were not entitled to a refund of their plane fare.[37]
With respect to the
claims for tax refund for amounts withheld by their employer, the
petitioner
averred that the respondents were not entitled thereto, as the law of
Taiwan
mandated such withholding of taxes. If, indeed, the respondents
were
entitled to a refund of the said taxes, the same should be coursed
through
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the appropriate governmental agency.[38]
On October 29, 1998,
Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati rendered a decision declaring that the
dismissal
of the respondents was illegal. The dispositive portion states,
thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby rendered declaring complainants’ dismissal to be illegal and
respondents are ordered to pay to complainants as follows:
1. Ronald Navarra
– NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee;
and P4,300 refund of plane fare less P49,000.cralaw:red
2. Recto Guillermo
– NT$15,360 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee;
and P4,300 refund of air fare.cralaw:red
3. Joseph Paramio
– NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee;
and P4,300 refund air fare.cralaw:red
4. Apolinario
Curameng, Jr. – NT$23,040 or its peso equivalent; P75,000 refund of
placement
fee and P4,300 refund of air fare.cralaw:red
5. Ferdinand Bautista
– NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee;
and P4,300 refund of air fare; and
6. Romel Sarmiento
– NT$ or its peso equivalent P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and
P4,300
refund of air fare.cralaw:red
The claim for tax refund
is dismissed for not having been substantiated.[39]
In declaring respondent
Navarra’s dismissal illegal, the labor arbiter held that the petitioner
failed to substantiate its claim that the said respondent had an
altercation
with his supervisor. As such, respondent Navarra was entitled to
the payment of the salaries due him for the unexpired portion of his
contract,
subject to the deduction of the amount already advanced to him under
the
deed of release and quitclaim he had executed in favor of the
petitioner.[40]
The labor arbiter likewise
ruled that the dismissal of complainant Paramio was illegal.
Considering
that he had a thumb injury, his employer should have given him a
lighter
job instead of repatriating him. The dismissal of the remaining
complainants
was also adjudged illegal. According to the labor arbiter, the
petitioner’s
defense that its employees (respondents) voluntarily resigned deserved
scant consideration.cralaw:red
Considering that the
dismissal of the respondents was illegal, the labor arbiter awarded the
salaries due them for the unexpired portion of their contracts, as well
as the refund of their plane fare. Recognizing that the usual placement
fee of workers for deployment in Taiwan was approximately P100,000,
more
or less, the labor arbiter granted each of them a refund of their
placement
fee in the amount of P75,000.[41]
Aggrieved, the petitioner
appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
docketed
as NLRC NCR CA 017927-99. It raised the following grounds:
GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION,
AND SERIOUS ERROR IN THE FINDING OF FACTS WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED WOULD
CAUSE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE RESPONDENT[42]
The petitioner insisted
that the dismissal of the complainants was anchored on valid and legal
grounds; as such, the labor arbiter erred in ruling for the respondents
and awarding a refund of their airfares, placement fees and payment of
salaries for the unexpired portion of their respective contracts of
employment.cralaw:red
On March 29, 1999, the
NLRC issued a resolution[43]
finding that the respondents were legally dismissed and set aside the
decision
of the labor arbiter. The decretal portion of the decision reads
as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and the
instant
case dismissed for lack of merit.[44]
In reversing the decision
of the labor arbiter, the NLRC made the following findings: (a)
respondent
Navarra did not refute the allegation of the petitioner that he had an
altercation with his supervisor; (b) respondent Navarra’s execution of
a deed of release and quitclaim released the petitioner from any or all
liability on account of his repatriation; (c) the repatriation of
complainant
Paramio was sanctioned by Article VIII, paragraphs 5 and 6 of his
employment
contract; and, (d) the written documents executed by the remaining
respondents
showed that they voluntarily resigned from their employment.cralaw:red
Dissatisfied, the respondents
filed a motion for reconsideration[45]
of the resolution, but the NLRC denied the motion in a Resolution dated
May 17, 1999.[46]
The respondents filed
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against
the
petitioner before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
54744.
The respondents (petitioners therein) raised the following issues:
1.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED WHEN THEY WERE REPATRIATED TO THE
PHIL. BY THEIR TAIWAN EMPLOYER.
2.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
THUMB INJURY SUFFERED BY JOSEPH PARAMIO WHILE AT WORK [SHOULD] BE
CONSIDERED
A LEGAL GROUND FOR HIS REPATRIATION.
3.
WHETHER OR NOT RONALD
NAVARRA’S REPATRIATION AND EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM AND RECEIPT OF
P49,000
BE SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONCLUDE HIS WAIVER OF RIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL.
4.
WHETHER OR NOT
PETITIONERS
ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR MONEY CLAIMS.[47]
The petitioners prayed,
thus:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
this Petition be given due course and after its due consideration,
REVERSE
and SET ASIDE the Resolution of the public respondent National Labor
Relations
Commission dated March 29, 1999 and May 17, 1999 and a new one rendered
REINSTATING the Decision of the Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati dated
August
29, 1998 with modification for the reward of moral and exemplary
damages.cralaw:red
Petitioners further
pray for such other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable in
the
premises.[48]
On May 29, 2000, the
CA rendered a decision partly granting the petition in that it
nullified
the March 29 and May 17, 1999 Resolutions of the NLRC and reinstated
the
decision of the labor arbiter with modification. The decretal
portion
of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant petition is partly granted insofar as the
public
respondent’s Resolutions dated March 29, 1999 and May 17, 1999 are set
aside and the labor arbiter’s Decision dated August 29, 1998 is
reinstated
with modification on the award of refunds for placement fees. The
petitioners’ claims for moral and exemplary damages are denied for lack
of merit.[49]
The CA held that respondents
Curameng, Bautista, Sarmiento and Guillermo were constructively
dismissed,
as the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that the aforesaid
petitioners
voluntarily resigned from work.cralaw:red
The CA also ruled that
the repatriation of respondent Paramio was in violation of his
employment
contract. It declared that paragraph 8.2, Nos. 5 and 6, Article
VIII
of the said contract applied only to illnesses already existing and
discovered
during employment. The “loss of ability to work” under the
contract
could not be used as a ground for respondent Paramio’s termination
because
his thumb injury was work-related.cralaw:red
As to respondent Navarra,
the CA ruled that his alleged confrontation with his supervisor did not
amount to serious misconduct which would justify his dismissal.
It
stated that the deed of release executed by respondent Navarra barred
him
from instituting the said complaint. However, the CA agreed that
the money he was able to collect from the petitioner by reason of the
execution
of a deed of release and quitclaim should be considered as an advance
on
the amount he was entitled to.cralaw:red
Considering that the
dismissal of the respondents was illegal, the petitioner, as the local
agent of Kuan Yuan, was declared solidarily liable with the latter for
the payment of the respondents’ salaries for the unexpired portion of
their
respective contracts and other awards, pursuant to Section 10,
paragraph
2 of Rep. Act No. 8042.cralaw:red
The CA reduced the award
of refund of placement fee to the respondents from P75,000 to P19,000,
which was the amount substantiated by the petitioners.cralaw:red
The petitioner PSRI
filed a motion for reconsideration but the appellate court denied the
said
motion.[50]
Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed this instant petition against the
respondents,
alleging that:
I
THE FINDINGS OF
FACTS
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.
II
THE APPELLATE COURT
DECIDED THE CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE
SUPREME
COURT[51]
The issues for resolution
are the following: (a) whether or not the respondents were illegally
dismissed;
and (b) whether or not the deed of release and quitclaim executed by
respondent
Navarra was valid.cralaw:red
Ordinarily, factual
findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise
in
matters within their respective jurisdictions are generally accorded
not
only respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court.[52]
However, when the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC are
inconsistent,
there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should
be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts.[53]
Considering that the CA’s findings of fact clash with those of the
NLRC,
this Court is compelled to go over the records of the case, as well as
the submissions of the parties.[54]
Anent the first issue,
the petitioner insists that the dismissal of the respondents was based
on valid and legal grounds. Consequently, the award of salaries
for
the unexpired portion of their respective contracts, and the refund of
placement fee and airfare was barren of factual and legal basis.cralaw:red
We rule that the respondents’
dismissal was not based on just, valid and legal grounds.cralaw:red
Preliminarily, it bears
stressing that the respondents who filed complaints for illegal
dismissal
against the petitioner were overseas Filipino workers whose employment
contracts were approved by the Philippine and Overseas Employment
Administration
(POEA) and were entered into and perfected here in the
Philippines.
As such, the rule lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the
contract
is made) governs. Therefore, the Labor Code, its implementing
rules
and regulations, and other laws affecting labor, apply in this case.[55]
In order to effect a
valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there be just and
valid cause as provided in Article 282[56]
and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to
defend
himself.[57]
Dismissal may also be based on any of the authorized causes provided
for
in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code.[58]
The petitioner contends
that the termination of respondent Paramio’s employment was sanctioned
by paragraph 8.2, Nos. 5 and 6, Article VIII of the employment
contract.
The aforesaid provisions are herein reproduced:
8.2
In the event the Employee is found offend (sic) one of the following
prohibitions
during his/her employment, Employer may terminate this Employment
contract
and repatriate him/her to his/her country of origin. Employee
shall
comply immediately without objection and assume the cost of round-trip
transportation by air to and from R.O.C. unconditionally. In the
event Employer or any other person pay the airfare for the Employee,
Employee
shall reimburse the fare to the person who paid it.cralaw:red
(5)
During the period of employment, being found out suffering HIV positive
anti-body or other disease, heavily wounded or stool parasite, which
cannot
be cured within one month.cralaw:red
(6)
Being found losing ability to work.cralaw:red
The foregoing provision
is akin to Article 284 of the Labor Code, which provides:
Art. 284. Disease
as a ground for termination – An employer may terminate the services of
an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and
whose
continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health
as well as the health of his co-employees: …
Furthermore, Section
8, Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
provides,
thus:
Sec. 8. Disease
as a ground for dismissal - Where the employee suffers from a disease
and
his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his
health
or to the health of his co-employees, the employer shall not terminate
his employment unless there is a certification by competent public
authority
that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be
cured within a period of six (6) months with proper medical
treatment.
If the disease or ailment can be cured within the period, the employer
shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a
leave.
The employer shall reinstate such employee to his former position
immediately
upon the restoration of his normal health.cralaw:red
Applying the law and
the rule, the employer is burdened to prove that the employee was
suffering
from a disease which prevented his continued employment, or that the
employee’s
wound prevented his continued employment. Section 8, Rule 1, Book VI of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code requires a certification
from competent public authority[59]
that the employee was heavily wounded and had lost the ability to work.cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
the petitioner did not adduce in evidence a certification from a public
authority to the effect that respondent Paramio had been heavily
wounded.
It also failed to show that by reason of his thumb injury, he lost the
ability to work. Respondent Paramio was not, for a time, able to
perform the backbreaking tasks required by his manager. However,
despite his injury, he managed to perform the other tasks assigned to
him,
including carrying of 30-kilogram containers with the exception of the
work in the Lupo Department.[60]
The fact that respondent Paramio was assigned to perform the second
hardest
and heaviest task in the company shows the heartlessness of the
company’s
manager. Despite his wound, the respondent tried to accomplish
the
work assigned to him. The least the manager should have done was
to assign the respondent to a lighter task, until such time that the
latter’s
wound had completely healed. It must be stressed where
there
is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of
employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.[61]
Consequently, respondent Paramio is entitled to the full reimbursement
of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum,
plus
his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract for
three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less under
paragraph
5, Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8042.cralaw:red
Section 10. Money
Claims –
In case of termination
of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
defined
by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement
of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum,
plus
his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or
three
(3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.[62]
In Skippers Pacific,
Inc. v. Mira,[63]
we ruled that an overseas Filipino worker who is illegally terminated
shall
be entitled to his salary equivalent to the unexpired portion of his
employment
contract if such contract is less than one year. However, if his
contract is for a period of at least one year, he is entitled to
receive
his salaries equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract, or
three
months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is lower.cralaw:red
In Marsaman Manning
Agency, Inc. v. NLRC,[64]
involving Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8042, we held:
… [W]e cannot subscribe
to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months
salary
loan only. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the
choice
of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract
worker,
i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired
term,
whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract
concerned
has a term of at least one (1) year or more. This is evident from
the words “for every year of the unexpired term” which follows the
words
“salaries x x x for three months.” To follow petitioners’
thinking
that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only
simply
because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook
some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This
is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that
interpreting
a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be
given
effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the
words employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly. Ut res
magis
valeat quam pereat.cralaw:red
Respondent Paramio was
deployed on December 6, 1996.[65]
His contract was for a period of twelve months or one year.[66]
He was repatriated on September 23, 1997, approximately two months from
the expiration of his contract.[67]
Since the termination of his employment was not based on any valid or
legal
ground, he is entitled to the payment of his salary equivalent to the
unexpired
portion of his contract. He is likewise entitled to full
reimbursement
of his placement fee. Based on the record, respondent Paramio
paid
a placement fee of P19,000.[68]
Thus, he should be reimbursed the amount of P19,000 with 12% interest
per
annum.cralaw:red
Similarly, the petitioner
failed to substantiate its claim that respondent Navarra’s repatriation
was based on a valid, legal and just cause. The petitioner merely
alleged that it was made clear to respondent Navarra that his
repatriation
was due to the fight he had with his supervisor.[69]
Contrary to the allegation of the petitioner, respondent Navarra denied
this in his affidavit, as well as in his reply to the position paper of
the petitioner. Respondent Navarra asserted that he merely
enforced
his rights under the employment contract when he requested, time and
again,
that the provisions of his contract regarding the accommodation be
fulfilled.[70]
The claim of petitioner that respondent Navarra shouted invectives
against
his supervisor[71]
was, likewise, unsubstantiated. The petitioner did not even
present
an affidavit of the superior with whom the respondent reportedly
fought.
Indeed, while fighting a supervisor may constitute serious misconduct[72]
and may, consequently, be considered a ground for dismissal, in light
of
the petitioner’s failure to adduce substantial evidence to prove its
claim
that respondent Navarra fought his supervisor, this ground cannot be
used
to justify the dismissal. Thus, the termination of respondent
Navarra’s
employment was without factual and legal basis.cralaw:red
Respondent Navarra was
deployed on November 6, 1996.[73]
He was repatriated on May 10, 1997, approximately five months prior to
the expiration of his one-year contract. Considering our ruling
in
Marsamman Manning Agency v. NLRC,[74]
he shall be entitled to an amount equivalent to three months’ salary,
or
NT$46,080. Similarly, having admitted that he paid a placement
fee
of P19,000[75]
only, he is entitled to be fully reimbursed therefore, plus 12%
interest
per annum.cralaw:red
As to the other respondents,
the petitioner alleges that they refused to go to work and, in fact,
voluntarily
resigned. It appended the daily time records[76]
of respondents Apolinario, Sarmiento, Ferdinand (Bautista) and
Recto
(Guillermo), as well as the resignation letters of Bautista and
Sarmiento,[77]
and Curameng, Jr.’s written agreement with their employer.cralaw:red
We do not agree.
The records reveal that the three respondents agreed to execute the
foregoing
because they could no longer bear the working conditions in their place
of employment. Despite protestations to their employer and the
attempt
to seek help from the OWWA in Taiwan, they were victims to the
following
acts/omissions of their employer:
a). Irregular
and deliberate charging of deductions which were not fully accounted
such
as the blankets issued, charging of penalties amounting to 400 NT to
all
employees for a littering violation attributable only to one employee;
b). Mandatory
imposition of overtime work exceeding 10 hours without just overtime
compensation
and night shift differentials;
c). Failure to
comply with some stipulations stated in the Employment Contract
particularly
those relating to the accommodation and lodging of the contracted
workers;
d). Lack of observance
of safety precautions at work area[78]
1.
They don’t give us day off.cralaw:red
2.
They feed us once a day.cralaw:red
3.
They even let us work without rest.cralaw:red
4.
Their (sic) were so many deductions in our salaries like payment for
our
boarding house, electricity and garbage fee.cralaw:red
5.
The money they were sending to the Philippines was also reduced with
the
amount ranging from P2000 to P5000.[79]
The petitioner failed
to adduce substantial evidence to overcome the evidence of the
respondents
as contained in their respective affidavits. Contrary to the
petitioner’s
claim, the said affidavits are not hearsay evidence. The
respondents
were the victims of the abuses of their employer; as such, they had
personal
knowledge of the contents of their affidavits. Moreover, when there is
a doubt between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee,
such doubt should be resolved in favor of labor.[80]
On the letters of resignation
of respondents Sarmiento, Bautista and the agreement of Curameng, Jr.,
we agree with the ruminations of the appellate court, viz:
It is not necessary
that there be an express termination of one’s services before a case of
illegal dismissal can exist. In the landmark case of Philippine
Japan
Active Carbon Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et
al
(171 SCRA 164) the Supreme Court ruled that “a constructive discharge
is
defined as: “A quitting because continued employment is rendered
impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely.” In the case at bar, the petitioners
were
made to suffer unbearable conditions in the workplace and the inhuman
treatment
of their employer until they were left with no choice but to
quit.
Thus, it cannot be said that the resignation and repatriation of
complainants
Curameng, Bautista, Sarmienta and Guillermo was voluntary.cralaw:red
It was held in the case
of Valdez vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 87:
“It would have been
illogical for herein petitioner to resign and then file a complaint for
illegal dismissal. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of
said complaint.”
Indeed, unlike the Valdez
case where there was no pronouncement of resignation on the part of the
complainant, there were written resignations submitted by the said
petitioners
in the case at bar. The more important consideration is whether
such
written resignations were made voluntarily. Based on the
foregoing
circumstances, it cannot be gainsaid that the instant complaint for
illegal
dismissal indicates that the resignations and repatriations of the
petitioners
were not done freely on their part. It is highly unlikely that
these
workers, after having invested so much time, effort and money to secure
their employment abroad would just quit even before the expiration of
their
contract.cralaw:red
We have more reason
to rule that the repatriations of petitioners Paramio and Navarra were
not voluntary.[81]
We thus rule that the
respondents were constructively dismissed from their employment. There
is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination,
insensibility,
or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the
employee
that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued
employment.[82]
It exists where there is cessation of work because “continued
employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving
a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.”[83]
We find it incredible
that, after all the expenses and the trouble they went through in
seeking
greener pastures and financial upliftment, and the concomitant
tribulations
of being separated from their families, the respondents would suddenly
and without reason decide to resign, return home and be jobless once
again.
The respondents had no choice but to agree to their employer’s demand
to
sign and execute the respective agreements. They were stranded in
a foreign land, with their remunerations considerably diminished by
numerous
illegal deductions. Their plight was all the more made unbearable by
the
inhumane working conditions.cralaw:red
We note that the agreement
signed by respondent Curameng, Jr. was mimeographed and prepared by his
employer. Except for his handwritten name, the words “I’m go
(sic)
very verry (sic)” and his signature at the bottom of the document, the
rest of the spaces to be filled up were all blank. Most of the contents
of the agreement were even in Chinese characters.cralaw:red
In sum, there can be
no other conclusion than that the aforementioned respondents were
illegally
dismissed, and their employment contract illegally terminated.cralaw:red
Under Section 10, paragraph
5 of Rep. Act No. 8042, respondents Sarmiento, Bautista, Curameng and
Guillermo
are entitled to the full reimbursement of their placement fees.
Since
each of the respondents remitted only P19,000 to the petitioner, each
of
them is entitled to P19,000, plus 12% interest per annum.cralaw:red
According to Section
10, paragraph 2 of Rep. Act No. 8042,[84]
the agency which deployed the employees whose employment contract were
adjudged illegally terminated, shall be jointly and solidarily liable
with
the principal for the money claims awarded to the aforesaid
employees.
Consequently, the petitioner, as the agency of the respondents, is
solidarily
liable with its principal Kuan Yuan for the payment of the salaries due
to the respondents corresponding to the unexpired portion of their
contract,
as well as the reimbursement of their placement fees.cralaw:red
Under Section 15 of
the same Act, the repatriation of the worker and the transport of his
personal
belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which
recruited
or deployed the overseas contract worker. All the costs attendant
thereto shall be borne by the agency concerned and/or its principal.[85]
Consequently, the petitioner is obliged to refund P4,300 to each of the
respondents, representing their airfare.cralaw:red
Anent the second issue,
we rule that the deed of release executed by respondent Navarra did not
completely release the petitioner from its liability on the latter’s
claim.
As a rule, quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with
disfavor
and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and
ineffective
to bar claims for the measure of a worker’s legal rights.[86]
If (a) there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an
unsuspecting
or gullible person; or (b) the terms of the settlement are
unconscionable,
and on their face invalid,[87]
such quitclaims must be struck down as invalid or illegal.cralaw:red
The records reveal that
respondent Navarra executed a deed of release and waiver for and in
consideration
of only P49,000.[88]
There is no evidence that he was informed that he was entitled to much
more than the said amount, including a refund for the placement fee he
paid to the petitioner. Respondent Navarra started working on November
7, 1996. His employment contract was for a period of one
year.
He was repatriated on May 10, 1997, or after a little over six
months.
The unexpired portion of his contract is, thus, five months and 27
days.
Per Section 10, paragraph 5 of Rep. Act No. 8042, he is entitled to the
payment of three months’ salary or NT$46,080[89]
and P19,000 placement fee, plus interest at twelve percent (12%) per
annum.
We, thus, agree with the ruling of the appellate court, viz.:
With regard to the deed
of quitclaim and acceptance, it is a well-settled principle that the
law
does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less compensation
than
what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from demanding
benefits
to which he is entitled. Quitclaims executed are ineffective to
bar
recovery for the full measure of the worker’s rights (Medina vs.
Consolidated
Broadcasting System (CBS)-DZWX, 222 SCRA 707). The reason why
quitclaims
are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and they are
ineffective
to bar claims for the full measure of the worker’s legal rights is
because
the employer and employee do not stand on the same footing, such that
quitclaims
usually take the form of contracts of adherence, not of choice.
(Wyeth-Suaco
Laboratories, Inc. vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 356). Assuming arguendo that the
quitclaim was executed voluntarily, still, it cannot diminish
petitioner’s
entitlement to the full compensation provided in their contract. At the
most, such amount can be considered an advance on his claim.[90]
In sum, we rule that
the termination of the respondents’ respective contracts of employment
was illegal. Pursuant to Section 10, paragraph 5, Rep. Act No.
8042,
each of them is entitled to the full reimbursement of the placement fee
of P19,000, and interest at 12% per annum. Respondent Navarra is,
likewise, entitled to the payment of an amount equivalent to three (3)
months’ salary. All the remaining respondents are entitled to
payment
of their salaries, equivalent to three months.cralaw:red
Pursuant to Section
15 of Rep. Act No. 8042, the petitioner should refund the amount of
P4,300
to each of the respondents representing the expenses they incurred for
their repatriation.cralaw:red
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 54744 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The
petitioner
is ordered to pay the following:
(1)
The amount of NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent to respondent Ronald
Navarra
minus the amount of P49,000 already advanced to him;
(2)
To the respondents Romel Sarmiento, Recto Guillermo, Ferdinand
Bautista,
Apolinario Curameng, Jr. and Joseph Paramio, their respective salaries
corresponding to the unexpired portion of their respective contracts;
(3)
The amount of the placement fees as indicated in the respective
official
receipts issued to each of the respondents, with interest of 12% per
annum,
in conformity with Section 10, paragraph 5 of Rep. Act No. 8042;
(4)
To each of the respondents, the amount of P4,300 representing the
expenses
they incurred for their return to the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing,
and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
no part.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John Asuncion with Associate Justices
Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court)
and Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos concurring.
[2]
Records, pp. 54-78.
[3]
Rollo, p. 9.
[4]
Records, pp. 48-53.
[5]
Romel Sarmiento was deployed on December 6, 1996; Records, p. 54.
Ronald
A. Navarra was deployed on November 6, 1996; Id. at 8.
Recto
A. Guillermo was deployed on October 29, 1996; Id. at 9.
Joseph
M. Paramio was deployed on December 6, 1996; Id. at 10.
Apolinario
A. Curameng, Jr. was deployed on November 29, 1996; Id. at 11.
Ferdinand
A. Bautista was deployed on January 16, 1999; Id. at 12.
[6]
Records, pp. 79-115.
[7]
Id. at 54-78.
[8]
Id. at 74.
[9]
Supra at note 7.
[10]
Id. at 54, 58, 62, 66, 70, 74.
[11]
Id. at 75.
[12]
Id. at 76.
[13]
Id. at 59.
[14]
Id. at 76.
[15]
Id. at 77.
[16]
Id. at 139.
[17]
Id. at 72.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Records, p. 72.
[20]
Id. at 63.
[21]
Id. at 64.
[22]
Id. at 60.
[23]
Id. at 60.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id.
[28]
Records, p. 61.
[29]
Id. at 148-149.
[30]
Id. at 150.
[31]
Id. at 141-150.
[32]
Id. at 2-6.
[33]
Id. at 44.
[34]
Id. at 121-122.
[35]
Id. at 139-140.
[36]
Id. at 148-150.
[37]
Id. at 122.
[38]
Id. at 123.
[39]
Rollo, pp. 77-78.
[40]
Id. at 74-77.
[41]
Id.
[42]
Records, p. 175.
[43]
Rollo, pp. 79-93.
[44]
Id. at 93.
[45]
CA Rollo, pp. 119-123.
[46]
Id. at 124.
[47]
Id. at 14.
[48]
Id. at 23.
[49]
Rollo, p. 35.
[50]
Id. at 38.
[51]
Id. at 15.
[52]
Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 799 (2001).
[53]
Cosep v. NLRC, 290 SCRA 704 (1998).
[54]
Zafra v. Court of Appeals, 389 SCRA 200 (2002).
[55]
Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608 (1998).
[56]
Article 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate
an employment for any of the following causes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a)
Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b)
Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c)
Fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him by the employer or
duly authorized representative;
(d)
Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of
his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized
representative; and
(e)
Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
[57]
Rosario v. Victory Ricemill, 397 SCRA 760 (2003).
[58]
Article 283 – Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel as a
result of installation of labor saving device, redundancy, retrenchment
to prevent losses; Article 284 – disease as ground for termination.
[59]
Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608 (1998).
[60]
Records, p. 60.
[61]
Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and
General
Trade, 396 SCRA 518 (2003).
[62]
Section 10, paragraph 5, R.A. No. 8042.
[63]
392 SCRA 371 (2002).
[64]
313 SCRA 88 (1999).
[65]
Records, p. 132.
[66]
Id. at 104-109.
[67]
Id. at 61.
[68]
Id. at 127.
[69]
Rollo, p. 17.
[70]
Records, pp. 169-170.
[71]
Id. at 120.
[72]
Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.
[73]
Records, p. 8.
[74]
Supra.
[75]
Id. at 125.
[76]
Id. at 137-138.
[77]
Id. at 147-150.
[78]
Id. at 54, 58, 62, 66, 70, 74.
[79]
Id. at 56.
[80]
Asuncion v. NLRC, 362 SCRA 56 (2001).
[81]
CA Rollo, p. 159.
[82]
Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy, 359 SCRA 686 (2001).
[83]
Globe Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, 390 SCRA 201 (2002).
[84]
Section 10. Money Claims. –
The
liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment agency for any
and all claims under this section shall be joint and several.
This
provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment
and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
performance
bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by
law;
shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded
to the workers. If the recruitment agency is a juridical being
the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall
themselves be solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for
the aforesaid claims and damages….
[85]
Section 15. Repatriation of Workers; Emergency Repatriation Fund.
– The repatriation of the worker and the transport of his personal
belongings
shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or
deployed
the worker overseas. All costs attendant to repatriation shall be
borne by or charged to the agency concerned and/or its principal.
Likewise, the repatriation of remains of the deceased worker and all
costs
attendant thereto shall be borne by the principal and/or the local
agency.
However, in cases where the termination of employment is due solely to
the fault of the worker, the principal/employer or agency shall not in
any manner be responsible for the reparation of the former and/or his
belongings…
[86]
Peftok Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 293 SCRA 507 (1998).
[87]
Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 365 SCRA 124 (2001).
[88]
Records, p. 140.
[89]
The exchange rate is pegged at NT$ = P1.7027 (Philippine Daily
Inquirer,
Business, Currencies, March 24, 2004, p. B6).
[90]
Rollo, pp. 34-35.
|