THIRD DIVISION
MA. LUISA OLARTE,
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
NAME AND STYLE OF
SUNACE INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
148407
November 12, 2003
-versus-
LEOCADIA NAYONA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
Our overseas workers
belong to a disadvantaged class. Most of them come from the poorest
sector
of our society. Their profile shows they live in suffocating slums,
trapped
in an environment of crimes. Hardly literate and in ill health, their
only
hope lies in jobs they find with difficulty in our country. Their
unfortunate
circumstance makes them easy prey to avaricious employers. They will
climb
mountains, cross the seas, endure slave treatment in foreign lands just
to survive. Out of despondence, they will work under sub-human
conditions
and accept salaries below the minimum. The least we can do is to
protect
them with our laws.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before us is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[2]
dated September 14, 2000 and the Resolution[3]
dated May 31, 2001 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
57473,
entitled "Sunace International Management Services vs. National Labor
Relations
Commission (NLRC), Third Division, Quezon City, Hon. Rolando D.
Gambito,
in his capacity as Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch
No. 1, Dagupan City and Leocadia A. Nayona". chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual antecedents,
as found by the Court of Appeals, are:
On April 8, 1998, Leocadia
A. Nayona (herein respondent) executed a contract of employment as a
domestic
helper/caretaker with Sunace International Management Services (herein
petitioner) for its Taiwan-based agency/employer Chung I Manpower
Agency.
Respondent's employment covered a period of one (1) year or from May
22,
1998 to May 22, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 22, 1998, respondent
was deployed to Taiwan to work for Wu Dian Man with a monthly salary of
New Taiwan (NT) Dollars $15,840.00.cralaw:red
On June 11, 1998, Tseng
Wen, the owner/manager of Chung I Manpower Agency, pre-terminated
respondent's
work assignment at Wu Dian Man, with an express promise of another
employment.
But Tseng Wen reneged in his commitment. Consequently, respondent was
repatriated
to the Philippines on June 13, 1998. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aggrieved, respondent,
on August 18, 1998, filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch of
Dagupan
City a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of salaries, refund of
placement fee and other monetary claims against petitioners, docketed
as
SRB-OFW-01-07-8-0245-98.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 9, 1999, the
Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision,[4]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING
PREMISES, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1.
Declaring
that the dismissal of the complainant is illegal;
2. Ordering
respondents
Chung I Manpower Agency/Tseng Wen-Shu and Sunace International
Management
Services to pay jointly and severally the complainant the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Unpaid
salary
from May 22 to June 13, 1998 = New Taiwan Dollars — NT $ 11,616 or its
equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Salary for
the unexpired
portion of her contract (May 22, 1998 to May 22, 1999) equivalent to
three
(3) months (15,840 NT $ x 3) = New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 47,520;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) Refund of
placement
fee: P23,000;
d) Overtime pay
for
three weeks = 500 NT $ or its peso equivalent; and
e) Moral and
exemplary
damages in the amount of P20,000 each, or P40,000.00.
All other claims of
the
complainant and the respondents' counterclaims for damages, attorney's
fees and expenses for documentation are hereby denied for want of
merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
TOTAL AWARD = NT$
59,136
P63,000
SO ORDERED."
On appeal, the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered its Decision[5]
affirming with modification the Arbiter's Decision with respect to the
monetary award, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE,
the Decision appeal(ed) from is Modified. Respondents are ordered to
pay
complainant the following:
1. unpaid
salary
from 22 May to 13 June 1998 — NT$ 11,616.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. salary for the
unexpired
portion of her contract (14 June 1998 to 22 May 1999) — NT$ 47,520.00
(for
three months)
3. Refund of
placement
fee: P23,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The claims for
payment
of damages and overtime pay are dismissed for lack of merit.
"SO ORDERED."
Petitioners filed a
motion
for reconsideration but was denied.
Consequently, petitioners
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals, alleging
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that
respondent's
dismissal from employment is illegal and in awarding to her
unconscionable
amounts representing unpaid salary, salary differential and refund of
placement
fee. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 14, 2000,
the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the NLRC's
Decision
dated October 29, 1999 and Resolution dated December 20, 1999. In
holding
that respondent was illegally dismissed from employment, the Appellate
Court ratiocinated as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Petitioner
claims that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter Gambito committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding that private
respondent
was illegally dismissed as said finding was not supported by
substantial
evidence and there was misappreciation of facts by both public
respondents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The contention is
without
merit. In termination cases, the burden of proving that the termination
was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. In this
case, the petitioner miserably failed to prove that private respondent
was legally terminated. After a careful scrutiny of the records of this
case, we find no reason to disturb the NLRC's findings that private
respondent
was illegally dismissed. As aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter and
affirmed
by the NLRC:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'In the
instant
case, respondents failed to substantiate their defense that complainant
was unfit for work and incapable of performing the tasks assigned to
her.
Nothing was presented as evidence to bolster their allegation; not even
copies of the alleged warnings that they sent her which allegedly
remained
ignored (pp. 61 & 182, Records).'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is likewise
evident
that petitioner failed to comply with the twin-requirement of notice
and
hearing which constitutes the essential elements of due process, thus
making
private respondent's dismissal illegal. Petitioner never gave private
respondent
any chance to know why she was repatriated. She was suddenly fetched by
Tseng Wen making her believe that she will only be given another
employment.
She never knew the reason, if ever there was, why she was dismissed and
brought back to the Philippines. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is a settled
rule
that "if the contract is for a fixed term and the employee is dismissed
without just cause, he is entitled to the payment of his salaries
corresponding
to the unexpired portion of his contract."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, as
private-respondent's
contract was for one year and her dismissal was not for a just cause,
hence,
she is entitled to her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion
of her contract. The NLRC, therefore, correctly awarded private
respondent
the amount which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of her contract
as well as her unpaid salary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The claim that public
respondent NLRC abused its discretion when it ordered the refund of the
placement fee of P23,000.00, when the official receipt (Exhibit "N")
which
is the best evidence as to the payment of the placement fee of private
respondent Nayona, only states P20,840.00, holds no water. As correctly
ruled by the Labor Arbiter:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'x
x
x. Moreover, we do not believe that the complainant paid a placement
fee
of only P5,000.00 as shown in Annex "1" of respondents' position paper.
Recruitment agencies are allowed to collect placement fees not
exceeding
P5,000.00 as required by the POEA. However, applicants pay more but
their
payments are not reflected in the receipts issued to them by these
agencies.'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Private
respondent
having been illegally dismissed and not paid the wages due her from the
foreign employer, the liabilities arising as a consequence thereof
shall
attach to petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
WHEREFORE, the
Decision
dated October 29, 1999 and Resolution dated December 20, 1999 of the
National
Labor Relations Commission are hereby AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED."
On May 31, 2001, the
Court
of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the respondent's motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioners, in the
instant petition for review on certiorari, vigorously assert that the
Court
of Appeals erred in interpreting Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 8042[6]on
the amount of the salary that should be awarded to an illegally
dismissed
overseas contract worker.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 10 of R.
A. 8042 partly provides:
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"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
for
three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x"
A plain reading of the
above provision clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to
award
an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker comes into play when
the
employment contract has a term of at least one (1) year or more.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not in accord
with the ruling of the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals that
respondent
should be paid her salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment
contract. Records show that her actual employment was only for
twenty-one
(21) days. Following the above provision, we hold that she is entitled
only to an amount corresponding to her three (3) months salary, which
is
obviously less than her salaries for the unexpired portion of her
one-year
employment contract.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision dated September 14, 2000 and Resolution dated May 31, 2001 of
the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense
that petitioner is ordered to pay respondent (NT) $47,520.00, or its
peso
equivalent, corresponding to her three (3) months salary, and to
reimburse
her placement fee of P23,000.00, with legal interest of twelve percent
(12%) per annum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Panganiban,
Corona
and Carpio Morales, JJ.,
concur. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
See Chavez vs. Bonto-Perez, G.R. No. 109808, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA
73,
82.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Annex "B-1" of the Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo at 17–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex "A-1", id. at 14–15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex "N-1", id. at 92–98.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Annex "H-1", id. at 50–57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
"The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |