ASIAN INTERNATIONAL
MANPOWER SERVICES, INC.
(AIMS),
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 169652
October 9, 2006
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS and
ANICETA LACERNA,
Respondents.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------- x
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeks to set aside the May 31, 2005 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 73276 which reversed the June 28, 2002 Resolution[2]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and held that
respondent Aniceta Lacerna (Lacerna) was illegally dismissed by
petitioner Asian International Manpower Services, Inc. (AIMS).
The facts as alleged[3]by Lacerna show that Proxy Maid
Services Centre (Proxy), a Hong Kong based recruitment agency hired her
through AIMS, a recruitment entity in the Philippines. On
February 10, 2000, she signed an employment contract to work as a
domestic helper of Low See Ting who later cancelled the contract
sometime in March 2000. Nevertheless, Lacerna heeded AIMS’s
advice to proceed to Hong Kong on the assurance that she will be
provided with an employment abroad. Upon arrival at Proxy’s
office on April 1, 2000, Lacerna was fetched by her employer, Tan Kmin
Shwe Lin Charmain (Charmain). However, the latter dismissed her
in a Notification dated May 2, 2000 citing as reason the “difficult[y]
in communication.”[4]
On May 20, 2000, Proxy transferred Lacerna to Tam Ching-yee,
Donna (Donna). On June 30, 2000 she was dismissed by Donna
without stating the reason for her termination. Neither did Proxy
explain why she was dismissed. On July 1, 2000, Lacerna agreed to
take a three-day trial period with another employer, Daisy
Lee. However, before she could sign her contract with the
latter, the Hong Kong government denied her request for change of
employer and advised her to submit a fresh application with her country
of origin.
Following the denial of her work permit, Lacerna returned to
the Philippines on July 13, 2000 but was informed by AIMS that Daisy
Lee is no longer interested in hiring her. Lacerna demanded the
return of her placement fee but was denied, hence, she filed the
instant illegal dismissal case.
AIMS, on the other hand, alleged that Lacerna resigned after
working for five days as a domestic helper of Low See Ting from April
1, 2000 to April 5, 2000, as evidenced by her resignation
letter.[5] Proxy paid her wages and fare for a return ticket to
the Philippines[6] but she refused to be repatriated. Thereafter, with
the assistance of Proxy, she was hired in the household of
Charmain. Unfortunately, the latter dismissed Lacerna on the
ground of difficulty in communication. On May 8, 2000, the Hong
Kong Immigration Department granted her an extension of time to stay in
Hong Kong with a warning that the same is her last chance to stay in
the country. When Lacerna requested another extension, the same
was denied and she was directed to leave Hong Kong.
In her Reply,[7] Lacerna insisted that her first employer
was Charmain because she never worked for Low See Ting, who as early as
March 2000, cancelled the contract before she flew to Hong Kong.
She added that the signature appearing in the resignation letter and
receipt of payment for the period April 1 to 5, 2000 is not her
handwriting.
On June 28, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Lacerna was
not illegally dismissed because she resigned as domestic helper of Low
See Ting. This was affirmed on appeal by the NLRC in its resolution
dated June 28, 2002.
On May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of the NLRC and held that Lacerna was illegally dismissed because no
just or authorized cause was shown to justify her dismissal by Donna,
her last employer. It ruled that AIMS is solidarily liable with
Proxy; and that Lacerna’s resignation did not exempt AIMS from
liability because Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the
liability of the principal employer and the recruitment agency shall
not be affected by any substitution, amendment, or modification of the
contract of employment. The dispositive portion thereof, reads:cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the foregoing
considered, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision is
REVERSED and SET Aside. Accordingly, private respondents are
ordered to pay petitioner the following:cralaw:red
1. HK$11,010.00 corresponding to three (3) months of her
salary or its equivalent in the Philippine Peso at the time
of payment;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. The amount of P18,000.00 with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum as reimbursement of her placement fee;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3. P10,000.00 as moral damages;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
4. P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
5. Attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. No costs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
AIMS filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Hence, the instant petition.
The issues for resolution are: Was Lacerna illegally
dismissed? If yes, may AIMS be held liable for the monetary
claims of Lacerna.
On both issues, the Court rules in the affirmative.
There is no dispute that the last employer of Lacerna was
Donna and not Daisy Lee because the Hong Kong government directed her
repatriation before she could sign her contract with the latter.
In dismissing her, Donna gave no reason for her termination.
Neither did Proxy explain the ground for her dismissal. And where
there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the
termination, the law considers the matter, a case of illegal
dismissal.[9] In termination cases involving Filipino
workers recruited for overseas employment, the burden of proving just
or authorized cause for termination rests with the foreign based
employer/principal and the local based entity which recruited the
worker both being solidarily liable for liabilities arising from the
illegal dismissal of the worker. In this case, the Court of
Appeals correctly declared Lacerna’s termination illegal since no
reason was given to justify her termination.
AIMS argued that it cannot be held liable for the monetary
claims of Lacerna because its contract was limited only to Lacerna’s
employment with Low See Ting. When she resigned as domestic
helper of the latter, the contract was allegedly extinguished making
AIMS no longer privy to the subsequent employment contract entered into
by Proxy and Lacerna.
However, the records of the Immigration Department of Hong
Kong belie the contention of AIMS that Lacerna was employed by Low See
Ting. The May 8, 2000 letter of the Hong Kong Immigration
Department, states:cralaw:red
I refer to your application on 8 May 2000 for extension of
stay to enable you to submit a fresh application for change of employer
in Hong Kong.
Our records show that you were a domestic helper whose
employment contract was terminated x x x prematurely on 5-4-2000.
Subsequently, you submitted an application for change of employer in
Hong Kong. During the processing of the application, we were
informed that your prospective employer had backed out. Such
application was thereby cancelled and you were allowed an opportunity
to submit another application for change of employer after production
of evidence of a second prospective employment. You sought
permission to submit a second application for change of employer.
While we are prepared to accept and consider your second
application for change of employer, I must remind you that this is
final. If your second prospective employer again backs out or
withdraws his/her sponsorship for whatever reasons, your further
application for extension of stay for the reason of processing a new
employment in Hong Kong will be refused. Your further application
for change of employer will not be considered. If you still wish
to work for a new employer in Hong Kong, you should submit a fresh
application in your country of origin.[10]
Based on the foregoing, the Immigration Department noted
that the application of Lacerna was her second request for change of
employer. She filed the first application after her contract was
pre-terminated on May 4, 2000. This refers to the
pre-termination by Charmain in the Notification of Cancellation of
Employment Contract dated May 2, 2000. However, the prospective
employer subject of said first application backed out, hence, Lacerna
submitted a second application for change of employer which was granted
with a warning that the same will be her last chance to stay in Hong
Kong. Said second application landed her a job in the household
of Donna on May 20, 2000. When the latter dismissed Lacerna on
June 30, 2000, she applied for the third time to change employer but
was denied by the Immigration Department which directed her to leave
Hong Kong. Thus:cralaw:red
I refer to your application on 11 JUL 2000 for change of employer in Hong Kong after premature termination of contract.
Please note that under the existing policy, foreign domestic
helpers whose contracts are terminated prematurely are required to
return to their place of origin where they may submit fresh application
for entry to Hong Kong if they so wish. Permission to change
employment in Hong Kong is given only in exceptional
circumstances. These include, for example, cases where the
employers are unable to continue with the contracts because of
migration, external transfer, death or financial reasons or there is
evidence that the domestic helpers have been abused or exploited.
According to our records, you were on 19 MAY 2000 granted
permission to remain in Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper under a
standard 2-year employment contract. On 30 JUN 2000, your
employment contract was terminated prematurely.
Subsequently, you applied for change of employer in Hong
Kong. During your application, you were allowed opportunities to
provide information to support your case.
Having taken into consideration the information made
available and circumstances of your case, I am not satisfied that there
are circumstances in your case which should justify exceptional
consideration. Your application is therefore refused. If
you wish to work for a new employer, you should submit a fresh
application after you return to your place of domicile. Under the
direct visa application system, your visa application can be submitted
directly to this department through your prospective employer in Hong
Kong. The normal processing time for a visa application submitted
through such system is around 4 to 6 weeks.
Please note that after termination of your contract, you are
permitted to remain in Hong Kong up to 14 JUL 2000 and that you are
required to leave Hong Kong on or before this date.[11]
The Hong Kong Immigration Department gave Lacerna only two
chances to change employer. The subject of the first was the
prospective employer who backed out, and the second was Donna. If
we follow the version of AIMS, then the sequence of her employment
would have been that with: (1) Low See Ting, (2) Charmain, (3)
prospective employer who backed out, and (4) Donna. However
Lacerna’s employment with Low See Ting is not supported by the records
of the Immigration Department. If Low See Ting was the
first employer, then Lacerna’s two chances to change employer would
have ended on her prospective employer who backed out and would not
have enabled her to work for Charmain and Donna. Clearly, the
version of AIMS does not jibe with the official records of the Hong
Kong government. Hence, between the alleged Lacerna’s
resignation letter to Low See Ting and the letters of the Hong Kong
Immigration Department showing that Lacerna could not have been
employed by her, credence must be given to the said official records,
especially so that AIMS never assailed their authenticity.
Moreover, even granting that Lacerna truly resigned as
domestic helper of Low See Ting, the liability of AIMS was not
extinguished. The contract of Lacerna as approved by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) reveals that Proxy
was her designated principal employer; the agreed salary was
HK$3,670.00 a month; and the contract duration was for two
years.[12] Since AIMS was the local agency which recruited
Lacerna for Proxy, it is solidarily liable with the latter for
liabilities arising from her illegal dismissal. To detach itself
from the liability of Proxy, AIMS must show by clear and convincing
evidence that its contract is limited to Lacerna’s employment by Low
See Ting. However, aside from its bare allegation, AIMS
presented no proof to corroborate its claim. On the contrary, it
appears that in transferring Lacerna from one employer to another,
Proxy did not demand a new placement fee from Lacerna. This only
shows that Proxy’s conduct was in accordance with the original contract
executed with AIMS and not on an entirely new and separate agreement
entered into in Hong Kong. This interpretation is in accord
with the rule that all doubts in the construction of labor contracts
should be resolved in favor of the working class. The
Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the sympathetic
concern of the State for the workers conformably to the social justice
policy.[13] Verily, to absolve AIMS from liability based on its
unsubstantiated claim that it is not privy to the subsequent employment
provided by Proxy for Lacerna would be to undermine the avowed policy
of the State. The joint and solidary liability imposed by law
against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to assure
the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due
him.[14] Thus, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, provides:cralaw:red
Sec. 10. Money Claims. –chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
The liability of the principal/employer and the
recruitment/placement 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/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate
officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall
themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or
partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or
duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any
substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign
country of the said contract.
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 the employment contract or for three (3) months
for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less
The illegal dismissal of Lacerna entitles her to the full
reimbursement of placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%)
per annum, plus salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment
contract or for three months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less. Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct in
ordering AIMS to pay HK$11,010.00 corresponding to three months of her
salary or its equivalent in the Philippine Peso at the time of payment,
plus placement fee of P18,0000.00.
The Court of Appeals, however, erred in awarding moral and
exemplary damages inasmuch as Lacerna failed to prove that AIMS and
Proxy are guilty of bad faith. While it is true that they were
not able to justify Lacerna’s dismissal, the same does not
automatically amount to bad faith. Moral and exemplary damages cannot
be based solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed the
employee without cause or due process. The termination must be
attended with bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and that
social humiliation, wounded feelings, or grave anxiety resulted
therefrom. Similarly, exemplary damages are recoverable only when
the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner. To merit the award of these damages, additional facts
showing bad faith are necessary[15] but Lacerna failed to plead and
prove the same in this case. Hence, the awards of moral and
exemplary damages should be deleted.
The award of attorney’s fees is sustained. In actions
for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and
thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum
of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney’s
fees is justified under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules, and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
There need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in
bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a
showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly and that the
employee was forced to file a case, as in the instant case.[16]
WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The May 31, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73276 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the awards of moral and exemplary damages are DELETED for lack of basis.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-46. Penned by Associate Justice Josefina
Guevara-Salonga and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes
and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.
[2] Id. at 111-115. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T.
Aquino and concurred in by Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and
Angelita A. Gacutan.
[3] Id. at 51-55, Lacerna’s Position Paper.
[4] Id. at 79.
[5] Id. at 76.
[6] Id. at 77.
[7] Id. at 82-85.
[8] Id. at 45-46.
[9] Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp., G.R. No. 99047, April 16, 2001, 356 SCRA 451, 467.
[10] Rollo, p. 80.
[11] Id. at 81.
[12] Id. at 66.
[13] Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 101535, January 22, 1993, 217 SCRA
455, 461.
[14] Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp., supra note 9 at 464-465.
[15] San Miguel Corporation v. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603, december 13, 2005, 477 SCRA 604, 619-620.
[16] San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, G.R. No. 149011, June 28, 2005,
461 SCRA 392, 432-433; San Miguel Corporation v. Del Rosario, supra at
619.
|