SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC v. JOY C.
CABILES
G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
Doctrine:
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES
Facts:
● Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement, Inc. (Sameer), is a recruitment and placement
agency.
● Respondent, Joy C. Cabiles (Cabiles), responded to the ad published by Sameer and
submitted her application for a quality control job in Taiwan.
● Cabiles was accepted for a year long employment contract with a salary of NTD 15,360.
● Cabiles signed the employment contract but adds that she was allegedly made to pay
Php 70,000 as a placement fee.
● On June 26, 1997, Cabiles was finally deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd.
(Wacoal)
● On her employment contract, Cabiles agreed to work as quality control, however, she
was made to work as a cutter in Taiwan.
● On July 14, 1997, Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Cabiles that she was to be
terminated, without any prior notice or warning.
● Cabiles claimed that from the time she started working, to the time she was terminated,
she only earned NTD 9,000, and Wacoal also made her pay her repatriation fee (ticket
back to Manila) which deducted NTD 3,000 from the NTD 9,000 she was paid.
● Cabiles filed a case of illegal dismissal with the NLRC, she won, NLRC reiterating the
doctrine doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just
or valid cause belongs to the employer, and that Sameer failed to prove that there were
just causes for the termination.
● Sameer filed for certiorari with the CA
● Respondent argued to the CA that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less” of Republic Act No. 10022 violates the
constitutional right to due process.
● CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the last clause of RA 10022 violates the constitutional right to due
process
Provision/s:
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any
of the following causes:
(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 by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his 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 representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 provides:
Section 7 Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SEC. 10. Money Claims.– Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the
complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damage. Consistent with this mandate, the NLRC shall endeavor
to update and keep abreast with the developments in the global services industry.
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 de [sic] 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.
Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on money claims inclusive of
damages under this section shall be paid within thirty (30) days from approval of the settlement
by the appropriate authority.
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker’s salary, the
worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if [sic] his placement fee and the deductions
made 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.
In case of a final and executory judgement against a foreign employer/principal, it shall be
automatically disqualified, without further proceedings, from participating in the Philippine
Overseas Employment Program and from recruiting and hiring Filipino workers until and unless
it fully satisfies the judgement award.
Noncompliance with the mandatory periods for resolutions of case providedunder this section
shall subject the responsible officials to any or all of the following penalties:
(a) The salary of any such official who fails to render his decision or resolution within the
prescribed period shall be, or caused to be, withheld until the said official complies therewith;
(b) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days; or
(c) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5)
years.
Provided, however,That the penalties herein provided shall be without prejudice to any liability
which any such official may have incured [sic] under other existing laws or rules and regulations
as a consequence of violating the provisions of this paragraph.
Ruling/Ratio: YES
● The court ruled that the respondent deserves to receive the three-month
equivalent salary
● In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is the highest
● No branch of the government may exercise its powers inconsistent with the
Constitution
● Any law that is inconsistent with it must be declared null and void
● In Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc,
court ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of unexpired
term, whichever is less” is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
clause and substantive due process
● The court ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of
unexpired term, whichever is less” in Section 7 of RA 10022 amending Section
10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional, therefore, null and void
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to
pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of
her employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment.
Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay
respondent attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this
judgment.
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
SO ORDERED.
