Aldovino, et al.
v Gold and Green
Manpower Management and
Development Services Inc. et al.,
G.R. No. 200811, June 19, 2019
Third Division, LEONEN
RA 10022: Overseas Workers who have been illegally
dismissed are entitled to full payment of their salaries for
the unexpired portion of their contract; Three (3) – month
cap unconstitutional; Waivers and quitclaims executed by
employees are generally frowned upon since it is against
public policy;
The clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less" as reinstated in Section 7
of Republic Act No. 10022 is unconstitutional, and has no force
and effect of law. It violates due process as it deprives overseas
workers of their monetary claims without any discernable valid
purpose.
Petitioners applied for work at Gold and Green Manpower, a local
manning agency whose foreign principal is Sage International.
Petitioners were then sent to Taiwan to work as sewers for
Dipper Semi-Conductor (employer in Taiwan). Since they were
only paid on a piece-rate basis, they received less than the fixed
monthly salary stipulated in their original contract. Thus,
Petitioners filed a case in Taiwan against Dipper Semi-Conductor
and Sage International. There, Dipper Semi-Conductor ordered
Petitioners to return to the Philippines as it was no longer
interested in their services. They were then made to immediately
pack their belongings, after which they were dropped off at a
train station in Taipei.
Eventually, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement,
which included petitioners undertaking not to sue respondents
anymore, in consideration of some amount of money. Upon
return to the Philippines, Petitioners then brought this suit
against Respondents for payment of their salaries for the
unexpired portion of their contract.
Is the waiver and quitclaim stated in the Compromise Agreement
binding upon the parties?
NO. Quitclaims and waivers are frowned upon as contrary to
public policy. This is because of the simple reason that the
employer and employee do not stand on equal footing. The
employer drove the employee to the wall. The latter must have
to get hold of money. He thus found himself in no position to
resist money proffered. His, then, is a case of adherence, not of
choice. Along this line, we have more trenchantly declared that
quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the employees
do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from unfair
labor practices of the employer. The basic reason for this is that
such quitclaims and/or complete releases are against public
policy and, therefore, null and void. Hence, the waiver and
quitclaim does not bind petitioners. They may file suit against
respondents.
Is the 3 month cap found in Section 7 of RA 10022
unconstitutional?
YES. As held in Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v.
Cabiles, the Court ruled that “limiting wages that should be
recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three
months is both a violation of due process and the equal
protection clauses of the Constitution. Putting a cap on the
money claims of certain overseas workers does not increase the
standard of protection afforded to them. On the other hand,
foreign employers are more incentivized by the reinstated clause
to enter into contracts of at least a year because it gives them
more flexibility to violate our overseas workers' rights. Their
liability for arbitrarily terminating overseas workers is decreased
at the expense of the workers whose rights they violated. Hence,
petitioners are entitled to the award of salaries based on the
actual unexpired portion of their employment contracts.
