0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views3 pages

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled that the clause limiting compensation for illegally dismissed overseas workers to three months' salary is unconstitutional. Joy Cabiles, who was illegally dismissed from her job in Taiwan, is entitled to her full salary for the unexpired term of her employment contract, as well as reimbursement of repatriation costs and attorney's fees. The ruling reinforces the rights of overseas workers to security of tenure and due process in employment matters.

Uploaded by

NMN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views3 pages

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled that the clause limiting compensation for illegally dismissed overseas workers to three months' salary is unconstitutional. Joy Cabiles, who was illegally dismissed from her job in Taiwan, is entitled to her full salary for the unexpired term of her employment contract, as well as reimbursement of repatriation costs and attorney's fees. The ruling reinforces the rights of overseas workers to security of tenure and due process in employment matters.

Uploaded by

NMN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MONETARY CLAIMS OF OFWs ARISING FROM ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

Entitlement to the Expired Term


Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:
-​ Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., a recruitment agency, placed Joy C. Cabiles in a
quality control job in Taiwan
-​ She signed a one year employment contract for a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00.
-​ She was required to pay a ₱70,000 placement fee when she signed the employment
contract
-​ Joy was deployed on June 26, 1997. She alleged that in her contract, she agreed to work as
quality control but in Taiwan, she was asked to work as a cutter
-​ On July 14, 1997, Wacoal terminated her employment due to inefficiency and prepared her
for immediate repatriation.
-​ Joy claimed she earned only NT$9,000 from June 26 to July 14, 1997, with NT$3,000
deducted for her plane ticket to Manila.
-​ She filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, seeking the return of her placement
fee, the withheld amount for repatriation costs, payment of her salary for 23 months as well
as moral and exemplary damages.
-​ The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint.
-​ The NLRC found her dismissal illegal. It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to
show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. It found
that Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove that there were just causes for
termination. Furthermore, procedural due process was not observed in terminating
respondent
-​ NLRC did not rule on the issue of reimbursement of placement fees for lack of jurisdiction
-​ Sameer appealed
-​ CA affirmed the NLRC decision on entitlement to three months' salary, reimbursement of
repatriation expenses, and attorney's fees but remanded the case back to NLRC noting that
the award was based on Joy's dismissal without due process.
-​ Aggrieved, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency filed this petition.
-​ Petitioner Sameer contends there was just cause for termination because there was a finding
of Wacoal that respondent was inefficient in her work.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred when it affirmed the NLRC finding respondent illegally dismissed and
awarding her 3 months’ worth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and
attorney’s fees despite the alleged existence of just causes of termination.

RULING:
-​ NO. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency’s petition is without merit.
-​ Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorney’s
fees and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.
-​ Section 10 of RA 8042,otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of1995, states that overseas workers who were terminated without just, valid, or authorized
cause "shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
twelve (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."
-​ Section 15 of RA No. 8042 states that "repatriation of the worker and the transport of his [or
her] personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or
deployed the worker overseas". The exception is when "termination of employment is due
solely to the fault of the worker," which as we have established, is not the case.
-​ The Labor Code also entitles the employee to 10% of the amount of withheld wages as
attorney's fees when the withholding is unlawful.
-​ CA affirmed the NLRC's decision to award respondent NT$46,080.00 or the 3-month
equivalent of her salary, attorney's fees of NT$300.00, and the reimbursement of the
withheld NT$3,000.00 salary, which answered for her repatriation.
-​ We uphold the finding that respondent is entitled to all of these awards. The award of the
three-month equivalent of respondent's salary should, however, be increased to the
amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment contract.
-​ In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court
ruled that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less" is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and
substantive due process.
-​ Republic Act No. 10022 was promulgated on March 8, 2010. This means that the
reinstatement of the clause in Republic Act No. 8042 was not yet in effect at the time of
respondent's termination from work in 1997. Republic Act No. 8042 before it was amended
by Republic Act No. 10022 governs this case.
-​ We observe that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in Republic Act No. 10022,
violates the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Petitioner as well as
the Solicitor General have failed to show any compelling change in the circumstances that
would warrant us to revisit the precedent.
-​ The reinstated clause does not satisfy the requirement of reasonable classification.
-​ We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime 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.
-​ Overseas workers regardless of their classifications are entitled to security of tenure, at
least for the period agreed upon in their contracts. This means that they cannot be
dismissed before the end of their contract terms without due process. If they were illegally
dismissed, the workers' right to security of tenure is violated.
-​ Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her
contract, in accordance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of the
three-month equivalence of respondent's salary must be modified accordingly. Since she
started working on June 26, 1997 and was terminated on July 14, 1997, respondent is
entitled to her salary from July 15, 1997 to June 25, 1998. "To rule otherwise would be
iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that
principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFW's security of
tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation
based on an unconstitutional provision of law.

You might also like