Facts:

The case revolves around the petitioner, Asian Center for Career and Employment System and Services, Inc. (ACCESS), and the respondent, Ibno Mediaeles. The events began when Mediaeles was hired by ACCESS to work as a mason in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, under a two-year contract from February 28, 1995, to February 28, 1997, at a monthly salary of 1,200 Saudi Riyals (SR). On May 26, 1996, Mediaeles sought a vacation leave which was granted. Upon his return to the Philippines, he learned from coworkers that he had been dismissed from his position, which turned out to be true. Consequently, on June 17, 1996, Mediaeles filed a complaint with the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime, refund of transportation costs, illegal deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, and unpaid salary for the remaining term of his contract. On March 17, 1997, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Mediaeles, ordering ACCESS to pay SR 13,200 for the unexpired portion of his contract and S

...

Facts:

Employment and Contract

• Petitioner, Asian Center for Career and Employment System and Services, Inc. (ACCESS), hired respondent IBNO MEDIALES to work as a mason in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
• The agreed monthly salary was 1,200 Saudi Riyals (SR).
• The employment contract was fixed for a period of two (2) years, from February 28, 1995, until February 28, 1997.

Vacation Leave and Alleged Dismissal

• On May 26, 1996, respondent applied for vacation leave with pay, a benefit earned after more than one year of continuous service.
• Petitioner granted the vacation leave.
• While en route back to the Philippines, respondent’s co-workers informed him that he had been dismissed from service.
• This information was later confirmed as true.

Filing of Complaint and Labor Arbiter’s Decision

• On June 17, 1996, after his dismissal, respondent filed a complaint with the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal, as well as for non-payment of overtime pay, refund of transportation fare, illegal deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, and the salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.
• On March 17, 1997, the labor arbiter ruled petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal.
• In the dispositive portion of the arbiter’s decision, petitioner was ordered to pay a total amount of SR13,200 to cover respondent’s salary for the unexpired portion of his contract—after deducting a P5,000 placement fee—and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the judgment award (SR1,320).

Computation Discrepancy and Appeal

• Although the dispositive portion awarded SR13,200, the body of the arbiter’s decision detailed a computation applying Section 10 of R.A. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), which entailed:
• Calculation based on three (3) months of salary: SR1,200 x 3 = SR3,600.
• On appeal, ACCESS moved for reconsideration of the award amount, contending that under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, its liability was limited to three (3) months of salary (SR3,600) and 10% attorney’s fees (SR360).
• The NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration.

Applicability of R.A. 8042 and Final Proceedings

• ACCESS argued that the law should apply based on the date of dismissal rather than the date of employment.
• The NLRC ruled that R.A. 8042 is applicable since respondent’s cause of action arose at the time of illegal dismissal in June 1996—after the law’s effectivity on July 15, 1995.
• Consequently, under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, a worker is entitled to the lesser of his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract or three (3) months’ salary per year of the unexpired term.
• Given that the unexpired portion of the contract was eight (8) months, the award should correctly be three (3) months’ salary or SR3,600.

Award of Attorney’s Fees

• The decision also addressed the award of attorney’s fees.
• The court noted that under Article 2208 of the Civil Code and the provisions of the Labor Code, attorney’s fees may be recovered when the claimant is forced to litigate, especially when there is evidence of bad faith.
• Given the circumstances of the dismissal—where the respondent was misled about his status and forced to file an action—the award of attorney’s fees (10% of the wages awarded) was deemed proper.

Final Modified Decision

• The NLRC’s decision was affirmed with modifications.
• ACCESS was ordered to pay respondent IBNO MEDIALES the peso equivalent of SR3,600 for the unexpired portion of his contract and SR360 for attorney’s fees.
• The modification corrected the earlier error wherein the dispositive portion erroneously awarded a higher salary amount (SR13,200) than was supported by the body of the decision.

Issue:

Whether the application of Section 10 of R.A. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) is proper in computing the salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract.

• Does the timing of the dismissal (June 1996) render the law applicable despite the employment having commenced before its effectivity on July 15, 1995?
• Whether the labor arbiter’s computation in the dispositive portion of the decision - awarding SR13,200 - conflicts with the computation provided in the body of the decision (SR3,600) and whether such discrepancy should be rectified.
• The propriety of awarding attorney’s fees to the respondent in light of alleged bad faith on the part of the petitioner.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)