Case Digest (G.R. No. 151303)
Facts:
The case involves Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. (petitioner) and Nonito Villanos (respondent). The events leading to the case began in February 1998 when Villanos applied for overseas employment through Athenna, which is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers for overseas jobs. Villanos was assessed a placement fee of P100,000, but due to financial constraints, he negotiated a reduced fee of P94,000, with an agreement that he would pay the remaining balance of P64,000 through salary deductions upon his deployment. He paid an initial amount of P30,000 but did not receive a receipt for this payment. Instead, he was provided with a schedule for monthly salary deductions amounting to P90,725.
In October 1998, Villanos received his contract to work as a caretaker in Taiwan, with a monthly salary of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 15,840. However, upon his arrival in Taiwan on October 15, 1998, he was assigned to work as a hydraulic in...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 151303)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Petitioner: Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. (a domestic corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of overseas workers).
- Respondent: Nonito Villanos (a contract worker recruited by petitioner to work as a caretaker in Taiwan).
Recruitment and Placement Fee:
- Respondent applied for overseas employment through petitioner in February 1998.
- He was initially assessed a placement fee of P100,000 but negotiated it down to P94,000, with P30,000 paid upfront and the remaining P64,000 to be deducted from his salary.
- No receipt was issued for the P30,000 payment.
Employment Contract and Deployment:
- In October 1998, respondent signed a contract to work as a caretaker for one year, ten months, and twenty-eight days with a monthly salary of NT$15,840.
- Upon arrival in Taiwan, respondent was assigned as a hydraulic installer/repairer instead of a caretaker, contrary to his contract.
Termination and Repatriation:
- Barely a month after deployment, respondent was terminated by his employer, Wei Yu Hsien, on November 14, 1998.
- He was asked to sign a document stating he was unqualified for the position, which he refused.
- On November 16, 1998, he was repatriated to the Philippines.
Post-Repatriation Actions:
- Respondent confronted petitioner’s representative, Lorenza Ching, demanding a refund of the P30,000 placement fee but was refused.
- He filed a complaint with the POEA and later with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery of unpaid salaries and benefits.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, holding petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien solidarily liable for unpaid wages, illegal deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Petitioner was also ordered to refund the illegal placement fee of P99,110.
NLRC’s Reversal:
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, stating that respondent was not illegally dismissed.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling:
- The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding that respondent was illegally dismissed and that the employment contract was violated.
Issue:
- Did respondent voluntarily resign, or was he illegally dismissed?
- Assuming illegal dismissal, was the Court of Appeals correct in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s monetary awards, specifically:
- The award of salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract (NT$348,480).
- The award of the remittance of the placement fee (P99,110)?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications:
- Illegal Dismissal: Respondent was illegally dismissed. His immediate actions upon repatriation (demanding a refund and filing complaints) disproved petitioner’s claim of voluntary resignation.
- Monetary Awards:
- Unpaid Salaries: Respondent was entitled to six months’ worth of salary (NT$95,040) under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as the lesser amount compared to the unexpired portion of the contract.
- Placement Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was entitled to a refund of the P30,000 he actually paid, plus 12% interest per annum, not the full P99,110 assessed.
- Damages and Attorney’s Fees: The awards of P50,000 in moral damages, P50,000 in exemplary damages, and 10% attorney’s fees were upheld.
Ratio:
- Illegal Dismissal: An employee is presumed illegally dismissed unless the employer proves otherwise. Petitioner failed to prove that respondent voluntarily resigned or was terminated for a valid cause.
- Monetary Awards Under RA 8042:
- For illegally dismissed overseas workers, the law provides for the lesser of either the salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract or three months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term.
- Respondent was entitled to six months’ salary (NT$95,040) as the lesser amount.
- Placement Fee Reimbursement: Only the amount actually paid (P30,000) is refundable, not the assessed amount (P94,000).
- Damages and Attorney’s Fees: The awards were justified due to petitioner’s breach of contract and bad faith.