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...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Petitioner: Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc., a domestic recruitment and placement agency engaged in overseas employment.
• Respondent: Nonito Villanos, a contract worker recruited for deployment as a caretaker in Taiwan.

Recruitment, Contract Formation, and Fee Arrangement

• In February 1998, respondent applied for overseas work through petitioner.
• Originally assessed a placement fee of P100,000, the fee was later reduced to P94,000 on condition that the balance of P64,000 be recovered through salary deductions after respondent’s deployment.
• Respondent advanced a downpayment of P30,000 without receiving an official receipt; instead, a schedule of salary deductions (including interest and other charges totaling P90,725) was provided.

Deployment and Assignment

• In October 1998, respondent received his Contract of Employment, which stated he was hired as a caretaker for a period of one year, ten months, and twenty-eight days, with a monthly salary of NT$15,840.
• However, upon arrival in Taiwan on October 15, 1998, he was assigned to perform as a hydraulic installer/repairer at a mechanical shop owned by Wei Yu Hsien, contrary to the agreed position as a caretaker.
• Due to the change in job assignment and harsh working conditions including irregular work hours, respondent endured considerable hardship.

Termination, Repatriation, and Initial Legal Actions

• Barely a month into his employment, respondent was terminated.
• On November 14, 1998, he was presented with a document asserting his unfitness for the assigned position, which he refused to sign.
• On November 16, 1998, he was given his final salary with instructions for his repatriation.
• Upon returning to the Philippines, respondent confronted petitioner’s representative, Lorenza Ching, demanding reimbursement of his P30,000 downpayment.
• Instead of an immediate refund, petitioner provided an expense summary amounting to P30,493 allegedly incurred for his deployment.

Subsequent Proceedings and Awards

• Respondent initiated legal proceedings by filing a complaint:
• First, as POEA Case No. RV98-12-1586 before the POEA’s Adjudication Office.
• Then, on February 17, 1999, a complaint for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery of unpaid salaries was filed with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch.
• Labor Arbiter Cresencio R. Iniego awarded:
• Payment for the unserved portion of the employment contract (interpreted as wages for six months due to the “three months for every year” rule).
• Reimbursement of the illegal placement fee (assessed at P99,110 but subject to actual payment considerations).
• Moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
• The NLRC later reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that respondent was not illegally dismissed.
• Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which:
• Found that the respondent’s alleged voluntary resignation was inconsistent with his conduct after repatriation (immediately contesting his assignment and filing complaints).
• Held that he was in fact illegally dismissed due to the deviation from his contracted job as a caretaker.
• Reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision by awarding the computed salary for six months (NT$95,040), a reimbursement of P30,000 for the downpayment, moral and exemplary damages (P50,000 each), and attorney’s fees (10% of the total awards).

Issue:

Determination of the Nature of Termination

• Whether the respondent voluntarily resigned or was forcibly terminated (illegal dismissal).
• If his resignation was not voluntary, whether it constituted an illegitimate termination by petitioner.

Compliance with Contractual Terms

• Whether assigning respondent to a job different from the one he applied for (hydraulic installer versus caretaker) breached the employment contract.
• Whether petitioner adequately informed respondent of the qualifications and nature of the job for which he was hired.

Computation and Justification of Monetary Awards

• Whether awarding wages for the unserved portion of the contract (computed using the “three months for every year” rule) was proper.
• Whether the reimbursement of only the actual amount paid (P30,000) as the placement fee was correct, given that the assessed amount was P94,000.
• The appropriateness of awarding moral and exemplary damages, along with attorney’s fees, as a consequence of breach of contract and alleged bad faith on the part of petitioner.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)