G.R. No. 79560 - Ditan vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Administrator

The petitioner, Andres E. Ditan, was recruited by Intraco Sales Corporation through its local agent, Asia World, to work in Angola as a welding supervisor.
The employment contract was for nine months, specifying a monthly salary of US$1,100.00 (or US$275.00 weekly) and contained standard stipulations for the protection of overseas workers.

Ditan arrived in Luanda, Angola, on November 30, 1984, and was initially assigned as an ordinary welder from December 2 to 25, 1984, at the INTRACO central maintenance shop.
On December 26, 1984, he was ordered to be transferred to Kafunfo—a region known for its previous rebel attack that resulted in the kidnapping and killing of expatriate workers—which Ditan had strong reason to fear, given the earlier incident.

Despite his objections, Ditan was pressured into accepting the transfer by assurances from the INTRACO manager that Kafunfo was safe and that refusal would result in him being sent home.
On December 29, 1984, during his assignment at the diamond mining site in Kafunfo, the rebel group Unita attacked the site, capturing Ditan along with sixteen other Filipino and foreign workers.

Ditan and his co-hostages endured a 31-day forced march through jungle terrain covering nearly a thousand kilometers, subsisting on meager rations while suffering from hardships such as diarrhea and blistered feet.
They were eventually released on March 16, 1985, following intercession by their respective governments and the International Red Cross, and repatriated six days later.

Upon release, the repatriated Filipino workers, except Ditan, were given priority for re-employment as assured by INTRACO.
Ditan, excluded from this favored re-employment, filed a claim in June 1985 against the private respondents for breach of contract and several damages, including:

The POEA Administrator, Tomas D. Achacoso, dismissed all of Ditan’s claims in a decision dated January 27, 1987; this decision was affirmed in toto by the NLRC on July 14, 1987.
Specific claims, such as paid vacation leave and the value of lost belongings, were rejected because:

The contractual provision on vacation leave expressly required entry into a subsequent contract which did not materialize.
The evidence revealed that the belongings were returned to him by the rebels, thus negating the claim of loss.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover unpaid salaries for the 17 weeks remaining on his contract, given that he was forced to report for duty in a dangerous area and subsequently taken hostage.
Whether the war risk bonus applies to his case, considering the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 4 took effect after his deployment and did not have retroactive effect.
Whether the employer’s deliberate assignment of Ditan to a known hazardous location constitutes a breach of the employment contract’s duty to ensure the worker’s safety under the prevailing social justice and labor protection doctrines.