G.R. No. 196883 - Global Resource for Outsourced Workers, Inc. vs. Velasco

Global Resource for Outsourced Workers (GROW), Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the placement of workers for overseas deployment, and its officer, Mr. Eusebio H. Tanco, served as the petitioners.
Respondents Abraham C. Velasco and Nanette T. Velasco were hired through MS Retail KSC/MS Retail Central Marketing Co. by GROW in January 2008 to work as Circus Performer and Circus Performer-Assistant, respectively, at MS Retail’s store in Kuwait.
The employment contracts stipulated monthly salaries—KD 650 (approximately USD 2,303.92) for Abraham and KD 150 (approximately USD 531.87) for Nanette—and defined a work schedule that included:

Four shows per day
Six workdays per week
A mention of “48 hrs/mo,” which, as later clarified, was a typographical error meant to indicate 48 hours per week

Additional provisions allowed MS Retail to determine revised work hours “from time to time” and required the respondents to perform additional duties should they not be performing shows.

Respondents arrived in Kuwait on February 22, 2008, and began work after a brief orientation.
During an early discussion regarding their work schedule, respondents were informed that the “48 hrs/mo” in the contract was an error—with the actual requirement being 48 hours per week—which they accepted by complying with the revised schedule.
On August 26, 2008, the respondents left Kuwait for an approved vacation leave to Thailand.
On September 2, 2008, Abraham emailed the Human Resources Coordinator (Mr. Joseph San Juan) stating that due to political protests in Thailand, they could not return to work on September 3 and mentioned a rebooked return flight for September 10; however, they subsequently returned to the Philippines on September 9, 2008.
A subsequent email from MS Retail on September 17, 2008, warned that failure to return immediately would result in dismissal, but the respondents did not provide a definite return date.
On September 23, 2008, MS Retail terminated the respondents’ employment via email citing Kuwait Private Labour Law Article 55 on absenteeism without legal cause, effectively blacklisting the respondents.

The LA, in a decision dated April 8, 2009, found the respondents had been constructively dismissed and ordered petitioners to pay the salaries for the unexpired portion of the contracts (six months), along with attorney’s fees, while denying the claim for overtime pay on the basis of the typographical error explanation.

On October 30, 2009, the NLRC Second Division reversed the LA ruling on constructive/illegal dismissal, finding the respondents’ absence amounted to abandonment.
The NLRC observed that the 48 hours work schedule (clarified as a typographical correction to 48 hours per week) was consistent with the standard practice at MS Retail.
The NLRC upheld MS Retail’s claim that the respondents’ conduct demonstrated an intent to abandon their work.

On January 31, 2011, the CA partly modified the NLRC decision by holding that while the respondents’ termination was valid, petitioners had failed to comply with the statutory due process requirements (specifically, the twin-notice rule).
Consequently, the CA ordered nominal damages and attorney’s fees against petitioners and granted overtime pay for work rendered in excess of the 48 hours per month as stated in the erroneous contract.
Procedurally, only petitioners appealed to the NLRC while respondents did not contest the overtime pay denial until the CA rendered its decision.

The present petition under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeks to reverse the CA’s ruling on overtime pay, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees.

The employment contracts specified “48 hrs/mo,” yet the prevailing practices and the respondents’ actual work (four shows per day, requiring preparation and rest times) undeniably implied a work schedule of at least 48 hours per week.
The respondents, having worked under the correct interpretation for more than half the duration of their contracts and raising the overtime pay concern only before the LA, are seen as having treated the error as an afterthought.
This set the stage for later disputes regarding the true intention of the contracting parties versus the literal error in the written contract.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the respondents overtime pay, considering that the Labor Arbiter’s decision denying the overtime pay claim was not appealed by the respondents, and if such a review violates the rule that a party who fails to appeal cannot obtain additional affirmative relief.
Whether the CA erred in awarding nominal damages and attorney’s fees to the respondents based on the failure to observe the proper procedural due process (specifically, the twin-notice requirement) in dismissing their employment.