Case Digest (G.R. No. 191310)
Facts:
Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. and/or Luchi Singh Moldes v. Desiree T. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Desiree T. Masagca auditioned in November 2002 and was recruited by Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. (PTCPI) through its president Luchi Singh Moldes for overseas engagement in South Korea. A POEA‑approved Model Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas Performing Artists to Korea was executed on February 3, 2003, naming Saem Entertainment Company, Ltd. (SAENCO) as the foreign principal; the contract prescribed an initial six‑month term, extendible by mutual agreement, with a stated minimum monthly compensation of US$600.
Respondent departed for Korea on September 6, 2003. She worked at Seaman’s Seven Pub in Ulsan and was repatriated in June 2004. She alleged (a) misrepresentations as to contract duration and salary, (b) nonpayment of salary by SAENCO and withholding by Moldes, (c) coercion into signing spurious loan documents, and (d) deportation after refusing to surrender commissions or dismiss counsel. She filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking pay for unpaid salaries for one year, backwages, moral/exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners submitted nine cash vouchers and affidavits of co‑workers and maintained respondent completed the six‑month contract and was paid. The Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent’s complaint on May 4, 2006, finding the POEA‑approved contract was for six months, that petitioners did not participate in any alleged extension, and that the vouchers proved payment.
On appeal the NLRC (First Division) on May 22, 2008 reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding the vouchers questionable, crediting respondent’s testimony of misrepresentation and nonpayment, and awarding one year’s salary (US$7,200). On petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the NLRC issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2008, concluding respondent’s appeal was fatally defective for failure to perfect appeal requirements and, alternatively, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal on the merits; a January 30, 2009 Resolution denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which in a Decision dated November 27, 2009 excused respondent’s procedural lapses, reviewed the merits, found illegal dismissal without procedural due process, and held PTCPI, Moldes and SAENCO jointly and severally liable for unpaid salaries for one year (US$7,200) plus attorney’s fees (10%). The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on February 16, 2010.
Petitioners sought review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court First Division, petitioners attempted to introduce new evidence (a notarized Reply by Park and an Entertainer Wage Roster) which the Court declined to consider as belated. The Supreme Court a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals justified in excusing respondent’s procedural defects and deciding the merits (i.e., did the NLRC commit grave abuse in reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision)?
- Was respondent illegally dismissed in June 2004, and did that dismissal violate substantive and procedural due process?
- Did petitioners prove payment of respondent’s salaries for the period worked and thereby negate respondent’s claim for unpaid wages for one year?
- Are petitioners PTCPI and Moldes, together with SAENCO, jointly and several...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)