G.R. No. 191310 - Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. vs. Masagca

Respondent Desiree T. Masagca auditioned in November 2002 and was recruited by petitioners Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. (PTCPI) and Luchi Singh Moldes to work as a singer/entertainer in South Korea.
An Employment Contract dated February 3, 2003, was executed between respondent and PTCPI as agent of Saem Entertainment Company, Ltd. (SAENCO), the Korean principal/promoter.
Key terms of the contract included:

Duration of six months, extendible by mutual agreement for another six months;
Venue specified as Siheung Tourist Hotel Night Club in Korea;
Minimum monthly compensation of USD 600, with specified deductions;
Work hours of maximum five hours daily with rest day;
Termination clauses specifying valid causes and obligations for repatriation costs.

Respondent worked for nine months in Ulsan, South Korea at Seaman’s Seven Pub, not the contractually stated venue.
She alleged being misled about the terms, including contract duration (was told one year), venue, and salary (was promised USD 400 but contract stipulated USD 600).
Respondent claimed she did not receive her salary and subsisted on commissions, half of which she had to remit to petitioner Moldes to pay a fictitious loan.
Upon refusal to pay further loan demands and after hiring counsel, respondent’s salary was withheld, and she was deported due to allegedly overstaying with an expired visa.

Petitioners contended respondent signed only one six-month contract, understood its terms, and completed the contract.
They claimed that the extension was without their consent or participation and contested respondent’s allegations of misconduct.
They submitted cash vouchers purportedly showing payment of salaries and affidavits supporting their version.
Moldes denied personal liability, stating she acted as corporate officer.

Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent’s complaint, ruling no illegal dismissal and that the contract period was six months without approved extension.
NLRC initially ruled in favor of respondent, finding nonpayment of salaries and illegal dismissal, awarding USD 7,200 plus attorney’s fees, but later reversed the decision on procedural grounds related to respondent’s appeal being defective.
Later NLRC reinstated Labor Arbiter’s dismissal, denying illegal dismissal and unpaid salary claims, emphasizing the absence of proofs to corroborate respondent’s allegations and validity of submitted vouchers.

The Court of Appeals excused procedural defects in the respondent’s appeal and proceeded to decide on merits.
It ruled respondent was unlawfully dismissed without just cause and procedural due process; petitioners and SAENCO are jointly and severally liable to pay unpaid salaries for one year at USD 600/month totaling USD 7,200, plus attorney’s fees.
The court disbelieved petitioners' defenses regarding contract duration, venue, salary, and alleged misconduct, giving more weight to impartial witness statements and evidence.
It held petitioner Moldes personally liable as corporate officer for bad faith and malice.

Petitioners questioned the factual findings, arguing respondent was fully paid as evidenced by signed cash vouchers and wage rosters, and that SAENCO complied with Korean labor laws.
New evidence not presented before lower tribunals was submitted, including notarized documents and wage rosters.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed without just cause and without procedural due process.
Whether petitioners and SAENCO are jointly and severally liable for the payment of respondent’s unpaid salaries and attorney’s fees.
Whether respondent was entitled to recover unpaid salaries for the entire period of employment or only for the unexpired portion of the contract.
Whether petitioners' new evidence submitted before the Supreme Court should be admitted and considered.
Whether petitioner Moldes as corporate officer is personally liable for the monetary awards.