G.R. No. 170029 - Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Bajaro

Parties and overseas employment relationships
Petitioners Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. and Rizalina Lamson.
Respondents Maricel N. Bajaro, Pamela P. Morilla, Daisy L. Magdaong, Leah J. Tabujara, Lea M. Cancino, Michiel D. Meliang, Raquel Sumigcay, Rose R. Saria, Leona L. Angulo, and Melody B. Ingal.
In 1999, petitioner company deployed respondents to Taiwan as operators for its foreign principal, Mabuchi Motors Company, Ltd., under individual two-year employment contracts.
Each employment contract provided a monthly salary of NT$15,840.00.
Before deployment, each respondent paid petitioner company P47,900.00 as placement fee.

Termination of contracts and filing of labor complaint
After respondents worked for only eleven (11) months and before the expiration of the two-year term, their employment contracts were terminated and they were repatriated to the Philippines.
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner company and petitioner Rizalina Lamson.
The complaint prayed for payment of salaries and wages covering the unexpired portion of their employment contracts in lieu of reinstatement.
The complaint alleged illegal deductions and illegal collection of placement fees.
Respondents Bajaro, Morilla, and Sumigcay also sought reimbursement of amounts they personally spent for their plane tickets for their return flight.
They alleged that their employment contracts provided free transportation expenses in going to and from Taiwan.
Collectively, respondents prayed for damages and attorneys fees.

Petitioners’ defenses
Petitioners claimed respondents were validly retrenched due to severe business losses suffered by the foreign principal.
Petitioners denied the alleged deductions of NT$7,500.00 from respondents’ monthly salaries.
Petitioners asserted that, consequently, respondents were not entitled to damages and attorneys fees.

Labor Arbiter’s proceedings and rulings (NLRC OFW CASE No. (M) 01-07-1366-00)
In its July 12, 2002 Decision, the Labor Arbiter found respondents to have been illegally dismissed for failure of petitioners to substantiate a valid retrenchment.
The Labor Arbiter granted money claims pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042.
The Labor Arbiter held respondents were entitled to the statutory consequences of overseas employment termination without just, valid, or authorized cause.
The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners jointly and solidarily to pay each respondent:

P47,900.00 as full reimbursement of individual placement fees, with 12% interest per annum.
NT$47,520.00 each, representing three (3) months worth of salary at NT$15,840.00 monthly.
NT$7,500.00 illegally deducted from respondents’ monthly salaries.
NT$6,000.00 each as reimbursement for transportation expenses for Bajaro, Sumigcay, and Morilla in going home to the Philippines.
Attorneys fees of 10% of the total monetary award.

The dispositive portion ordered, among others, the payment of the monetary items described in the Labor Arbiter’s computation:

Three (3) months salary equivalence.
NT$82,500.00 representing illegally deducted amounts for eleven (11) months.
Php47,900.00 placement fee reimbursement with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum.
NT$6,000.00 transportation reimbursement for Bajaro, Sumigcay, and Morilla.
Attorneys fees of 10% of the total monetary award.

NLRC appellate ruling
On appeal, the NLRC vacated and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
The NLRC found that all requirements for a valid retrenchment were established, and thus respondents were not illegally dismissed.
Accordingly, the NLRC held that awards for salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contracts and the refund of placement fees lacked basis in fact and law.
The NLRC also disallowed the salary deductions award due to respondents’ failure to substantiate it.
The NLRC disallowed the reimbursement for return flight expenses for Bajaro, Sumigcay, a...(Subscriber-Only)

Procedural and preservation issues
Whether petitioners could raise for the first time before the Court the applicability of:

in interpreting respondents’ employment contracts.

Substantive issues on labor claims
Whether the Labor Arbiter, as reinstated in toto by the CA, properly applied and interpreted Section 10 of R.A. 8042.

Scope and computation of monetary awards under Section 10 of R.A. 8042
Whether the Labor Arbiter’s award for salaries corresponding to three (3) months and the statutory limitation in Section...(Subscriber-Only)