Case Digest (G.R. No. 167614)
Facts:
Antonio M. Serrano, petitioner, G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner sued his employers, Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. (respondents), contesting the constitutionality of the last clause of the fifth paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) after labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals applied that clause to limit his money award.Petitioner was hired under a POEA‑approved 12‑month contract (March 19, 1998–March 19, 1999) as Chief Officer at a basic monthly salary of US$1,400 plus fixed overtime and leave components; on departure he signed a downgraded contract as Second Officer (US$1,000/month) on the assurance he would be made Chief Officer, but respondents never elevated him. He refused to continue and was repatriated on May 26, 1998 after about two months and seven days of service, leaving an unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days.
Petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and money claims before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA (July 15, 1999) found dismissal illegal and awarded lump‑sum salary for three months (computed at US$2,590/month) plus attorney’s fees, but dismissed moral and exemplary damages. Respondents and petitioner separately appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC (June 15, 2000) modified the award, applying the subject clause in Section 10 and awarding three months’ salary computed at the basic salary (US$1,400×3 = US$4,200), denying automatic inclusion of overtime and leave; petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration argued constitutionality but was denied. Petitioner sought certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA); the CA ultimately affirmed the NLRC’s computation in a December 8, 2004 decision and denied reconsideration (April 1, 2005), but did not resolve the constitutional question petitioner raised. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court seeking declaration that the subject clause...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the constitutional challenge to the subject clause timely and properly presented so that the Court may decide it?
- Does the subject clause of the 5th paragraph of Section 10, R.A. No. 8042, violate the Contracts Clause (Sec. 10, Art. III) by impairing petitioner's employment contract?
- Does the subject clause violate the equal protection and substantive due process guarantees (Sec. 1, Art. III; Sec. 18, Art. II; Sec. 3, Art. XIII) by discriminating among OFWs and between OFWs and local fixed‑term workers?
- Are overtime and leave pay part of “salaries” for purposes of computing an illeg...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)