G.R. No. 216132 - Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Viernes

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216132)

Factual Background: Employment, Alleged Coercion, and “Quitclaim” Documentation

Respondent’s employment with multiple employers failed due to difficulties in working arrangements and visa-related issues. After encountering problems relating to her work conditions, respondent sought assistance at the Philippine Embassy in Kuwait on December 16, 2010, where Atty. William Merginio, a Labor Attache, offered help. On January 5, 2011, respondent left the Embassy after being offered work at a chocolate factory, which turned out to be nonexistent. She was then reportedly taken to Hawally at night, which she refused due to the weather. When she attempted to report her situation by phone to Atty. Merginio, the agency employees allegedly confiscated the cellular phone. Respondent was pressured and made to execute a written admission stating that her employers treated her well.

Sometime after January 6, 2011, respondent was brought to the Salmiya office area, where she was offered a restaurant job. Instead of being taken to the intended restaurant, she was taken to a flat where she was told to apply makeup and wear attractive and “sexy” clothing. She was then brought to an unlighted area with buildings but no restaurant or signboards. She later escaped at about 11:00 p.m. after the men agreed to release her.

On February 7, 2011, respondent was asked to affix her signature on a letter that she copied, purportedly showing that she admitted having preterminated her employment contract and that she no longer had any demandable claim because she was treated well. The execution of this “resignation” letter and related documents was described as a precondition to the release of her passport and plane ticket, which petitioners allegedly held. Respondent returned to the Philippines on February 12, 2011.

NLRC Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss and the LA Decision

In response to respondent’s complaint for illegal or constructive dismissal, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on May 11, 2011, alleging that on February 7, 2011, respondent voluntarily executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, Sworn Statement, and Receipt and Quitclaim before Ofelia M. Castro-Hudson, Assistant Labor Attache in Kuwait. Petitioners also pointed to a handwritten statement by respondent indicating that her termination was due to personal reasons.

Respondent opposed the motion and argued that she signed the documents in exchange for the release of her passport and plane ticket. The LA denied the motion to dismiss and required the parties to submit their position papers. Thereafter, on August 2, 2011, the LA rendered judgment in favor of respondent. It ordered petitioners, jointly and severally, to pay: salary differentials of US$516.75, six (6) months’ salary for the unexpired portion of the contract in the amount of US$2,400.00, moral damages of P25,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees payable to the Public Attorney’s Office.

Appeal to the NLRC: Nonperfection and Subsequent Affirmance

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. Initially, in a decision dated April 27, 2012, the NLRC dismissed the appeal due to nonperfection, citing the failure of a joint declaration required under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure to be duly signed by counsel, despite petitioners having filed a surety bond equivalent to the monetary award.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration. The NLRC granted the motion in a resolution dated September 24, 2012, and gave due course to the appeal. However, it affirmed in toto the LA’s decision. Petitioners sought reconsideration anew, but the NLRC denied it in a resolution dated November 26, 2012, for lack of merit.

CA Proceedings: Petition for Certiorari and Denial of Relief

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with an extremely urgent prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction before the CA, assailing the NLRC resolutions. In its decision dated June 27, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and upheld respondent’s entitlement to the money claims awarded by the LA and affirmed by the NLRC.

The CA reasoned that the LA had correctly observed that an employee’s execution of a final settlement document does not automatically foreclose the employee’s right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. It also adopted the view that quitclaims are frowned upon and do not bind courts unless proven to have been voluntarily executed. The CA further rejected petitioners’ argument that respondent voluntarily resigned from her job abroad, noting that respondent would not have pursued her suit if she had resigned voluntarily.

The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated December 23, 2014.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, petitioners argued that the CA and NLRC committed reversible error by failing to give legal and evidentiary weight to respondent’s supposed resignation letter, Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, and final settlement executed before Assistant Labor Attache Ofelia M. Castro-Hudson. Petitioners asserted that Atty. Castro-Hudson, acting within her official functions, fully apprised respondent of her contractual and legal rights before respondent affixed her signature and executed the documents, and that there was no proof that the Assistant Labor Attache was dismissed or irregular in performing her duties.

Petitioners also invoked the medical certificate presented by respondent showing an incomplete abortion on April 9, 2011, and they suggested that respondent may have been pregnant while in Kuwait and had requested repatriation for that reason. Petitioners maintained that the CA overlooked this alleged error.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Petition Denied, Monetary Awards Modified with Legal Interest

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. It emphasized that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law, and that the Court is not a trier of facts. The Court also stressed that in labor disputes, questions of fact are for labor tribunals, and factual findings of the NLRC confirmed by the CA are usually conclusive.

The Court found that petitioners’ arguments necessarily required reassessment of factual determinations by the LA, NLRC, and CA regarding the validity, regularity, and due execution of the resignation letter, quitclaim affidavit, and final settlement. The Court held that petitioners failed to establish any recognized exception that would justify a reexamination of facts.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Disfavor of Quitclaims, Suspect Settlement Circumstances, and Constructive Dismissal

The Court relied on the parallel factual findings of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA that the documents were highly suspect and did not establish voluntary resignation or a valid settlement. The LA found that respondent was made to copy and sign a resignation letter admitting pretermination of her contract and relinquishment of claims, and that the execution was made as a precondition to the release of her passport and plane ticket held by petitioners.

The NLRC, as adopted by the CA, held that the presumption of regularity of official acts did not apply to the execution circumstances because the evidence showed irregularities. It noted that the receipt and quitclaim were not notarized. It also observed that the affidavit of quitclaim and desistance indicated the City of Manila as place of execution on February 7, 2011, while it was allegedly verified by the Assistant Labor Attache within the Philippine Overseas Labor Office premises in Kuwait. The NLRC reasoned that such inconsistencies were patently irregular and that it would be unjust to allow a supposed settlement, anchored on an inapplicable legal precept, to bar respondent’s legitimate right to file judicial proceedings for her welfare.

The Supreme Court further reiterated the doctrinal rule that quitclaims, waivers, or releases in termination disputes are looked upon with disfavor and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy. The Court explained that an employer and employee do not stand on equal footing, so quitclaims often operate as contracts of adherence rather than products of true choice. Thus, the Court refused to deviate from the consistent factual findings of the LA, NLRC, and CA, absent any showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion.

On the merits of termination, the Court held that respondent was constructively dismissed. It invoked the definition that constructive dismissal exists when an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain becomes so unbearable that the employee has no option but to forego continued employment. It recognized that constructive dismissal results when the employer intentionally places the employee in a situation that coerces severance of ties.

The Court found strong support in the record for constructive dismissal. It noted that Saad Mutlaq, respondent’s foreign employer, never secured a working visa, contrary to the accreditation requirement for an employer. The Court also found that respondent was not properly paid under the terms of the employment contract, as during her three-month stay she received only US$227.75 instead of the stipulated US$400 per month. It further found that respondent was not assigned to a permanent employer abroad for the entire two-year contractual period, and that promises of job placements were found to be inexistent. The Court noted the NLRC’s finding that Saad Mutlaq intended to use respondent as an entertainer in places of ill repute, which would have exposed her to human trafficking bu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216132)

The case arose from a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals rulings dated June 27, 2014 and December 23, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 128433.
The petitioners challenged the CA Decision dismissing their Petition for Certiorari with Extremely Urgent Prayer assailing NLRC Resolutions dated September 24, 2012 and November 26, 2012.
The NLRC proceedings originated from a complaint for illegal or constructive dismissal filed by respondent Hazel A. Viernes against Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. and Rosalina Aboy, its Manager, before the NLRC, San Fernando City, La Union.
The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court under Rule 45, raising primarily alleged errors of the CA and the NLRC regarding the effect of resignation and quitclaim documents and the existence of constructive dismissal.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Respondent Hazel A. Viernes prosecuted the complaint for illegal or constructive dismissal before the NLRC.
Petitioners Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. and Rosalina Aboy defended primarily by invoking documents purportedly showing voluntary resignation and settlement executed abroad.
The Labor Arbiter denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss and later ruled in favor of respondent, awarding salary differentials, unexpired contract salary, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees payable to the Public Attorney’s Office.
The NLRC initially dismissed petitioners’ appeal for nonperfection, but later granted a motion for reconsideration, gave due course, and nonetheless affirmed the Labor Arbiter in toto.
The NLRC denied petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition for lack of merit and later denied the motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court held that the petition raised questions of fact and applied the settled rule that the Court would not reweigh evidence, especially in labor cases.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondent was deployed in Kuwait on November 7, 2010 by petitioners through Saad Mutlaq Al Asmi Domestic Staff Recruitment Office / Al Dakhan Manpower to work as a domestic helper.
Respondent’s stipulated pay was US$400 per month for a period of two years.
Respondent arrived in Kuwait on November 8, 2010, and her employment with three employers did not succeed due to disagreements in working conditions and the inability of the third employer to obtain a working visa.
On December 16, 2010, respondent sought help from Atty. William Merginio, Labor Attache in Kuwait, regarding her employment problems.
On January 5, 2011, respondent left the embassy after a promised job at a chocolate factory turned out to be inexistent, and she was instead brought to an agency setting where she was pressured to travel and later forced to execute a written admission that her employers treated her well.
After January 6, 2011, respondent was brought to another agency office area, offered a restaurant job, and then taken to conditions unrelated to the promised employment, including being directed to apply makeup and wear “attractive and sexy clothes,” and later placed in an unlighted area with no restaurant or shop signs.
Respondent reported that she was able to leave at around 11:00 p.m. only after the men agreed to release her.
On February 7, 2011, respondent was asked to copy and sign a resignation-related letter purportedly showing pretermination of her contract and relinquishment of demandable claims because she was treated well.
Respondent’s execution was described as a precondition to the release of her passport and plane ticket, which were in petitioners’ possession.
Respondent returned to the Philippines on February 12, 2011.

Documents Invoked as Defense

Petitioners relied on an alleged Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, a Sworn Statement, and a Receipt and Quitclaim executed by respondent before Ofelia M. Castro-Hudson, Assistant Labor Attache in Kuwait, to show voluntary settlement and release from claims.
Petitioners argued that respondent also executed a handwritten statement expressing that her termination was due to her own personal reasons.
Respondent contested the documents by claiming she signed them in exchange for the release of her passport and plane ticket.
The Labor Arbiter found the surrounding circumstances of the resignation letter, quitclaim and desistance, and final settlement to be inconsistent with voluntary execution.
The NLRC and CA found irregularities and held that the purported settlement should not bar respondent’s right to pursue her claims.

Issues Raised

Petitioners assigned errors directed at the Court of Appeals for supposedly overlooking evidence that the NLRC allegedly committed legal error by failing to recognize the legal import and evidentiary value of the resignation letter, affidavit of quitclaim and desistance, and final settlement.
Petitioners claimed that the CA failed to appreciate that the Assistant Labor Attache allegedly apprised respondent of her contractual and legal rights before affixing her signature and placing the Philippine Embassy stamp.
Petitioners argued that the CA should have recognized that the NLRC allegedly erred in failing to give full credence to documents personally signed and verified by respondent before the Assistant Labor Attache while performing regular government functions.
Petitioners asserted there was no evidence that the Assistant Labor Attache was remiss in her functions when the documents were verified and subscribed.
Petitioners raised the additional contention that the CA overlooked the alleged error of the NLRC regarding the medical certificate showing respondent suffered an incomplete abortion on April 9, 2011.
The Supreme Court framed the core matter as whether the CA and NLRC correctly rejected the documents as invol