Case Summary (G.R. No. 151303)
Key Dates and Procedural Landmarks
- Application for overseas work: February 1998 (Villanos).
- Deployment to Taiwan: October 15, 1998.
- Termination/return to Philippines: Mid-November 1998 (November 14–17, 1998).
- Labor Arbiter Decision: May 14, 1999 (found respondents liable).
- NLRC Reversal: Date not specified in the prompt (NLRC dismissed complaint).
- Court of Appeals Decision (reinstating Labor Arbiter): May 23, 2001 (CA-G.R. SP No. 59594).
- Supreme Court disposition: April 15, 2005 (petition denied; CA decision affirmed with modification).
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decision date is after 1990).
- Labor Code, Article 281 (probationary employment; standard of qualification).
- Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, Section 10 (money claims on termination of overseas employment without just cause).
Factual Background
Villanos applied for employment as a caretaker through Athenna in February 1998. He was assessed a placement fee (initially represented as P100,000, later reduced to P94,000) and paid P30,000 as a downpayment; the balance (P64,000) was to be recovered by salary deductions. Villanos was deployed under a written contract specifying employment as a caretaker with monthly pay of NT$15,840 for a term of one year, ten months, and twenty-eight days. Upon arrival in Taiwan he was assigned and made to perform work as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car lifters in the mechanical shop of Wei Yu Hsien—work different from the caretaker position for which he was hired. Within about one month he was separated from employment; he was allegedly made to sign a document stating he was not qualified, and was given his salary and sent home. Upon return he sought refund of his downpayment; petitioner refused and furnished a purported summary of deployment expenses.
Procedural History
Villanos first filed a complaint with the POEA Adjudication Office (POEA Case No. RV98-12-1586). Because of financial constraints he later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery of unpaid salary and benefits before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 9 in Dipolog. The Labor Arbiter ruled largely in Villanos’s favor, awarding unpaid wages for the unserved portion of the contract, remittance of an illegal placement fee, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals found grave abuse in the NLRC ruling, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and held that Villanos was illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, affirmed the Court of Appeals but modified the monetary awards in accordance with RA 8042 Section 10 and other considerations.
Issues Presented
- Whether Villanos voluntarily resigned or was illegally dismissed.
- If illegally dismissed, whether the monetary awards of the Labor Arbiter (specifically salaries for the entire unexpired contract and reimbursement of the assessed placement fee) were proper.
Analysis: Illegal Dismissal Versus Voluntary Resignation
The Court found that Villanos did not voluntarily resign. Relevant facts supporting this conclusion include: his immediate demand for refund upon arrival in the Philippines; his filing of a POEA administrative complaint and an NLRC complaint shortly after return; and his assertion that he was asked to sign a resignation statement under circumstances indicating coercion. Petitioner failed to rebut these contentions and did not adequately justify the separation. The Court applied the principle that the employer/recruiter bears the burden of proof to establish the legality of a dismissal once the fact of dismissal is shown or presumed. Even if Villanos were probationary, Article 281 requires that reasonable standards of qualification be made known to the employee at engagement; petitioner did not show such standards or that Villanos was informed of them. The assignment to a job substantially different from that in the contract supports the finding of unlawful termination.
Analysis: Monetary Awards under RA 8042, Section 10 (Money Claims)
Section 10 provides two alternative measures for computing lump-sum salary due an illegally dismissed overseas worker: (a) salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract; or (b) three months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. Villanos’s unexpired term after one month’s service was one year, nine months, and twenty-eight days. Under the statute the Court determined the second clause (three months per year) produced the lesser amount. The fraction of nine months and twenty-eight days is treated as a whole year for computation purposes under the Labor Code, so the unexpired term was treated as two years for the three-months-per-year calculation.
Computation of Lump-Sum Salary Award
Using the statutory alternative selected (three months’ salary per year, counted by year or fraction thereof):
- Three months × 2 years = six months’ salary.
- Six months × NT$15,840 = NT$95,040.
The Court ordered payment of NT$95,040 (subject to conversion to Philippine pesos by the Labor Arbiter) as unpaid salary for the six-month statutory measure.
Placement Fee Remittance and Interest
Although Athenna had assessed Villanos with a large placement fee (papers reflect P94,000 assessed; the Labor Arbiter elsewhere noted P120,000 in some findings), Villanos actually paid only P30,000 as downpayment. Under Section 10 a worker illegally dismissed is entitled to full reimbursement of the placement fee actually paid, with interest at 12% per annum. The Court therefore limited recovery to the P30,000 actually paid and ordered Athenna to pay this amoun
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 151303)
Court, Case Number, and Panel
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division, G.R. No. 151303, decision promulgated April 15, 2005.
- Petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 23, 2001 and Resolution dated November 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59594.
- Opinion authored by Justice Quisumbing.
- Justices Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Ynares‑Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna concurred.
Parties
- Petitioner: Athenna (also referred to as “Athenaa” in some parts of the records) International Manpower Services, Inc., a domestic recruitment and placement corporation for overseas employment.
- Respondent: Nonito Villanos, a contract worker recruited by petitioner for overseas employment in Taiwan.
- Employer at destination: Wei Yu Hsien (Taiwan).
Procedural History
- Respondent filed an administrative complaint with the POEA Adjudication Office (POEA Case No. RV98‑12‑1586).
- Respondent later filed a complaint before NLRC Sub‑Regional Arbitration Branch No. 9, Dipolog City, docketed as NLRC Case No. Sub‑RAB‑09‑OFW‑(LB)‑02‑00002‑99, for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery of unpaid salaries and benefits (filed February 17, 1999).
- Labor Arbiter Cresencio R. Iniego rendered a Decision (May 14, 1999) in favor of respondent awarding wages, damages, and reimbursement of placement fee.
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; respondent’s motion for reconsideration to NLRC was denied.
- Court of Appeals granted respondent’s appeal, reversed NLRC, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision (CA Decision dated May 23, 2001; CA Resolution dated November 23, 2001).
- Petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court by certiorari; the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification (April 15, 2005).
Material Facts as Found by the Courts
- Respondent applied for overseas work through petitioner sometime in February 1998.
- Petitioner assessed a placement fee of P100,000 but reduced it to P94,000 on condition that the remaining balance of P64,000 would be paid through salary deductions upon deployment; respondent paid P30,000 cash as downpayment.
- Respondent received no cash receipt for the P30,000 downpayment; petitioner provided a schedule of monthly salary deductions for one year reflecting the remaining balance (including interest and other charges) amounting to P90,725.
- A Contract of Employment with Wei Yu Hsien arrived in October 1998. Contract duration: one year, ten months and twenty‑eight days; monthly pay: NT$15,840.
- Respondent departed for Taiwan on October 15, 1998.
- Upon arrival, respondent was assigned to work in Hsien’s mechanical shop as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car lifters and related hydraulic machines — work different from the caretaker position for which he was hired.
- Respondent travelled to different sites and worked even at night as a hydraulic installer/repairer; he did not initially complain because he needed money to pay debts incurred back home.
- Barely a month after deployment, respondent was terminated by Hsien. A contemporaneous document allegedly stating respondent was “not qualified” was presented (dated November 14, 1998), which respondent did not sign. Dates of handing salary and instructions to depart appear as November 16 (sometimes recorded as November 17, 1998).
- Upon return to the Philippines, respondent confronted petitioner’s representative, Lorenza Ching, demanding reimbursement of the P30,000 downpayment; petitioner presented a summary of expenses amounting to P30,493 instead of refunding P30,000.
- Respondent filed POEA administrative case and subsequently the NLRC complaint for illegal dismissal and other reliefs.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Defense
- Petitioner claimed respondent was hired to work in Taiwan for one year and for deployment was charged only the actual monthly salary amount as placement fee (P15,840) plus P5,050 for documentation expenses.
- Petitioner asserted the employment contract provided for a probationary period of forty (40) days.
- Petitioner contended that respondent was found unfit at the job site and voluntarily resigned and requested repatriation, signing a resignation statement.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings and Reliefs (May 14, 1999)
- Labor Arbiter held petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien solidarily liable for:
- Wages representing the unserved portion of the employment contract.
- Amount unlawfully deducted from respondent’s monthly wage.
- Moral damages and exemplary damages.
- Attorney’s fees (10% of aggregate amount payable).
- Labor Arbiter held petitioner solely liable for remittance of illegal placement fee in the amount of P99,110.00.
- Dispositive elements as set out by the Labor Arbiter included:
- Declaration that the severance of employment after one month was illegal and that respondent was entitled to wages for the unserved portion (Labor Arbiter quantified supposed wages as NT$348,480.00 subject to conversion).
- Declaration that