Case Summary (G.R. No. 160123)
Petitioner
Centro Project recruited and deployed Naluis to work in Garapan, Saipan, CNMI, under a primary Employment Contract and an addendum. Centro Project defended the repatriation of Naluis as justified by an Authorization for Entry (AE) issued by CNMI immigration authorities and by the expiration clause in the employment contract.
Respondent
Aguinaldo Naluis alleged illegal dismissal and filed a complaint after being repatriated before completing the 12-month term stated in the primary Employment Contract.
Key Dates
- Primary Employment Contract: March 11, 1997 (stipulated 12-month term commencing upon arrival in CNMI).
- AE issued by CNMI Department of Labor and Immigration: June 3, 1997 (contained an “Expires” date of May 13, 1998 and provisions including a 90-day entry requirement).
- Addendum to Employment Contract (making the employment commence from departure at point of origin): September 3, 1997.
- Actual deployment/departure: September 13, 1997.
- Repatriation to the Philippines: June 3, 1998.
- Procedural history: Labor Arbiter dismissed Naluis’s complaint; NLRC affirmed; CA reversed and awarded monetary relief; Supreme Court reviewed and issued the decision summarized herein.
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decision is post-1990).
- Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 4 — doubts in implementation/interpretation resolved in favor of labor; Article 277(b) — burden/rules on termination proof.
- Civil Code: Article 1702 — in case of doubt, labor legislation and labor contracts construed in favor of safety and decent living for the laborer.
- Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Section 10 — in case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid, or authorized cause, worker entitled to full reimbursement of placement fee with 12% interest plus salaries for unexpired contract or statutory alternative.
Antecedent Facts
Naluis executed a primary Employment Contract for a 12‑month term and later an addendum changing commencement to departure date. CNMI issued an AE on June 3, 1997, which contained an “Expires” date of May 13, 1998, and provisions including (a) presentation of the AE upon arrival, (b) an express statement that an Entry Permit issued for employment “expires automatically upon termination of such employment and must be surrendered to your employer,” and (c) a requirement to enter CNMI within 90 days if entering for employment. Naluis was repatriated on June 3, 1998, before completing the 12 months, and he filed for illegal dismissal.
Procedural History
- Labor Arbiter: found repatriation was not dismissal but compelled by CNMI laws/regulations per the AE; dismissed complaint.
- NLRC: affirmed the Labor Arbiter, holding the AE limited Naluis’s stay and that employment expired on the date specified; dismissed appeal.
- Court of Appeals: set aside NLRC decision, held AE did not limit stay nor affect employment status, found breach of contract by Centro Project, and awarded money claims (four months’ salary for unexpired portion, guaranteed overtime pay, placement fee, legal holiday pay, vacation leave pay, attorney’s fees).
- Supreme Court: reviewed and affirmed CA judgment except for deletion of guaranteed overtime pay and legal holiday pay; ordered payment of placement fee with interest and salaries for unexpired portion, vacation and sick leave pay, and costs.
Issue Presented
Whether the expiration date appearing on the CNMI Authorization for Entry validly curtailed Naluis’s period of stay and therefore justified Centro Project’s pre‑termination/repatriation of Naluis before completion of the 12‑month contractual term.
Burden of Proof and Its Application
The employer bore the burden to prove that termination or repatriation was validly justified. The Court emphasized the general rule that the employer must rely on the strength of its own evidence to establish lawful termination. The NLRC’s finding in favor of the employer was characterized as based on a loose interpretation of the AE and the employment contract; the CA and Supreme Court found the employer failed to discharge its burden.
Interpretation of the Authorization for Entry (AE)
The AE’s recitals were reproduced and analyzed. The AE plainly contained an “Expires” field and provisions: (1) presentation upon arrival; (2) an express clause that an Entry Permit for employment “expires automatically upon termination of such employment and must be surrendered to your employer”; and (3) the 90‑day entry requirement if entering for employment. The Court held that the “Expires” date on the AE referred to the expiration of the AE document itself and did not, on its face, limit the employee’s period of stay in CNMI or unilaterally curtail the contractual employment term. Item (3) in the AE indicated the AE imposed a requirement to enter CNMI within 90 days of issuance but did not expressly specify that the AE’s “Expires” date would operate as the outer limit of the employee’s lawful stay irrespective of the employment contract. The Court therefore rejected Centro Project’s strained interpretation that the AE fixed the employment period.
Contractual Interpretation Principles Applied
The Court applied established canons: doubts in the interpretation of labor contracts must be resolved in favor of the worker (Labor Code Article 4; Civil Code Article 1702). Given ambiguity or lack of clear, categorical language in the AE that would shorten the contractual term, the ambiguity was resolved for Naluis. The Court also noted that the primary Employment Contract and its POEA‑approved addendum expressly stipulated a 12‑month term; the addendum was executed before deployment and after the AE issuance, reinforcing that the contractual term was twelve months.
Employer’s Allegations and Court’s Findings on Good Faith
Centro Project alleged (a) fear that Naluis might be declared an illegal alien if not repatriated, and (b) that a handwritten expiration date was inserted by the Philippine representative in CNMI, absolving the company of responsibility. The Court found no evidence to support a legitimate fear of imminent immigration enforcement; Centro Project presented no proof the CNMI authorities moved to declare Naluis illegal. The allegation concerning the handwritten date was unsubstantiated and self‑serving; mere allegation is not proof. Moreover, Centro Project knew of the 12‑month term (the primary contr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 160123)
Case Caption and Citation
- Reported as 760 PHIL. 596, First Division, G.R. No. 160123, decided June 17, 2015.
- Parties: Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation (petitioner) v. Aguinaldo Naluis and the Court of Appeals (respondents).
- Decision authored by Justice Bersamin, J.; concurrence by Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.
Nature of the Case
- Employment / labor case concerning alleged illegal dismissal of an overseas worker (Aguinaldo Naluis) and whether his repatriation was a justified termination of employment.
- Central legal question: whether an Authorization for Entry (AE) issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and a handwritten expiration date therein validly limited the employee’s stay and justified pre-termination (repatriation) before completion of the 12-month employment contract.
Antecedent Facts (Deployment, Contracts, and Documents)
- Petitioner Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation is a local recruitment agency that engaged respondent Aguinaldo Naluis to work as a plumber for Pacific Micronesia Corporation in Garapan, Saipan, CNMI.
- Primary Employment Contract dated March 11, 1997: employment term stated as 12 months; commencement to be upon arrival in Northern Marianas.
- Department of Labor and Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands issued an Authorization for Entry (AE) for Naluis on June 3, 1997.
- Addendum to the primary Employment Contract executed on September 3, 1997: modified the commencement of employment to be effective from departure at point of origin instead of arrival in Northern Marianas.
- Actual deployment: Naluis left for Northern Mariana on September 13, 1997 (date of actual deployment).
- Repatriation: Naluis was repatriated to the Philippines on June 3, 1998, allegedly due to expiration of the employment contract, before completing the full 12-month term.
Procedural History (Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court)
- Labor Arbiter decision: dismissed Naluis’s complaint for illegal dismissal, holding repatriation was not dismissal but resulted from laws/regulations of CNMI and the AE; noted employer risk of violating CNMI immigration rules if not repatriated. Decision referenced in CA rollo, pp. 17–26.
- Quote: "This Office finds the repatriation of complainant to the Philippines NOT A DISMISSAL BUT AS A RESULT OF THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRY..."
- Conclusion: complaint dismissed for lack of merit.
- National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision; concluded Centro Project had no choice because AE limited Naluis’s stay and that his employment expired on May 13, 1998 as provided in the employment contract. NLRC decision appears in CA rollo, pp. 28–39.
- NLRC disposition: "affirm the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismiss the instant appeal for lack of merit."
- Court of Appeals (CA): on April 23, 2009, set aside NLRC decision and ruled in favor of Naluis; held AE did not limit his stay and that Centro Project breached the employment contract by ordering repatriation.
- CA ordered payment for unpaid salary for unexpired contract portion, guaranteed overtime, placement fee, legal holiday pay, vacation leave pay, and attorney’s fees. CA decision penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (retired) with concurrence by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam (deceased). (Rollo, pp. 23–30; CA rollo references.)
- Supreme Court review (this appeal): Centro Project appealed the CA judgment to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 160123), challenging the CA’s finding that AE did not limit stay and thus repatriation constituted breach.
Documents at Issue and Their Key Provisions
- Primary Employment Contract (March 11, 1997):
- Stated term: Twelve (12) months.
- Commencement: originally upon arrival in Northern Marianas; later an addendum altered commencement to departure at point of origin (addendum executed September 3, 1997 and approved by POEA).
- Stipulations included 12 days vacation leave with pay and seven days sick leave with pay (sick leave could be taken after one year).
- Addendum to Employment Contract (September 3, 1997):
- Categorically stated "the term of this contract shall be for a period of Twelve Months" (approved by POEA).
- Authorization for Entry (AE) (issued June 3, 1997; recitals quoted in Rollo p. 41):
- Recital: "This letter allows authorized entry into the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for Aguinaldo S. Naluis."
- Fields shown on AE: Name, Expires (5/13/98), Gender, Birthdate, Citizenship, Employer: PACIFIC MICRONESIA CORPORATION, Occupation: Plumber, Class: 706K, Issue Date: 6/3/97, Wage Rate: $3.25 HOURLY.
- Explicit notices included:
- Item 1: Present AE to Immigration Officer upon arrival.
- Item 3: "The Entry Permit, if issued for the purpose of employment, expires automatically upon termination of such employment and must be surrendered to your employer."
- Item 5: "You must enter the CNMI within 90 days of issuance of this 'Authorization for Entry' letter if you are entering for the purpose of employment." (emphasis supplied in source)
Issues Presented and Parties’ Contentions
- Central issue: Did the expiration date contained in the AE issued by the Department of Labor and Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands validly cut short Naluis’s stay and thus justify his pre-termination and repatriation?
- Petitioner (Centro Project) contentions:
- The AE categorically fixed the period of Naluis’s stay, limiting it and justifying repatriation before completion of 12-month contract.
- The primary Employment Contract explicitly set the date for expiration; AE and alleged handwritten date justified termination.
- Centro Project claimed that a handwritten expiration date was inserted by its Philippine representative in Northern Marianas, not by the employer.
- Respondent (Naluis) contentions:
- The handwritten date of May 3, 1998 was inserted in the primary Employment Contract only after he had signed it, and differs from typewritten stipulations.
- AE did not limit his stay; repatriation constituted an unjustified breach.
Legal Standards and Authorities Cited by the Court
- Labor Code Article 4: "Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code... shall be resolved in favor of labor."
- Civil Code Article 1702: "In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer."
- Burden of proof rule (Labor law): employer must show valid termination; reliance on Article 277, par. (b) of the Labor Code and Dacuital v. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation, G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 702, 715.
- Republic Act No. 8042, Section 10 (Money Claims): worker unjustly terminated is entitled to full reimbursement of placement fee with interest at 12% p.a., plus salaries for unexpired portion of employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
- Cases cited in support of contractual interpretation in favor of labor: Wesleyan University Philippines v. Wesleyan University-Philippi