Title
Supreme Court
Global Resource for Outsourced Workers, Inc. vs. Velasco
Case
G.R. No. 196883
Decision Date
Aug 15, 2012
Workers deployed to Kuwait claimed overtime pay and constructive dismissal; SC ruled no overtime due to typographical error but awarded nominal damages and attorney’s fees for procedural lapses in termination.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196883)

Employment Terms and Conditions

The respondents were hired in January 2008 with contracts stipulating monthly salaries of KD 650 (approximately USD 2,303.92) for Abraham and KD 150 (approximately USD 531.87) for Nanette. Their contracts outlined a work schedule of four shows per day, six days a week, yet mistakenly indicated a total working time of 48 hours per month, which was later clarified by the employer to mean 48 hours per week. During their time off from performing, they were required to undertake additional duties as needed by the employer.

Sequence of Events Leading to Dismissal

Respondents arrived in Kuwait on February 22, 2008, and shortly after began working. After petitioners corrected the work hour stipulation, the respondents went on vacation to Thailand on August 26, 2008. They communicated via email about a delay in returning to Kuwait due to political unrest and requested an extension, but ultimately traveled to the Philippines instead. On September 23, 2008, the petitioners terminated their employment, citing absence without cause under Kuwaiti labor law.

Initial Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents on April 8, 2009, holding that they were constructively dismissed without just cause and ordering petitioners to pay for the unexpired contract term as well as attorney's fees. However, the administrative tribunal found claims for overtime pay were unwarranted due to the contractual error regarding hours worked.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Review

Upon appeal, the NLRC dismissed the respondents' complaint for constructive dismissal on October 30, 2009, agreeing with petitioners that the respondents had abandoned their work. The NLRC also upheld the notion of typographical error regarding the working hours and supported the petitioners’ claim of abandonment due to respondents' failure to return to work or respond to warnings.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals issued a decision on January 31, 2011, affirming the termination's validity but stating that the petitioners did not observe proper procedural due process. Consequently, they mandated payment of nominal damages and attorney's fees while affirming that respondents were entitled to overtime pay for hours worked exceeding the monthly limit.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, maintained that the respondents' failure to appeal the Labor Arbiter’s denial of their overtime pay claim did not bar their right to seek remuneration based on equity principles. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged insufficient evidence for awarding overtime pay, ultimately holding the CA's decision to grant such pay as unfounded.

Just Cause and Procedural Requirements

The Court recognized that, despite the just cause for dismissal due to abandonment, petitioners failed to adhere to the due process mandated by labor laws requiring written notices. As a result, although th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.