Case Summary (G.R. No. 123354)
Employment Contract and Payments
Leonora Dayag, dissatisfied with her salary as a social worker, sought employment abroad through PHILAC and subsequently paid a total of P22,500 in placement fees without receiving complete receipts, as PHILAC claimed that such receipts were unnecessary. On January 11, 1992, Dayag signed a fixed-term employment contract for two years with PHILAC to work in Hong Kong as a domestic helper, with a salary of HK$3,200 per month and additional daily allowances.
Termination of Employment
Dayag commenced her duties on May 8, 1992, but was dismissed abruptly a week later without just cause by her employer, and only compensated with HK$750. This led Dayag to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and for recovery of payments for her unexpired contract with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA).
Claims and Defenses
PHILAC contended the dismissal was justified on grounds of dishonesty and misrepresentation by Dayag regarding her previous employment experience. However, the POEA determined that PHILAC did not substantiate its claims and ruled in favor of Dayag, ordering PHILAC to pay her for the unexpired portion of the contract.
Appeal and Findings
Following PHILAC's appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding the monetary award, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the POEA's ruling that Dayag was illegally dismissed. PHILAC's petition alleged that the administrative bodies' findings lacked substantial evidence and that its liability should be limited to a 15-day salary based on Article 149 of the Labor Code regarding unjust termination.
Legal Analysis of Article 149 of the Labor Code
The Labor Code stipulates that if a household service contract is fixed, dismissal is only permissible for just cause. In case of unjust dismissal, the employee is entitled to their earned compensation and an indemnity equivalent to 15 days of salary. The distinction between the indemnity for unjust dismissal and compensation for the unexpired contract was clarified; the 15-day indemnity is separate from the salary for the unexpired period, serving as damages for the breach of security of tenure.
Contractual Provisions and Responsibilities
The employment contract included a clause requiring written notice for termination. However, PHILAC's interpr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 123354)
Case Background
- Leonora Dayag, dissatisfied with her income as a social worker under the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), sought employment abroad.
- She applied to the Philippine Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation (PHILAC) and paid a total placement fee of P22,500 in five installments.
- PHILAC did not issue complete receipts for these payments, claiming that they were unnecessary as the payments were logged.
Employment Contract Details
- On January 11, 1992, Dayag signed an employment contract with PHILAC to work as a domestic helper/babysitter in Hong Kong for two years, with a monthly salary of HK$3,200 and a daily allowance of HK$20.
- Dayag departed for Hong Kong on May 7, 1992, and began her employment the following day with the Hongas family.
Incident of Dismissal
- Just seven days into her employment, Dayag was abruptly instructed by Mrs. Hongas to "pack-up" and "leave" immediately, receiving HK$750 for her services.
- Upon returning to the Philippines, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal exaction due to non-issuance of receipts, and demanded HK$76,000 for unpaid salary and allowances for the remaining contract period.
PHILAC's Defense
- PHILAC contended that Dayag's dismissal was justified, citing reasons of dishonesty and misrepresentation regarding her past employment as a househelper and babysitting experience, which they claimed endangered the child’s safety.
Initial Findings by the POEA
- The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA)