Case Summary (G.R. No. 169973)
Factual Background
On August 15, 1999, Placewell International Services Corporation deployed Ireneo B. Camote to work as a building carpenter for SAAD Trading and Contracting Co. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract with a monthly salary of US$370.00. At the worksite, SAAD allegedly found respondent incompetent and purportedly terminated his services, but respondent pleaded for retention and allegedly agreed to a lower monthly wage of SR 800.00. Respondent later filed a sworn complaint alleging that he and fellow Filipino workers were compelled to sign another employment contract written in Arabic under threat of dismissal; that he was paid SR 590.00 per month for the duration of the new contract; that he was not paid overtime despite rendering nine hours of work daily; and that efforts to obtain relief from the Philippine Embassy were unavailing due to communication difficulties.
Procedural History
Respondent filed a complaint for monetary claims on November 27, 2001. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on May 31, 2002 awarding respondent PHP 215,424.00 for underpayment of wages and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission subsequently set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari under Rule 65, which on September 27, 2005 set aside the NLRC resolution and reinstated with modifications the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
The principal issues were whether the subsequent modification or side agreement that reduced respondent’s salary was valid under R.A. No. 8042, whether petitioner and the foreign employer remained jointly and severally liable for respondent’s money claims under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, whether laches barred respondent’s claims, whether the Court of Appeals properly awarded amounts for unauthorized deductions, and whether respondent was entitled to attorney’s fees.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner contended that respondent failed to prove coercion in entering the new contract and that the subsequent agreement was voluntary; that respondent’s delay in notifying petitioner of any problem at the jobsite constituted laches; that the award for unauthorized deductions lacked factual and legal basis; and that respondent was not entitled to attorney’s fees. Respondent maintained that he was coerced into signing a different employment contract that diminished his salary, that overtime and other monetary claims remained unpaid, and that he was compelled to pursue litigation to vindicate his rights.
Labor Arbiter Ruling
The Labor Arbiter held that the modification of respondent’s employment contract was not allowed under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 and that respondent should have received the original contracted salary of US$370.00 per month. The Arbiter found that respondent did not deny petitioner’s allegation that placement and other processing fees were unpaid prior to deployment. The Arbiter also determined that respondent’s overtime pay, computed under the modified SR 800.00 rate and limited to one hour per day for eighteen months, approximated what he would have received under the original contract. The Arbiter awarded attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the total judgment and adjudged P215,424.00 for underpayment of wages and attorney’s fees.
NLRC Ruling
The NLRC reviewed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and vacated and set it aside, rendering a new judgment dismissing the case for lack of cause of action. The NLRC’s dispositive language in the records states: “Vacated and Set Aside. In lieu thereof, a new judgment is rendered, dismissing the above-entitled case for lack of cause of action.”
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, held that the diminution of respondent’s salary from US$370.00 to SR 800.00 violated Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, and found the allegation of incompetence unsubstantiated. The appellate court set aside the NLRC resolution and reinstated and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications. The CA ordered payment calculated as the POEA-approved contract rate of $370.00 times the exchange rate at the time of payment for 24 months, less salary received under the modified rate (SR 800 x P12.00 x 24 months = P230,400.00), less “Unauthorized Deductions” (SR 4,885 x P12 = P171,780.00), yielding P58,620.00 minus unpaid placement fee, plus attorney’s fees of five percent of the total unpaid salary, and directed that the exchange rate shall be that prevailing at the time of actual payment.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision insofar as it set aside the NLRC resolution and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, but modified the award by deleting the amount of P171,780.00 for unauthorized deductions for lack of factual and legal basis. The Court held that the diminution of respondent’s salary was void under R.A. No. 8042, that the original POEA-approved employment contract subsisted despite the so-called new agreement, and that petitioner remained solidarily liable with SAAD under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. The Court rejected the laches argument because respondent filed within the three-year prescriptive period for money claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code. The Court sustained the award of attorney’s fees as proper in wage-recovery actions.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court applied Section 6(i) and Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, which expressly prohibit substitution or alteration of POEA-approved contracts to the prejudice of the worker and impose joint and several liability on the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for money claims during the entire period of the employment contract. The Court invoked Chavez v. Bonto-Perez, 312 Phil. 88 (1995), for the proposition that a subsequent side agreement that reduces salary below the POEA-approved amount is void as contrary to law and public policy. The Court discussed the doctrine of laches, citing Juco v. Heirs of Tomas Siy Chung Fu, G.R. No. 150233, February 1
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169973)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Placewell International Services Corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing a decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2005.
- Ireneo B. Camote was the private respondent and former overseas construction worker who filed a sworn complaint for money claims before the Labor Arbiter.
- The labor dispute arose from a May 31, 2002 Decision of Labor Arbiter Arturo L. Gamolo, an ensuing resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, and a September 27, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77145.
- The petition challenged the appellate court's reinstatement, with modifications, of the Labor Arbiter's May 31, 2002 Decision and the appellate court's setting aside of an NLRC resolution described in the records.
Key Factual Allegations
- Placewell deployed Camote to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on August 15, 1999 under a POEA-approved contract that provided a salary of US$370.00 per month for a two-year term.
- At the job site, the foreign employer, SAAD Trading and Contracting Co., allegedly found Camote incompetent and purportedly terminated his services, after which Camote agreed to remain employed at a lower salary of SR 800.00 per month.
- Camote alleged that he and fellow Filipino workers were coerced to sign another employment contract in Arabic upon arrival, that he ultimately received only SR 590.00 per month under the new contract, and that he was denied overtime pay despite rendering extended hours.
- Camote asserted that communication difficulties prevented effective assistance from the Philippine Embassy and delayed notification to Placewell until his return.
Claims and Allegations
- Camote claimed unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions, unpaid overtime, and other money claims arising from the alleged diminution of his POEA-approved salary and related employment conditions.
- Placewell contended that the purported new contract was voluntarily entered into by Camote, that laches barred belated claims, that the award for unauthorized deductions lacked basis, and that Camote was not entitled to attorney's fees.
Statutory Framework
- R.A. No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, governs substitution or alteration of POEA-approved contracts and the liability of recruitment/placement agencies and principals.
- Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 provides for the joint and several liability of the principal/employer and recruitment/placement agency for money claims and declares such liabilities to continue during the entire duration of the employment contract.
- Sec. 6(i), R.A. No. 8042 prohibits substitution or alteration to the prejudice of the worker of employment contracts approved by the Department of Labor and Employment from actual signing up to the expiration of the contract without DOLE approval.
Labor Arbiter Findings
- The Labor Arbiter held that the modification of Camote's employment contract was not allowed under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 and that Camote should have received the original contracted salary of US$370.00 per month.
- The Labor Arbiter found that Camote did not refute Placewell's allegation regarding non-payment of placement and processing fees prior to deployment.
- The Labor Arbiter concluded that overtime pay had been computed on the modified SR 800.00 rate and that the overtime actually rendered did not produce a shortfall when compared to computation on the US$370.00 rate.
- The Labor Arbiter awarded attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the judgment for compelling Camote to hire counsel to protect his rights.