THIRD DIVISION
|
MERCEDITA
ACUÑA, MYRNA RAMONES, and JULIET MENDEZ, Petitioners, - versus - |
G.R. No. 159832 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and JOIN INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION and/or ELIZABETH ALAÑON, Respondents. |
Promulgated: May 5, 2006 |
x- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition
seeks the review and reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision[1]
dated
Petitioners
are Filipino overseas workers deployed by private respondent Join International
Corporation (JIC), a licensed recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D
Pre-Color Plastic, Inc., (3D) in
Sometime in September 1999, petitioners
filed with private respondents applications for employment abroad. They submitted their passports, NBI
clearances, medical clearances and other requirements and each paid a placement
fee of P14,850, evidenced by official receipts[2]
issued by private respondents.
After their papers were processed, petitioners
claimed they signed a uniformly-worded employment contract[3] with
private respondents which stipulated that they were to work as machine
operators with a monthly salary of NT$15,840.00, exclusive of overtime, for a
period of two years.
On
Petitioners alleged that they were
brought to a “small room with a cement floor so dirty and smelling with foul
odor (sic)”. Forty women were
jampacked in the room and each person was given a pillow. Since the ladies’ comfort room was out of
order, they had to ask permission to use the men’s comfort room.[6] Petitioners claim they were made to work
twelve hours a day, from
The petitioners averred that on
Immediately upon arrival in the
On P15,080.[9] The next day, petitioners Acuña
and Ramones went back and received P13,640[10]
and P16,200,[11]
respectively. They claim they signed a waiver, otherwise they would not be refunded.[12]
On
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
petitioners, declaring that Myrna Ramones, Juliet Mendez and Mercedita Acuña did
not resign voluntarily from their jobs. Thus,
private respondents were ordered to pay jointly and severally, in Philippine
Peso, at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment, the following:
|
1. MERCEDITA
ACUÑA |
|
|
|
|
||
|
a. Unexpired
Portion |
NT$95,000.00 |
|
|
|
||
|
b. Salary for
4 days |
2,436.92 |
|
|
|
||
|
c. Overtime pay
for 4 hrs. in 4 days |
1,523.07 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
NT$98,960.00* |
|
|
|
||
|
d. Refund of
placement fee |
|
PHP45,000.00 |
|
|
||
|
(Less: Amount received per Quitclaim) |
13,640.00 |
31,360.00 |
|
|||
|
e. Moral
damages |
|
|
25,000.00 |
|
||
|
f. Exemplary
damages |
|
|
40,000.00 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
2. JULIET
C. MENDEZ |
|
|
|
|
||
|
a. Unexpired
Portion |
NT$95,000.00 |
|
|
|
||
|
b. Salary for
4 days |
2,436.92 |
|
|
|
||
|
c. Overtime pay
for 4 hrs. in 4 days |
1,523.07 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
NT$98,960.00* |
|
|
|
||
|
d. Refund of
placement fee |
|
PHP45,000.00 |
|
|
||
|
(Less: Amount received per Quitclaim) |
15,080.00[14] |
29,920.00 |
|
|||
|
e. Moral
damages |
|
|
25,000.00 |
|
||
|
f. Exemplary
damages |
|
|
40,000.00 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
3. MYRNA R.
RAMONES |
|
|
|
|
||
|
a. Unexpired
Portion |
NT$95,000.00 |
|
|
|
||
|
b. Salary for
4 days |
2,436.92 |
|
|
|
||
|
c. Overtime pay
for 4 hrs. in 4 days |
1,523.07 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
NT$98,960.00* |
|
|
|
||
|
d. Refund of
placement fee |
|
PHP45,000.00 |
|
|
||
|
(Less: Amount received per Quitclaim) |
16,200.00 |
28,800.00 |
|
|||
|
e. Moral
damages |
|
|
25,000.00 |
|
||
|
f. Exemplary
damages |
|
|
40,000.00[15] |
|||
The
Labor Arbiter likewise ordered the payment of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the award which totaled NT$296,880.00 and P285,080.00 The other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.
Private respondents thereafter
appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC
ruled that the inclusion of Alañon as party respondent in this case had no
basis since respondent JIC, being a juridical person, has a legal personality,
separate and distinct from its officers.[16] It partially granted the appeal and ordered
that the amounts of P15,080, P13,640 and
P16,200 received under the quitclaim by Mendez, Acuña
and Ramones, respectively, be deducted from their
respective awards. They were awarded attorney’s
fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of their awarded labor-standards claims
for unpaid wages and overtime pays. No moral
and exemplary damages and placement fees were awarded.[17] Private respondents’ motion for partial
reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled
for private respondents. It set aside the
resolutions dated
In their petition before us, petitioners
raise the following issues:
I
Whether or not public respondent court of
appeals erred and/or GRAVELY abused its discretion, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari filed by the
private respondents, despite the fact that the nlrc’s resolution of December
10, 2001 had already become final and executory, private respondents’ motion
for partial reconsideration with the nlrc having been filed out of time
II
Alternatively, whether or
not public respondent court of appeals erred in setting aside the resolutions
of the nlrc, and in dismissing the complaint of the petitioners.[19]
Prefatorily,
petitioners aver that private respondents’ Verification and Certification of
the Petition for Certiorari stated that the copy of the resolution of the NLRC
dated December 10, 2001 was received on January 4, 2002 and its partial motion
for reconsideration filed on January 29, 2002, or 15 days beyond the reglementary period.
However, a perusal of the Partial Motion for Reconsideration[20]
filed by private respondents show that the NLRC Resolution dated
In this petition the issue left for
resolution is whether petitioners were illegally dismissed under Rep. Act No. 8042,
thus entitling them to benefits plus damages.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found
that petitioners admitted they resigned from their jobs without force,
coercion, intimidation and pressure from private respondents’ principal abroad.[21]
According to the Labor
Arbiter, while it may be true that petitioners were not coerced into giving up
their jobs, the deplorable, oppressive and sub-human working conditions drove petitioners
to resign. In effect, according to the
Labor Arbiter, the petitioners did not voluntarily resign.[22]
The NLRC also ruled that there was
constructive dismissal since working under said conditions was unbearable.[23]
As we have held previously, constructive
dismissal covers the involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee.[24]
In this case, the appellate court
found that petitioners did not deny that the accommodations were not as homely
as expected. In the petitioners’
memorandum, they admitted that they were told by the principal, upon their
arrival, that the dormitory was still under construction and were requested to
bear with the temporary inconvenience and the dormitory would soon be finished. We likewise note that petitioners did not
refute private respondents’ assertion that they had deployed approximately
sixty other workers to their principal, and to the best of their knowledge, no
other worker assigned to the same principal has resigned, much less, filed a
case for illegal dismissal.[25]
To our mind these cited circumstances
do not reflect malice by private respondents nor do they show the principal’s
intention to subject petitioners to unhealthy accommodations. Under these facts, we cannot rule that there
was constructive dismissal.
Private respondents also claim that
petitioners were not entitled to overtime pay, since they had offered no proof that
they actually rendered overtime work.
Petitioners, on the other hand, say that they could not show any documentary
proof since their employment records were all in the custody of the principal
employer. It was sufficient, they claim,
that they alleged the same with particularity.
On this matter, we rule for the
petitioners. The claim for overtime pay should
not have been disallowed because of the failure of the petitioners to
substantiate them.[26] The claim of overseas workers against foreign
employers could not be subjected to same rules of evidence and procedure easily
obtained by complainants whose employers are locally based.[27] While normally we would require the
presentation of payrolls, daily time records and similar documents before allowing
claims for overtime pay, in this case, that would be requiring the near-impossible.
To our mind, it is private respondents
who could have obtained the records of their principal to refute petitioners’
claim for overtime pay. By their failure
to do so, private respondents waived their defense and in effect admitted the
allegations of the petitioners.
It is a time-honored rule that in
controversies between a worker and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from
the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements
and writing should be resolved in the worker’s favor.[28] The policy is to extend the applicability of
the decree to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under
the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give
maximum aid and protection to labor.[29] Accordingly, we rule that private respondents
are solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of
petitioners.
On the award of moral and exemplary
damages, we hold that such award lacks legal basis. Moral and exemplary damages
are recoverable only where the dismissal of an employee was attended by bad
faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[30] The person claiming moral damages must prove
the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always
presumes good faith.[31] Petitioners allege they suffered humiliation,
sleepless nights and mental anguish, thinking how they would pay the money they
borrowed for their placement fees.[32] Even so, they failed to prove bad faith,
fraud or ill motive on the part of private respondents.[33] Moral damages cannot be awarded. Without the award of moral damages, there can
be no award of exemplary damages, nor attorney’s fees.[34]
Quitclaims executed by the employees
are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar
claims for the full measure of the workers’ legal rights, considering the
economic disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial
necessity.[35] Nonetheless, the so-called “economic
difficulties and financial crises” allegedly confronting the employee is not an
acceptable ground to annul the compromise agreement[36]
unless it is accompanied by a gross disparity between the actual claim and the
amount of the settlement.[37]
A perusal of the records reveals that
petitioners were not in any way deceived, coerced or intimidated into signing a
quitclaim waiver in the amounts of P13,640, P15,080
and P16,200 respectively. Nor was
there a disparity between the amount of the quitclaim and the amount actually
due the petitioners.
Conformably then the petitioners are
entitled to the following amounts in Philippine Peso at the rate of exchange
prevailing at the time of payment:
|
1. MERCEDITA
ACUÑA |
|
|
a. Salary for 4 days |
NT $ 2,436.92 |
|
b. Overtime
pay for 4 hours in 4 days |
1,523.07 |
|
|
NT $ 3,959.99 |
|
|
|
|
2. JULIET C.
MENDEZ |
|
|
a. Salary for 4 days |
NT $ 2,436.92 |
|
b. Overtime pay for 4 hours in 4 days |
1,523.07 |
|
|
NT $ 3,959.99 |
|
|
|
|
3. MYRNA R.
RAMONES |
|
|
a. Salary for 4 days |
NT $ 2,436.92 |
|
b. Overtime pay for 4 hours in 4 days |
1,523.07 |
|
|
NT $ 3,959.99 |
According
to the Bangko Sentral
Treasury Department, the prevailing exchange rates on December 1999 was NT$1 to
P1.268805. Hence, after conversion
to Philippine pesos, the amount of the quitclaim paid to petitioners was
actually higher than the amount due them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED,
without prejudice to the filing of illegal recruitment complaint against the respondents
pursuant to Section 6(i) of The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act
of 1995 (Rep. Act No. 8042).
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate
Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 87-96. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes, and Remedios Salazar-Fernando concurring.
[2] Rollo, pp. 126-127.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Ibid.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] P16,220” in figures.
[12]
[13] AN ACT TO INSTITUTE THE POLICIES OF OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISH A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
* 98,959.99 rounded off.
[14] Erroneously
written as P1,523.07.
[15] Rollo, pp. 163-165.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Leonardo v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 125303,
[25] Rollo, p. 91.
[26] Cuadra v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98030,
[27] Ibid.
[28] Prangan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126529,
[29] Sarmiento v. Employees’
Compensation Commission, No. L-68648,
[30] Ford Philippines Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99039,
[31] See
Equitable Banking Corporation v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 102467,
[32] Rollo, p. 130.
[33] Audion Electric Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106648, June 17, 1999, 308 SCRA 340, 355.
[34] See
Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (Special
Sixth Division), G.R. No. 106153,
[35] America Home Assurance Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120043, July 24, 1996, 259 SCRA 280, 293-294.
[36] Olaybar, et al v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 108713,
[37] See B. Sta. Rita and Co., Inc., et al. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
119617,