ASIAN INTERNATIONAL G.R. No. 169652
MANPOWER SERVICES, INC.
(AIMS),
Petitioner, Present:
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS and
ANICETA LACERNA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set
aside the May 31, 2005 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73276 which reversed the June 28, 2002
Resolution[2] of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and held that respondent Aniceta
Lacerna (Lacerna) was illegally dismissed by petitioner Asian International
Manpower Services, Inc. (AIMS).
The facts as alleged[3]by
Lacerna show that Proxy Maid Services Centre (Proxy), a
On
Following the denial of her work permit, Lacerna returned to the
AIMS, on the other hand, alleged that
Lacerna resigned after working for five days as a domestic helper of Low See
Ting from
In her Reply,[7] Lacerna insisted that her
first employer was Charmain because she never worked for Low See Ting, who as
early as March 2000, cancelled the contract before she flew to
On
On
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is GRANTED
and the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET Aside. Accordingly,
private respondents are ordered to pay petitioner the following:
1. HK$11,010.00
corresponding to three (3) months of her salary or its equivalent in the Philippine Peso at
the time of payment;
2. The amount of
P18,000.00 with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum as reimbursement of her
placement fee;
3. P10,000.00 as
moral damages;
4. P10,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and
5. Attorney’s
fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. No costs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
AIMS filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied.
Hence, the instant petition.
The issues for resolution are: Was
Lacerna illegally dismissed? If yes, may
AIMS be held liable for the monetary claims of Lacerna.
On both issues, the Court rules in the
affirmative.
There is no dispute that the last
employer of Lacerna was Donna and not Daisy Lee because the
AIMS argued that it cannot be held liable for the monetary claims of Lacerna
because its contract was limited only to Lacerna’s employment with Low See
Ting. When she resigned as domestic
helper of the latter, the contract was allegedly extinguished making AIMS no
longer privy to the subsequent employment contract entered into by Proxy and
Lacerna.
However, the records of the Immigration Department of Hong Kong belie the
contention of AIMS that Lacerna was employed by Low See Ting. The
I refer to your application on
Our records show that you were a
domestic helper whose employment contract was terminated x x x prematurely on
While we are prepared to accept and
consider your second application for change of employer, I must remind you that
this is final. If your second
prospective employer again backs out or withdraws his/her sponsorship for
whatever reasons, your further application for extension of stay for the reason
of processing a new employment in
Based on the foregoing, the
Immigration Department noted that the application of Lacerna was her second
request for change of employer. She
filed the first application after her contract was pre-terminated on
I refer to your application on
Please note that under the existing policy, foreign domestic
helpers whose contracts are terminated prematurely are required to return to
their place of origin where they may submit fresh application for entry to
According to our records, you were on
Subsequently, you applied for change of employer in
Having taken into consideration the information made
available and circumstances of your case, I am not satisfied that there are circumstances
in your case which should justify exceptional consideration. Your application is therefore refused. If you wish to work for a new employer, you
should submit a fresh application after you return to your place of
domicile. Under the direct visa
application system, your visa application can be submitted directly to this
department through your prospective employer in
Please note that after termination of your contract, you are
permitted to remain in
The Hong Kong Immigration Department gave Lacerna only two chances to
change employer. The subject of the
first was the prospective employer who backed out, and the second was
Donna. If we follow the version of AIMS,
then the sequence of her employment would have been that with: (1) Low See
Ting, (2) Charmain, (3) prospective employer who backed out, and (4)
Donna. However Lacerna’s employment with
Low See Ting is not supported by the records of the Immigration
Department. If Low See Ting was the
first employer, then Lacerna’s two chances to change employer would have ended
on her prospective employer who backed out and would not have enabled her to
work for Charmain and Donna. Clearly,
the version of AIMS does not jibe with the official records of the
Moreover, even granting that Lacerna truly resigned as domestic helper of
Low See Ting, the liability of AIMS was not extinguished. The contract of Lacerna as approved by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) reveals that Proxy was her designated
principal employer; the agreed salary
was HK$3,670.00 a month; and the contract duration was for two years.[12] Since AIMS was the local agency which recruited
Lacerna for Proxy, it is solidarily liable with the latter for liabilities
arising from her illegal dismissal. To detach
itself from the liability of Proxy, AIMS must show by clear and convincing
evidence that its contract is limited to Lacerna’s employment by Low See Ting. However, aside from its bare allegation, AIMS
presented no proof to corroborate its claim.
On the contrary, it appears that in transferring Lacerna from one
employer to another, Proxy did not demand a new placement fee from
Lacerna. This only shows that Proxy’s
conduct was in accordance with the original contract executed with AIMS and not
on an entirely new and separate agreement entered into in
SEC. 10. Money Claims. –
x x x x
The liability of the
principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims
under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be
incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition
precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all
money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and
directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and
solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims
and damages.
Such liabilities shall
continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract and
shall not be affected by any substitution,
amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country of the said
contract.
x x x x
In case of termination
of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by
law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his
placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his
salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less
The illegal dismissal of
Lacerna entitles her to the full reimbursement of placement fee with interest
at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus salaries for the unexpired portion of her
employment contract or for three months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less. Thus, the Court of
Appeals was correct in ordering AIMS to pay HK$11,010.00 corresponding to three
months of her salary or its equivalent in the Philippine Peso at the time of
payment, plus placement fee of P18,0000.00.
The Court of Appeals, however,
erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages inasmuch as Lacerna failed to
prove that AIMS and Proxy are guilty of bad faith. While it is true that they were not able to
justify Lacerna’s dismissal, the same does not automatically amount to bad
faith. Moral and exemplary damages cannot be based solely upon the premise that
the employer dismissed the employee without cause or due process. The
termination must be attended with bad faith,
or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and that social humiliation,
wounded feelings, or grave anxiety resulted therefrom. Similarly,
exemplary damages are recoverable only when the dismissal was effected in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. To merit the award of these
damages, additional facts showing bad faith are necessary[15]
but Lacerna failed to plead and prove the same in this case. Hence, the
awards of moral and exemplary damages should be deleted.
The award of attorney’s fees is
sustained. In actions for recovery of
wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to
protect his rights and interests, a maximum of ten
percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney’s
fees is justified under Article 111
of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII,
Book III of its Implementing Rules, and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil
Code. There need
not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need
only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly and that the
employee was forced to file a case, as in the instant case.[16]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is partly GRANTED.
The May 31, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
73276 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the awards of moral
and exemplary damages are DELETED for
lack of basis.
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were 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. 34-46. Penned by Associate Justice Josefina
Guevara-Salonga and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and
Fernanda Lampas Peralta.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Sevillana
v. I.T. (International) Corp., G.R. No. 99047, April 16, 2001, 356 SCRA
451, 467.
[10] Rollo, p. 80.
[11]
[12]
[13]
Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 101535, January
22, 1993, 217 SCRA 455, 461.
[14] Sevillana
v. I.T. (International) Corp., supra
note 9 at 464-465.
[15] San
Miguel Corporation v. Del Rosario, G.R.
Nos. 168194 & 168603, december
13, 2005, 477 SCRA 604, 619-620.
[16] San
Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, G.R. No. 149011, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 392,
432-433; San Miguel Corporation v. Del Rosario, supra at 619.