View full case

SANTOSA B. DATUMAN v. FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER

FACTS:

The petitioner, Santosa Datuman, was recruited by the respondent, First Cosmopolitan Manpower & Promotion Services, Inc., to work as a saleslady in Bahrain. However, upon arrival, her passport was taken and she was forced to work as a domestic helper with a lower salary. She was later transferred to another employer as a housemaid and was not given her release paper and passport back. Despite her pleas, she continued to work without compensation. In May 1993, she was able to return to the Philippines with the help of the Bahrain Passport and Immigration Department.

She filed a complaint with the POEA Adjudication Office for underpayment and nonpayment of salary, vacation leave pay, and refund of plane fare. She also filed a case before the NLRC for underpayment of salary, nonpayment of vacation pay, and reimbursement of return airfare. The Labor Arbiter found the respondent liable for violating the employment contract and ordered them to pay salary differentials and refund the plane ticket.

On appeal, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision by reducing the award for salary differentials. The respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was initially dismissed but later reinstated upon motion for reconsideration. The CA granted the petition and reversed the NLRC's decision, stating that the claims for salary differentials accrued before April 1993 had already prescribed. The CA also held that the agency is jointly and severally liable with the employer for all claims and liabilities arising from the contract implementation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not holding the respondent agency liable for the petitioner's money claims pursuant to their Contract of Employment.

  2. Whether or not the respondent agency is solidarily liable for the petitioner's monetary claims.

  3. Whether the respondent is jointly and solidarily liable with the principal employer abroad for the petitioner's money claims.

  4. Whether the subsequent contracts signed by the petitioner with the foreign employer/principal constitute continuing breaches of the original POEA-approved contract.

  5. Whether the salary reduction in the subsequent contract is void for violating the POEA-approved contract.

  6. Whether the respondent can disclaim liability for the acts of the foreign employer.

  7. Whether or not the monetary claims of the petitioner have prescribed pursuant to Article 291 of the Labor Code.

  8. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to her claims for salary differentials for a certain period of time.

RULING:

  1. The Court granted the petition. The Court held that the private employment agency is jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment. This joint and solidary liability is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding this provision of the law and the policy of the state. As the agency that recruited the petitioner, the respondent agency is jointly and solidarily liable with the principal employer abroad.

  2. The respondent is jointly and solidarily liable with the principal employer abroad for the petitioner's money claims.

  3. The subsequent contracts signed by the petitioner with the foreign employer/principal constitute continuing breaches of the original POEA-approved contract.

  4. The salary reduction in the subsequent contract is void for violating the POEA-approved contract.

  5. The respondent cannot disclaim liability for the acts of the foreign employer.

  6. The cause of action of the petitioner has not prescribed. The Court held that the three-year prescriptive period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code should be reckoned from the time the cause of action accrued. In this case, the petitioner's cause of action for underpayment of salaries accrued as the salary differentials fell due. Therefore, the petitioner's right to claim salary differentials for specific months only accrued after she had rendered service for those months. Thus, only claims accruing prior to May 31, 1992 have prescribed when the complaint was filed on May 31, 1995.

  7. The petitioner is entitled to her claims for salary differentials for the period May 31, 1992 to April 1993, or approximately eleven months. The Court found that the NLRC correctly computed the salary differential due to the petitioner. However, it should be for the correct period, which is from May 31, 1992 to April 1993, and not May 1993 to April 1994 as stated in the NLRC's Decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.

  • Joint and solidary liability is meant to assure the immediate and sufficient payment of the aggrieved worker.

  • The joint and solidary liability of recruitment agencies and foreign employers is in line with the policy of the state to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class.

  • Republic Act No. 8042 prohibits the substitution or alteration, to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

  • Side agreements that reduce the salary below the amount approved by the POEA are void because they are against existing laws, morals, and public policy.

  • The terms of the original POEA-approved employment contract govern the relationship between the petitioner and the recruitment agency and the foreign employer.

  • Local recruitment agencies have joint and several liability with the foreign employer for all claims in connection with the implementation of the contract, and it is their responsibility to ensure the faithful compliance with and proper implementation of the approved employment contract.

  • Claims for underpaid salaries may not have prescribed, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

  • Money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from the time that cause of action accrued, otherwise, they shall be forever barred (Article 291 of the Labor Code).

  • The right to claim unpaid salaries or salary differentials accrue as they fall due. The cause of action to claim such salary differentials only accrues after the employee has rendered service for the corresponding period.