View full case

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

FACTS:

Joy C. Cabiles, an overseas Filipino worker, responded to an advertisement by Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. ("Sameer") and applied for a quality control position in Taiwan. Following the acceptance of her application, Joy signed a one-year employment contract with a monthly salary of New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 15,360.00 and allegedly paid a placement fee of PHP 70,000.00 to Sameer. She was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997, under the belief she would serve as quality control personnel. However, upon her arrival in Taiwan, she was assigned the role of a cutter. Subsequently, on July 14, 1997, Joy was abruptly informed by Wacoal that her employment was terminated and she was to be repatriated immediately. In this period, covering from June 26 to July 14, Joy only earned NT$ 9,000, from which Wacoal deducted NT$ 3,000 for her plane ticket to Manila. Feeling aggrieved, Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Sameer and Wacoal on October 15, 1997, alleging illegal dismissal and seeking reimbursement for her placement fee, withheld repatriation costs, 23 months' salary, and moral and exemplary damages. Joy identified Wacoal as Sameer's foreign principal. Sameer countered that Joy was terminated due to inefficiency and negligence and denied demanding the alleged placement fee of PHP 70,000.00, presenting a receipt for PHP 20,360.00 instead. Furthermore, Sameer claimed that Wacoal's accreditation had been transferred to Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (Pacific), rendering Pacific responsible. Pacific, however, moved to dismiss the claims against it, citing lack of employer-employee relationship and jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy's complaint, citing insufficient evidence of excess placement fees and deeming the transfer of obligations to Pacific as immaterial given the dismissal of her complaint. Joy appealed to the NLRC, which eventually ruled in her favor, declaring her dismissal illegal, awarding three months' salary (NT$ 46,080.00), NT$ 3,000.00 reimbursement, and NT$ 300.00 for attorney's fees. The NLRC did not address the reimbursement of placement fees due to lack of jurisdiction and disregarded the transfer of obligations to Pacific. Sameer's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting it to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the NLRC's decision on illegal dismissal and remanded the issue involving Pacific back to the NLRC. Sameer then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent Joy Cabiles was illegally dismissed

  2. Whether respondent is entitled to additional compensation and attorney’s fees

  3. Whether Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as reinstated by Republic Act No. 10022 limiting wage claims to three months, is constitutional

RULING:

  1. Yes, Joy Cabiles was illegally dismissed. The employer failed to present adequate proof of just cause for termination and did not observe procedural due process.

  2. Yes, respondent is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment contract, reimbursement of the withheld NT$3,000 salary, and attorney’s fees of NT$300, with an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment.

  3. No, the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" is declared unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

Wherefore, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment.

The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less," in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

SO ORDERED.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Security of Tenure: Employees, including overseas workers, cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause and without following proper procedural due process.

  • Due Process: Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process prior to termination; they must be informed in writing of any charges against them and given an opportunity to be heard.

  • Burden of Proof: The burden of proving just cause for termination is on the employer.

  • Joint and Several Liability: Under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, both the foreign principal and local agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims arising from employment.

  • Constitutionality: Any legislative provision must comply with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. The clause limiting wage claims for overseas workers to three months declared unconstitutional due to its inherent arbitrariness and discriminatory nature.

  • Legal Interest: Based on the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, which sets the interest rate at 6% per annum unless otherwise specified by a law or contract.

  • Lex Loci Contractus: The law of the place where the contract was made governs, which in this case means applying Philippine labor laws to overseas employment contracts perfected in the Philippines.