Case title: ESALYN CHAVEZ VS HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, HON. ROGELIO T. RAYALA, HON. DOMINGOH.

ZAPANTA, HON. JOSE N. SARMIENTO, CENTRUM PROMOTIONS PLACEMENT CORPORATION, JOSE

A.AZUCENA, JR., and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. GR number: G.R. No. 109808 Date:March
1, 1995 Petitioner: ESALYN CHAVEZ Respondent: HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, HON. ROGELIO T.RAYALA, HON.
DOMINGO H. ZAPANTA, HON. JOSE N. SARMIENTO, CENTRUM PROMOTIONSPLACEMENT CORPORATION,
JOSE A. AZUCENA, JR., and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.Ponente: PUNO, J.
Facts:
On December 1, 1988, petitioner, an entertainment dancer, entered into a standard employmentcontract for overseas
Filipino artists and entertainers with Planning Japan Co., Ltd., through itsPhilippine representative, private
respondent Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation. Thecontract had a duration of two (2) to six (6) months,
and petitioner was to be paid a monthlycompensation of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (US$1,5000.00). On
December 5, 1888, the POEAapproved the contract. Subsequently, petitioner executed the following side agreement
with herJapanese employer through her local manager, Jaz Talents Promotion. On December 16, 1988,petitioner left
for Osaka, Japan, where she worked for six (6) months, until June 10, 1989. She cameback to the Philippines on
June 14, 1989. Petitioner instituted the case at bench for underpayment ofwages with the POEA on February 21,
1991. She prayed for the payment of Six Thousand U.S. Dollars(US$6,000.00), representing the unpaid portion of
her basic salary for six months. Charged in the casewere private respondent Centrum Promotions and Placement
Corporation, the Philippinerepresentative of Planning Japan, Co., Inc., its insurer, Times Surety and Insurance Co.,
Inc., and JazTalents Promotion.
Issue:
Whether or not the there was an invalid side agreement present in the case at bar.
Held:
Yes, IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED Clearly, the basic salary of One Thousand FiveHundred U.S.
Dollars (US$1,500.00) guaranteed to petitioner under the parties' standard employmentcontract is in accordance with
the minimum employment standards with respect to wages set by thePOEA, Thus, the side agreement
which reduced petitioner's basic wage to Seven Hundred Fifty U.S.Dollars (US$750.00) is null and void for violating
the POEA's minimum employment standards, and fornot having been approved by the POEA. Indeed, this side
agreement is a scheme all too frequentlyresorted to by unscrupulous employers against our helpless overseas
workers who are compelled toagree to satisfy their basic economic needs. Private respondents are held jointly and
severally liable topetitioner for the payment of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS (US$6,000.00) in unpaid wages.

KAPISANANG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP vs. NLRC

G.R. No. L-60328 July 16, 1987 Teehankee, CJ
: FACTS:
The LA ruled that: the negotiated daily wage increase of P1.33 granted and
embodied in the parties' collective bargaining agreement of March 7, 1977,
retroactive to January 1, 1977, could be credited to and deducted from the
P60.00 monthly or P2.00 daily living allowance required by P.D. 1123 (issued
on April 21, 1977, to take effect on May 1, 1977).
This in effect nullified the hard-earned P1.33 daily wage increase
negotiated and obtained by petitioners-workers in their collective bargaining
agreement.
The Kapisanan appealed, but such was dismissed due to a procedural
technicality: they did not furnish the adverse party with a copy of its
memorandum of appeal.
ISSUES:

1. W/N the dismissal of the appeal was proper. NO

HELD:
PETITION GRANTED. LA and NLRC decisions set aside. Franklin Baker Co.
ordered to comply fully with the obligation imposed upon it by P.D. 1123 and
pay the living allowance provided separately and distinctly from the wage
increase agreed by it and embodied in the collective bargaining agreement
of March 7, 1977. This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.