LABOR LAW

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC.

vs. JOY C. CABILES
G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014, LEONEN, J.

DOCTRINES OF THE CASE

1. When a law is passed, the Supreme Court awaits an actual case that clearly raises
adversarial positions in their proper context before considering a prayer to
declare it as unconstitutional.
2. When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the
Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or re-enactment of
the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision of law that was already
declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so changed
as to warrant a reverse conclusion.

FACTS
Sameer is a recruitment and placement agency. Through Sameer, Joy applied for a
quality control job in Taiwan but was made to work as a cutter instead. Barely a
month into her work, Joy was suddenly informed that she was being terminated and
immediately sent back to Manila. She filed an illegal dismissal case with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and asked for the return of her placement fee
and the withheld repatriation costs, and payment of her salary for 23 months as well
as moral and exemplary damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint as
based on mere allegations, but the NLRC, on appeal, decided that Joy was illegally
dismissed and awarded her three months worth of salary, the amount withheld and
attorney’s fees. Sameer filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
which upheld the NLRC’s decision. Sameer filed a petition assailing the CA’s
decision, maintaining that Joy was dismissed for just cause.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” portion of Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995, is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause
and substantive due process. This was, however, reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042
upon promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 in 2010.

ISSUE
Whether Joy Cabiles was properly dismissed and awarded for her illegal
termination case.

RULING
Petitioner failed to show that there was just cause for dismissing Joy. There was no
showing that respondent was sufficiently informed of the standards against which
her work efficiency and performance were judged. Petitioner likewise failed to
specify what requirements were not met, what efficiency standards were violated,
or what particular acts of respondent constituted inefficiency. The abruptness of the
termination and repatriation meant that she was neither properly notified nor given
the opportunity to be heard. She is thus entitled to her salary for the unexpired
portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorney’s fees
and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.

When a law is passed, the Supreme Court awaits an actual case that clearly raises
adversarial positions in their proper context before considering a prayer to declare
it as unconstitutional. The case at hand presented a unique situation where the law
passed incorporates the exact clause already declared as unconstitutional, without
any perceived substantial change in the circumstances.

It was held that when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent
with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or re-
enactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision of law that
was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have
so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion. In this case, the Supreme Court is not
convinced by the pleadings submitted by the parties that the situation has so
changed so as to cause a reversal of a binding precedent.