Princess Talent Center Production v.

Desiree Masagca
GR No. 191310, April 11, 2018

Tickler: ​Contact is deemed extended despite the absence of written extension agreement if the
employer is aware that the employee continued his/her work.

FACTS: ​Petitioner filed a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the decision of
the Court of Appeals ordering petitioners and their foreign principal, Saem Entertainment
Company (SAEM), to jointly and severally pay respondent Desiree Masagca her unpaid salaries
for one year, plus attorney's fees.

Sometime in November 2002, respondent auditioned for a singing contest at ABC-Channel 5

when a talent manager approached her to discuss her show business potential. Enticed by
thoughts of a future in the entertainment industry, respondent when to the office of the petitioner
and met its president who thereafter persuaded the respondent to apply for a job as a
singer/entertainer in South Korea. A Model Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas
Performing Arts (OPAS) to Korea was executed on February 3, 2003. Respondent left for South
Korea on September 6, 2003 and worked as a singer for nine months, until her repatriation to
the Philippines sometime in June 2004. The contract has a duration of six (6) months, and is
extensible by another six months by mutual agreement of the parties.

Petitioner PTCPI, referring to the repatriation of the respondent on June 2004, alleged that the
latter on her own extended her Employment Contract with Petitioner and SAEM and so its
liability should not extend beyond the original 6-month term of the Employment Contract
because the extension was made without their participation or consent.

Respondent, on the other hand, believed that the termination of her contract was unlawful and
premature. Petitioners added that the twin requirements of notice and hearing applies strictly
only when the employment is within the Philippines, and that these need not be strictly observed
in cases of international maritime of overseas employment.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the employee in this case was illegally dismissed; and
(2) Whether or not the written agreement shall be enforced within the Philippines.

HELD:

(1) Yes. The Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure extends to Filipino overseas contract
workers. In this case, parties submitted evidence establishing that Masagca continued to work
for SAEM even after the original six month period under her Employment Contract had already
expired. Ideally, the extension of her employment should have also been reduced into writing
and submitted/reported to the appropriate Philippine labor authorities. Nonetheless, even in the
absence of a written contract evidencing the six month employment, the same is practically
admitted by the petitioner subject only to the defense that there is no proof of their knowledge of
or participation in said extension and so they cannot be held liable for the events that transpired
between respondent and SAENCO during the extension period.

(2) Established is the rule that ​lex loci contractus ​(the law of the place where the contract is
made) governs in this jurisdiction. There is no question that the contract of employment in this
case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, the Labor Code, its implementing rules
and regulations, and other laws affecting labor apply in this case. Furthermore, settled is the
rule that the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's
public policy. Here in the Philippines, employment agreements are more than contractual in
nature. An employee's right to security of tenure, protected by the Constitution and statutes,
means that no employee shall be dismissed unless there are just or authorized causes and only
after compliance with procedural and substantive due process. A lawful dismissal by an
employer must meet both substantive and procedural requirements; in fine, the dismissal must
be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary due process of notice
and hearing.