Professional Documents
Culture Documents
16 - Sameer V Cabiles PDF
16 - Sameer V Cabiles PDF
16 - Sameer V Cabiles PDF
*
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC.,
petitioner, vs. JOY C. CABILES, respondent.
_______________
* EN BANC.
23
24
25
26
27
28
June 21, 2013, which revised the interest rate for loan or
forbearance from 12% to 6% in the absence of stipulation, applies
in this case. The pertinent portions of Circular No. 799, Series of
2013, read: The Monetary Board, in its Resolution No. 796 dated
16 May 2013, approved the following revisions governing the rate
of interest in the absence of stipulation in loan contracts, thereby
amending Section 2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982: Section
1. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money,
goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence
of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six
percent (6%) per annum. Section 2. In view of the above,
Subsection X305.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and
Sections 4305Q.1, 4305S.3 and 4303P.1 of the Manual of
Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions are hereby
amended accordingly. This Circular shall take effect on 1 July
2013.
Same; Same; Loans; Circular No. 799 is applicable only in
loans and forbearance of money, goods, or credits, and in
judgments when there is no stipulation on the applicable interest
rate; Circular No. 799 is not applicable when there is a law that
states otherwise.—Circular No. 799 is applicable only in loans and
forbearance of money, goods, or credits, and in judgments when
there is no stipulation on the applicable interest rate. Further, it
is only applicable if the judgment did not become final and
executory before July 1, 2013. We add that Circular No. 799 is not
applicable when there is a law that states otherwise. While the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has the power to set or limit interest
rates, these interest rates do not apply when the law provides
that a different interest rate shall be applied. “[A] Central Bank
Circular cannot repeal a law. Only a law can repeal another law.”
Same; Same; Labor Law; Placement Fees; There is an implied
stipulation in contracts between the placement agency and the
overseas worker that in case the overseas worker is adjudged as
entitled to reimbursement of his or her placement fees, the amount
shall be subject to a 12% interest per annum. This implied
stipulation has the effect of removing awards for reimbursement of
placement fees from Circular No. 799’s coverage.—Laws are
deemed incorporated in contracts. “The contracting parties need
not repeat them. They do not even have to be referred to. Every
contract, thus, contains not only what has been explicitly
stipulated, but the statutory provisions
29
30
31
that tend to violate labor law. Lest they risk their reputation or
finances, local agencies must already have mechanisms for
guarding against unscrupulous foreign employers even at the
level prior to overseas employment applications.
32
33
34
35
LEONEN, J.:
This case involves an overseas Filipino worker with
shattered dreams. It is our duty, given the facts and the
law, to approximate justice for her.
We are asked to decide a petition for review1 on
certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ decision2 dated
June 27, 2005. This decision partially affirmed the
National Labor Relations Commission’s resolution dated
March 31, 2004,3 declaring respondent’s dismissal illegal,
directing petitioner to pay respondent’s three-month salary
equivalent to New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 46,080.00, and
ordering it to reimburse the NT$3,000.00 withheld from
respondent, and pay her NT$300.00 attorney’s fees.4
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is
a recruitment and placement agency.5 Responding to an ad
it published, respondent, Joy C. Cabiles, submitted her
application for a quality control job in Taiwan.6
Joy’s application was accepted.7 Joy was later asked to
sign a one-year employment contract for a monthly salary
of NT$15,360.00.8 She alleged that Sameer Overseas
Agency required her to pay a placement fee of P70,000.00
when she signed the employment contract.9
Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co., Ltd.
(Wacoal) on June 26, 1997.10 She alleged that in her
employ-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-29.
2 Id., at pp. 32-44.
3 Id., at pp. 125-131.
4 Id., at p. 131.
5 Id., at p. 3.
6 Id., at p. 126.
7 Id., at p. 102.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id., at pp. 54 and 102.
36
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 6-7 and 195-196.
12 Id., at p. 36.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id., at p. 127.
16 Id.
17 Id., at p. 53.
18 Id.
19 Id., at pp. 33, 53 and 54.
20 Id.
21 Id., at p. 11.
37
that it did not ask for a placement fee of P70,000.00.22 As
evidence, it showed Official Receipt No. 14860 dated June
10, 1997, bearing the amount of P20,360.00.23 Petitioner
added that Wacoal’s accreditation with petitioner had
already been transferred to the Pacific Manpower &
Management Services, Inc. (Pacific) as of August 6, 1997.24
Thus, petitioner asserts that it was already substituted by
Pacific Manpower.25
Pacific Manpower moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s
claims against it.26 It alleged that there was no employer-
employee relationship between them.27 Therefore, the
claims against it were outside the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter.28 Pacific Manpower argued that the employment
contract should first be presented so that the employer’s
contractual obligations might be identified.29 It further
denied that it assumed liability for petitioner’s illegal
acts.30
On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s
complaint.31 Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C.
Ramos ruled that her complaint was based on mere
allegations.32 The Labor Arbiter found that there was no
excess payment of placement fees, based on the official
receipt presented by petitioner.33 The Labor Arbiter found
unnecessary a discussion on petitioner’s transfer of
obligations to Pacific34 and considered
_______________
22 Id., at p. 56.
23 Id., at pp. 56 and 62.
24 Id., at p. 57.
25 Id.
26 Id., at p. 107.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id., at p. 108.
30 Id.
31 Id., at pp. 101-112.
32 Id., at pp. 108-110.
33 Id., at p. 110.
34 Id., at pp. 111-112.
38
_______________
35 Id.
36 Id., at pp. 113-123.
37 Id., at pp. 125-131.
38 Id., at p. 131.
39 Id., at p. 129.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id., at p. 130.
43 Id.
44 Id., at p. 131.
45 Id.
39
_______________
46 Id.
47 Id., at pp. 132-137.
48 Id., at pp. 139-141.
49 Id., at pp. 142-153.
50 Thirteenth Division, decision penned by Associate Justice Renato C.
Dacudao with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao,
concurring.
51 Rollo, pp. 43-44.
52 Id.
40
_______________
53 Id.
54 Id., at pp. 3-29.
55 Id., at p. 11.
56 Id.
41
_______________
57 Id., at pp. 9-11.
58 Leonardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 389 Phil. 118,
126-127; 333 SCRA 589, 598 (2000) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo, G.R. No. 92859, February 1,
1993, 218 SCRA 293, 301 [Per J. Campos, Jr., Second Division].
62 Id.
42
_______________
63 Bascon v. Court of Appeals, 466 Phil. 719, 732; 422 SCRA 122, 133 (2004)
[Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
64 Const., Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
65 359 Phil. 955; 299 SCRA 608 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
43
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. The
Constitution itself, in Article XIII, Section 3, guarantees the
special protection of workers, to wit:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions
of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy
and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
. . . .
This public policy should be borne in mind in this case because to
allow foreign employers to determine for and by themselves
whether an overseas contract worker may be dismissed on the
ground of illness would encourage illegal or arbitrary
pretermination of employment contracts.66 (Emphasis supplied,
citation omitted)
_______________
66 Id., at pp. 968-969; pp. 618-619.
67 540 Phil. 65; 511 SCRA 44 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].
44
_______________
68 Id., at pp. 80-81; pp. 60-61.
45
_______________
69 Rollo, p. 11.
70 Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Dy, G.R. No. 164860,
February 2, 2010, 611 SCRA 329, 338 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division],
citing Dizon v. NLRC, 259 Phil. 523, 529; 180 SCRA 52, 57-58 (1989) [Per
J. Feliciano, Third Division].
71 Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 527 Phil. 248, 257; 494 SCRA 661, 667 (2006) [Per J.
Austria-Martinez, First Division].
46
_______________
72 Labor Code, Art. 281; See also Tamson’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 192881, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 374, 383 [Per J.
Mendoza, Third Division].
47
48
II
_______________
75 Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Doza, et al., G.R. No. 175558,
February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 412, 426 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Id.
79 Id.
49
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as
the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,
states that overseas workers who were terminated without
just, valid, or authorized cause “shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve
(12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months
for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.”
50
this section shall be paid within four (4) months from the
approval of the settlement by the appropriate authority.
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid
or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers
shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee
with interest of twelve (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
. . . .
(Emphasis supplied)
_______________
80 Rep. Act. No. 8042 (1995), Sec. 15.
51
_______________
81 Article 111. Attorney’s Fees.—(a) In cases of unlawful withholding
of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to
ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
82 601 Phil. 245; 582 SCRA 254 (2009) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En
Banc].
83 Rep. Act. No. 8042 (1995), Sec. 10, par. 5.
84 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., supra at pp. 302 and 304;
p. 302.
85 Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, G.R. No. 179532, May 30,
2011, 649 SCRA 369, 380 [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
52
53
54
_______________
86 Supra note 75 at p. 430.
55
_______________
87 Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5).
56
_______________
88 Rollo, pp. 266-267.
89 Id., at pp. 309-328.
90 Id., at p. 311.
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 Id., at pp. 364-371.
94 Id., at p. 371.
95 Id., at p. 304.
57
_______________
96 Const., Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
97 Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155, 1164 (1957) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc].
98 Id., at p. 1164.
99 Id., at p. 1177.
100 Id.
101 Id., at pp. 1164 and 1177.
102 Id., at pp. 1165 and 1177.
guishing between those falling within the class and those
who do not fall within the class.103 A law that does not
violate the equal protection clause prescribes a reasonable
classification.104
A reasonable classification “(1) must rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the
law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) must apply equally to all members of the same class.”105
The reinstated clause does not satisfy the requirement of
reasonable classification.
In Serrano, we identified the classifications made by the
reinstated clause. It distinguished between fixed-period
overseas workers and fixed-period local workers.106 It also
distinguished between overseas workers with employment
contracts of less than one year and overseas workers with
employment contracts of at least one year.107 Within the
class of overseas workers with at least one-year
employment contracts, there was a distinction between
those with at least a year left in their contracts and those
with less than a year left in their contracts when they were
illegally dismissed.108
The Congress’ classification may be subjected to judicial
review. In Serrano, there is a “legislative classification
which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage
of a suspect class.”109
_______________
103 Id., at p. 1164.
104 People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12, 18 (1939) [Per J. Moran, En Banc].
105 Id., at p. 18.
106 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., supra note 82 at pp.
294-298; p. 302.
107 Id., at pp. 287-292; p. 283.
108 Id., at pp. 292-294; p. 290.
109 Id., at p. 282; p. 278.
59
_______________
110 Const., Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
111 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., supra note 82 at p. 286;
p. 302.
112 Id., at pp. 297-298; p. 294.
113 Id., at p. 298; p. 295.
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 Id., at pp. 287-292; p. 292.
117 Id.
60
one year: those who are illegally dismissed with less than
one year left in their contracts shall be entitled to their
salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof, while
those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more
remaining in their contracts shall be covered by the
reinstated clause, and their monetary benefits limited to
their salaries for three months only.”118
We do not need strict scrutiny to conclude that these
classifications do not rest on any real or substantial
distinctions that would justify different treatments in
terms of the computation of money claims resulting from
illegal termination.
Overseas workers regardless of their classifications are
entitled to security of tenure, at least for the period agreed
upon in their contracts. This means that they cannot be
dismissed before the end of their contract terms without
due process. If they were illegally dismissed, the workers’
right to security of tenure is violated.
The rights violated when, say, a fixed-period local
worker is illegally terminated are neither greater than nor
less than the rights violated when a fixed-period overseas
worker is illegally terminated. It is state policy to protect
the rights of workers without qualification as to the place
of employment.119 In both cases, the workers are deprived
of their expected salary, which they could have earned had
they not been illegally dismissed. For both workers, this
deprivation translates to economic insecurity and
disparity.120 The same is true for the distinctions between
overseas workers with an employment contract of less than
one year and overseas workers with at least one year of
employment contract, and between overseas workers with
at least a year left in their contracts and overseas workers
with less than a year left in their contracts when they were
illegally dismissed.
_______________
118 Id., at p. 293; p. 290.
119 Id., at p. 281; p. 308.
120 Id.
61
_______________
121 Id., at p. 277; p. 272.
122 Id.
123 Id., at pp. 276-277; p. 295.
124 Rep. Act. No. 8042 (1995); See also Rep. Act No. 10022 (2010).
125 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., supra note 82 at p. 277;
p. 316.
62
63
_______________
126 See Concurring Opinion of J. Brion in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Services, Inc., supra note 82 at pp. 319-321; pp. 319-320.
127 Id., at p. 301; p. 299.
128 Id., at p. 304; p. 302.
64
_______________
129 Supra note 85 at p. 381.
65
_______________
130 G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
66
_______________
131 Id., at pp. 457-458. This court modified the guidelines laid down in
Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994,
234 SCRA 78, 97 [Per J. Vitug, En Banc] to embody Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas Circular No. 799.
132 Nacar v. Gallery Frames, supra note 130 at p. 457.
133 Id.
67
_______________
134 Palanca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106685, December 2, 1994,
238 SCRA 593, 601 [Per J. Quiason, En Banc].
135 Maritime Company of the Philippines v. Reparations Commission,
148-B Phil. 65, 70; 40 SCRA 70, 74 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
68
IV
_______________
136 ATCI Overseas Corporation v. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11,
2010, 632 SCRA 528, 533 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division], citing
Datuman v. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc.,
591 Phil. 662, 673; 571 SCRA 41, 52-53 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro,
First Division]; Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, Sec.
2(b).
69
_______________
137 Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 7.
138 PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 821, 832; 370
SCRA 155, 165 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
139 See also Azucena, Jr., C.A., Everyone’s Labor Code, p. 29. (5th ed.,
2007).
70
_______________
140 Id.
71
V
Many times, this court has spoken on what Filipinos
may encounter as they travel into the farthest and most
difficult reaches of our planet to provide for their families.
In Prieto v. NLRC:141
_______________
141 G.R. No. 93699, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 232 [Per J. Cruz,
First Division].
142 Id., at pp. 239-240, also cited in Triple Eight Integrated Services v.
NLRC, 359 Phil. 955, 968; 299 SCRA 608, 618 (1998) [Per J. Romero,
Third Division].
72
up and, being so, they remember what their work has cost
them. Twitter accounts, Facetime, and many other gadgets
and online applications will never substitute for their lost
physical presence.
Unknown to them, they keep our economy afloat
through the ebb and flow of political and economic crises.
They are our true diplomats, they who show the world the
resilience, patience, and creativity of our people. Indeed, we
are a people who contribute much to the provision of
material creations of this world.
This government loses its soul if we fail to ensure decent
treatment for all Filipinos. We default by limiting the
contractual wages that should be paid to our workers when
their contracts are breached by the foreign employers.
While we sit, this court will ensure that our laws will
reward our overseas workers with what they deserve: their
dignity.
Inevitably, their dignity is ours as well.
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.
73
_______________
1 Enacted on June 7, 1995.
2 Enacted on July 8, 2010.
74
_______________
3 G.R. No. 167614, 601 Phil. 245; 582 SCRA 254 (2009).
4 Id., at pp. 312-324; pp. 321-324.
75
76
77
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 322-324; pp. 321-324; italics and emphasis supplied, citations
omitted.
78
Article XIII
x x x x
Section 18. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local
and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of
work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility
between workers and employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the
fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
(b) The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
Towards this end, the State shall provide adequate and timely
social, economic and legal services to Filipino migrant workers.
x x x x
(e) Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty. In this regard, it is imperative that an effective
mechanism be instituted to ensure that the rights and interests of
distressed overseas Filipinos, in general, and Filipino migrant
workers, in particular, documented or undocumented, are
adequately protected and safeguarded.
Under these terms, R.A. No. 8042 is discernibly a piece
of social legislation that the State enacted in the exercise of
its police power, precisely to give teeth and arms to the
constitutional provisions on labor under its aim to
“establish a higher standard of protection and
promotion of the welfare of migrant worker, their
families and of overseas Filipinos in distress.”6
Otherwise stated, it draws power and life from the
constitutional provisions that it seeks to concretize and
implement.
As I pointed out in my Serrano Opinion, “the express
policy declarations of R.A. No. 8042 show that its purposes
are reiterations of the very same policies enshrined in the
Constitution x x x [They] patently characterize R.A. No.
8042 as a direct implementation of the constitutional
objectives on Filipino overseas work so that it must be read
and understood in terms
_______________
6 The long title of R.A. No. 8042.
80
of these policy objectives. Under this interpretative guide,
any provision in R.A. No. 8042 inimical to the interest of an
overseas Filipino worker (OFW) cannot have any place in
the law.”7 [Underscoring supplied]
Note also (again, as I reflected in my Serrano Opinion)
that while R.A. No. 8042 acknowledges that the State shall
“promote full employment,” it likewise provides that “the
State does not promote overseas employment as a means to
sustain economic growth and national development. The
existence of overseas employment program rests solely on the
assurance that the dignity and fundamental human rights
and freedom of Filipino citizens shall not, at any time, be
compromised and violated.”8 The Act, however, concludes
its Declaration of Policies by stating that “[n]onetheless,
the deployment of Filipino overseas workers, whether land-
based or sea-based, by local service contractors and
manning agencies employing them shall be encouraged.
Appropriate incentives may be extended to them.”9
[Underscoring supplied]
Thus, the Act recognizes that to encourage greater
deployment efforts, “incentives” can be given, BUT, to
service contractors and manning agencies ONLY.10
Contractors’ and agencies’ principals, i.e., the foreign
employers in whose behalf the contractors and agencies
recruit OFWs are not among those to whom incentives can
be given as they are not mentioned at all in the Act.11
Of particular importance to the present case is Section
10 of R.A. No. 8042 which governs the OFWs’ money
claims.12
_______________
7 Supra note 3 at pp. 313-314; pp. 312-313.
8 Id., at p. 314; p. 313.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 pertinently reads:
SECTION 10. Money Claims.—Notwithstanding any provision of law to
the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) shall have the
82
_______________
13 Supra note 3 at p. 316; p. 315.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at p. 317; p. 317.
17 Id.
83
_______________
18 Id., at p. 319; p. 319.
19 Id., at p. 320; id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
84
_______________
23 Id., at p. 320; pp. 319-320.
24 Id.
25 Id., at p. 320; p. 320.
26 Id., at pp. 320-321; p. 320.
27 Id., at p. 321; p. 320.
28 Id.
85
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.