Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2014 Case Digest Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
2014 Case Digest Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
2014 Case Digest Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
TOYS
vs.
PONENTE: Leonen
FACTS:
Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a one-year employment contract
for a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal,
Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997. She alleged that in her employment contract, she
agreed to work as quality control for one year. In Taiwan, she was asked to work as a
:
cutter.
Sameer claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal
informed Joy, without prior notice, that she was terminated and that “she should
immediately report to their office to get her salary and passport.” She was asked to
“prepare for immediate repatriation.” Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to
July 14, 1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, Wacoal
deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.
On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC
against petitioner and Wacoal. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed LA’s
decision. CA affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission finding
respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three months’ worth of salary, the
reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorney’s fees
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to the unexpired portion of her salary due
to illegal dismissal.
HELD:
YES. The Court held that the award of the three-month equivalent of
respondent’s salary should be increased to the amount equivalent to the unexpired term
of the employment contract.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,
this court ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less” is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and
substantive due process.
The Court said that they are aware that the clause “or for three (3) months for
:
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” was reinstated in Republic Act No.
8042 upon promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 in 2010.
The Court observed that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in
Republic Act. No. 10022, violates the constitutional rights to equal protection and due
process.96 Petitioner as well as the Solicitor General have failed to show any compelling
change in the circumstances that would warrant us to revisit the precedent.
The Court declared, once again, 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.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Share this:
LEAVE A REPLY
Comment
:
Name * Email *
Website
POST COMMENT
PREVIOUS NEXT
SEARCH
POPULAR POSTS
This work by Law Tech World is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.
:
Privacy Policy