FACTS:

The case is about Julita M. Aldovino, Joan B. Lagrimas, Winnie B. Lingat, Chita A. Sales, Sherly
L. Guinto, Revilla S. De Jesus, and Laila V. Orpilla who were the petitioners, whom are OFW’s
from Taiwan, that filled a petition to the Court of Appeals for having illegally dismissed from
service by the respondents, Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development
Services, Inc., Sage International Development Company, Ltd., and Alberto C. Alvina.
Their respective employment contract when they were hired for Dipper Semi-Conductor
Company were that they would be provided with a fixed monthly salary, an 8 hour working day
and an overtime pay among others however, when they arrived in Taiwan, they were made to
sign another contract that states thay would only be paid on a piece-rate basis. Their overtime
premium was also not paid and they work from 8am to 9pm for 6 days a week.
Before they could be deployed for work, Gold and Green Manpower required each of them to
pay a ₱72,000.00 as placement fee but since the applicants were unable to produce the amount
on their own, they were referred by the company to E-cash Paylite and Financing where they
can get a loan for the fees.
They were dismissed by Dipper Semi-Conductor when they were no longer interested with the
petitioner’s service and made them pack their belonging immediately and dropped off to a train
station in Taipei.
ISSUE:
Did the respondents really violate the due process because of the deprivation of the overseas
workers of their monetary claims without any discernable valid purpose?
Were the petitioners illegally dismissed and, consequently entitled to the reimbursement of their
placement fees and payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees?
Did the Compromise Agreement barred all other claims against respondents?
RULING:
The petition was granted to the petitioners. The ruling of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with
the modification wherein the Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development
Services, Inc., Sage International Development Company, Ltd., and Alberto C. Alvina were
ordered to pay Aldovino and the group the equivalent amount of the salary that they would earn
for the unexpired part of their employment contract, their placement fee with a with a 12%
interest per annum, fifty thousand pesos each for the moral damages, twenty-five thousand
each for the exemplary damages, the attorney’s fees that is 10% of their monetary rewards and
6% of their monetary rewards per annum for the legal interest except for the reimbursement of
their placement fee.
ARGUMENT:
Ending ENDO or End-of-Contract would both have it’s positive and negative effect. There is a
possibility that most contractual workers would be able to be regularized and attain much
greater benefits than when they are contractual workers such as more pension benefits, more
vacation, sick leave credits, life insurance and many more. However, if companies are to
regularize their entire workforce, then they might increase the cost for manufacturing,
construction, services, and many other employers that heavily rely on contractual workers and
as these things increase, there is also a possibility that goods and services would also have
higher costs which means a higher cost of living.