Digests 2.0 PDF
Digests 2.0 PDF
ISSUES / RULING:
Whether or not Respondent Joy was illegally dismissed
Sameer failed to show that there was just cause for Joys dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also
failed to accord her due process of law. Although the law recognizes management prerogative in
the imposition of rules to ensure the compliance of employees of its standards, it should not
however, be abused. It is tempered with the employees right to security of tenure. Workers are
entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be
removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and without
going through the proper procedure. This guarantee is not stripped off of them when they work
in a different jurisdiction. With respect to the rights of overseas Filipino workers, we follow the
principle of lex loci contractus. Thus, by our laws, OFWs may only be terminated for a just or
authorized cause and after compliance with procedural due process requirements as
enumerated in Article 282 of the LC. The allegations of petitioner that respondent was
inefficient in her work and negligent in her duties may constitute a just cause for termination
under Article 282 (b) but only if petitioner was able to prove it.
To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that:
(1) Employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee
will be judged
(2) The standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the
employee
(3) The communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employees performance
assessment
The employer on a regular basis, determined if an employee is still qualified and efficient, based
on work standards. Based on that determination, and after complying with the due process
requirements of notice and hearing, the employer may exercise its management prerogative of
terminating the employee found unqualified.
In this case, no evidence was shown to support the allegations of petitioners. Petitioner did not
even bother to specify what requirements were not met, what efficiency standards were violated
or what particular acts of respondents constituted inefficiency. Furthermore, there was also no
showing that the respondent was sufficiently informed of the standards against which here
work efficiency and performance were judged. The parties conflict as to the position held by
respondent showed that even the matter as basic as the job title was not clear.
Respondents dismissal less than one year from hiring and her repatriation on the same day
also show that the employers did not comply with the due process requirement. Petitioner failed
to comply with the twin notices and hearing requirements.
Respondent Joy having been illegally dismissed is entitled to her salary for the unexpired
portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorneys fees and
reimbursement of amount withheld from her salary.
Whether or not the clause 3 months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less is
unconstitutional
Sec. 10 of RA 8042 states that overseas workers who were terminated without just, valid or
authorized cause shall be entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
12% per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for 3
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. Sec. 15 of the same act states
that repatriation of the worker and the transport of his personal belongings shall be the
primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or deployed the worker overseas. The LC
also entitled the employee to 10% of the amount of withheld wages as attorneys fees when
withholding is unlawful.
This court upholds the award of the NLRC which was affirmed by the CA however, the threemonth equivalent of respondents salary should be increased to the amount equivalent to the
unexpired term of the employment contract.
In Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., this court ruled that the clause or for three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less is unconstitutional for violating
the equal protection clause and substantive due process.
A statue or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. However, such clause
was reinstated in R.A. 8042 upon promulgation of R.A. 10022 in 2010.
R.A. 10022 was promulgated on March 8, 2010. This means that the reinstatement clause was
not yet in effect at the time of respondents termination from work in 1997. R.A. 8042 therefore
governs this case.
We are thus confronted with a unique situation. The law passed incorporates the exact clause
already declared unconstitutional, without any perceived substantial change in the
circumstances.
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a
nullity. This nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment 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 changes as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
We are not convinced by the pleadings submitted by the parties that the situation has so
changed so as to cause us to reverse binding precedent.
The new law puts our overseas workers in the same vulnerable position as they were prior to
Serrano.
We observe that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in R.A. 10022 violates the
constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. We reiterate our finding in Serrano vs.
Gallant Maritime that limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed
overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection
clauses of the Constitution.