Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cuartocruz v. Active Works Inc - 24 April 2019 - (Hernandez)

    Uploaded by

    luigi vida
    144 views1 page
    This case involves the termination of employment of Arlene A. Cuartocruz as a domestic helper in Hong Kong. The Court held that (1) the recruitment agency and employer are jointly liable for the petitioner's money claims under RA 8042; and (2) the provision capping monetary claims at three months' salary for each unexpired year of the contract is unconstitutional as it violates equal protection and due process. The Court explained that RA 8042 aims to provide recourse for overseas Filipino workers and ensure payment of their claims, and that the three-month cap provision imposes an unequal disadvantage on some overseas workers.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Cuartocruz v. Active Works Inc_24 April 2019_(Hernandez).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves the termination of employment of Arlene A. Cuartocruz as a domestic helper in Hong Kong. The Court held that (1) the recruitment agency and employer are jointly liable for the petitioner's money claims under RA 8042; and (2) the provision capping monetary claims at three months' salary for each unexpired year of the contract is unconstitutional as it violates equal protection and due process. The Court explained that RA 8042 aims to provide recourse for overseas Filipino workers and ensure payment of their claims, and that the three-month cap provision imposes an unequal disadvantage on some overseas workers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    144 views1 page

    Cuartocruz v. Active Works Inc - 24 April 2019 - (Hernandez)

    Uploaded by

    luigi vida
    This case involves the termination of employment of Arlene A. Cuartocruz as a domestic helper in Hong Kong. The Court held that (1) the recruitment agency and employer are jointly liable for the petitioner's money claims under RA 8042; and (2) the provision capping monetary claims at three months' salary for each unexpired year of the contract is unconstitutional as it violates equal protection and due process. The Court explained that RA 8042 aims to provide recourse for overseas Filipino workers and ensure payment of their claims, and that the three-month cap provision imposes an unequal disadvantage on some overseas workers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ARLENE A. CUARTOCRUZ v. ACTIVE WORKS, INC., and MA. ISABEL E.

    HERMOSA, Branch Manager


    July 24, 2019 | JARDELEZA, J | G.R. No. 209072

    FACTS
     Arlene A. Cuartocruz and Cheng Chi Ho, a HK national, entered into a contract of employment whereby
    petitioner shall work as the Ho’s domestic helper for two years. Respondent Active Works, Inc. (AWI), a
    Philippine corporation engaged in the recruitment of domestic helpers in Hong Kong, is petitioner's
    agency, and respondent Ma. Isabel Hermosa is its Branch Manager.
     Petitioner received a warning letter from her employer, stating that she is required to improve her
    attentiveness in performing her work within one month, failing which the letter shall serve as a written
    notice of the termination of her employment contract effective 1 month after. On the same day, petitioner
    wrote a reply apologizing.
     A few days after, Cheng Chi Ho informed the Immigration Department of Wangchai, Hong Kong that he is
    terminating the contract with petitioner effective immediately for the following reasons: "disobey order
    (sic), unmatch the contract which she submit before (sic), [and] refuse to care my baby (sic)." Petitioner
    filed a case against her employer before the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board, but it was
    eventually dismissed and petitioner was repatriated at the instance of AWI.
     LA: termination without notice was valid and legal. NLRC: Set aside decision of LA. CA: Affirmed with
    modifications NLRC’s decision. CA- MR: Petitioner filed a partial motion for reconsideration 30 pertaining
    to the award of three-months' salary. CA denied based on Sec. 10 RA 8042.

    ISSUE(S)/HELD/RATIO
    1. WON the CA erred in applying the provision in Section 10, RA 8042? Yes, Respondents cannot escape
    liability from petitioner's money claims.
     Section 10 of RA 8042 provides that the employer and the recruitment or placement agency are
    jointly liable for money claims arising from the employment relationship or any contract involving
    overseas Filipino workers. If the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate
    officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily
    liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
     In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their foreign
    principals, RA 8042 precisely affords OFWs with a recourse and assures them of immediate and
    sufficient payment of what is due them.
     The proviso "for three months for every year of the unexpired term [of the employment contract],
    whichever is less" has been declared unconstitutional by this Court for violating the equal protection
    clause and substantive due process.
     In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., we explained that the said clause contains a suspect
    classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed- term employees who are
    illegally discharged, it imposes a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of
    one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-
    term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a
    peculiar disadvantage. Moreover, there is no compelling state interest that the subject clause may
    possibly serve.

    DOCTRINE: The proviso "for three months for every year of the unexpired term [of the employment contract],
    whichever is less" has been declared unconstitutional by this Court for violating the equal protection clause and
    substantive due process.

    You might also like