Cases 1

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v.
NLRC
G.R. No. 161757; January 25, 2006
Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales
FACTS:
Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services (Sunace), deployed to Taiwan Divina A.

Montehermozo (Divina) as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract effective February 1, 1997.
The deployment was with the assistance of a Taiwanese broker, Edmund Wang, President of Jet Crown
International Co., Ltd.
After her 12-month contract expired on February 1, 1998, Divina continued working for her Taiwanese
employer, Hang Rui Xiong, for two more years, after which she returned to the Philippines on February
4, 2000.
Shortly after her return or on February 14, 2000, Divina filed a complaint before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) against Sunace, one Adelaide Perez, the Taiwanese broker, and the
employer-foreign principal alleging that she was jailed for three months and that she was underpaid
Reacting to Divina's Position Paper, Sunace filed on April 25, 2000 an ". . . ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT'S
POSITION PAPER" alleging that Divina's 2-year extension of her contract was without its knowledge and
consent, hence, it had no liability attaching to any claim arising therefrom, and Divina in fact executed a
Waiver/Quitclaim and Release of Responsibility and an Affidavit of Desistance, copy of each document
was annexed to said
The Labor Arbiter, rejected Sunace's claim that the extension of Divina's contract for two more years
was without its knowledge and consent.
ISSUE:
Whether the act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the contract of Divina be attributable to Sunace
HELD:
No, the act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the contract of Divina is not attributable to Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-year
employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its "owner" cannot
be held solidarily liable for any of Divina's claims arising from the 2-year employment extension.
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its agency relationship
with its foreign principal when, after the termination of the original employment contract, the foreign
principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate employment contract in
Taiwan.
G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner,

vs.
Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents.
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
FACTS:
For Antonio Serrano, a Filipino seafarer, the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8042, does not magnify the contributions of OFWs to national development, but exacerbates
the hardships borne by them by unduly limiting their entitlement in case of illegal dismissal to their
lump-sum salary either for the unexpired portion of their employment contract “or for three months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” (subject clause). Petitioner claims that the last
clause violates the OFWs’ constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their contract, deprives
them of equal protection and denies them due process.
ISSUE:
Does the 5th paragraph of Section 10, RA 8042 violate the non-impairment of contract clause of the
Constitution?
RULING:
NO. The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a
prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to laws
already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof. Thus, the non-
impairment clause under Section 10, Article II is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that
would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner
changing the intention of the parties thereto.
As aptly observed by the OSG, the enactment of R.A. No. 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of the
employment contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998. Hence, it cannot be argued that
R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause, impaired the employment contract of the parties. Rather,
when the parties executed their 1998 employment contract, they were deemed to have incorporated
into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 8042.
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014
PONENTE: Leonen
TOPIC: Section 10 of RA 8042 vis-a-vis Section 7 of RA 10022
FACTS:
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency.
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.
A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It “confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
passed at all.”
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.
Ruling on the constitutional issue
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the government
may exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence of
any law that supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by any other law. All laws
must be read in light of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution,
the 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 changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
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.

Cases 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v.

Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services (Sunace), deployed to Taiwan Divina A.

ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner,

JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014

TOPIC: Section 10 of RA 8042 vis-a-vis Section 7 of RA 10022

Ruling on the constitutional issue

You might also like