The petitioner agency deployed the respondent to work in Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract. The respondent was allegedly found incompetent by his employer and faced termination, but agreed to accept a lower salary to retain his job. Upon returning to the Philippines, the respondent filed a complaint claiming he was forced to sign a new contract in Arabic that stipulated a lower salary without overtime pay. The court ruled that R.A. No. 8042 prohibits substituting or altering employment contracts approved by DOLE to the worker's prejudice without DOLE approval. The unauthorized alteration of reducing the respondent's salary was void for violating the original, DOLE-approved contract.
The petitioner agency deployed the respondent to work in Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract. The respondent was allegedly found incompetent by his employer and faced termination, but agreed to accept a lower salary to retain his job. Upon returning to the Philippines, the respondent filed a complaint claiming he was forced to sign a new contract in Arabic that stipulated a lower salary without overtime pay. The court ruled that R.A. No. 8042 prohibits substituting or altering employment contracts approved by DOLE to the worker's prejudice without DOLE approval. The unauthorized alteration of reducing the respondent's salary was void for violating the original, DOLE-approved contract.
Original Description:
Original Title
57. Placewell International Services vs. Camote, Bejerano.docx
The petitioner agency deployed the respondent to work in Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract. The respondent was allegedly found incompetent by his employer and faced termination, but agreed to accept a lower salary to retain his job. Upon returning to the Philippines, the respondent filed a complaint claiming he was forced to sign a new contract in Arabic that stipulated a lower salary without overtime pay. The court ruled that R.A. No. 8042 prohibits substituting or altering employment contracts approved by DOLE to the worker's prejudice without DOLE approval. The unauthorized alteration of reducing the respondent's salary was void for violating the original, DOLE-approved contract.
The petitioner agency deployed the respondent to work in Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract. The respondent was allegedly found incompetent by his employer and faced termination, but agreed to accept a lower salary to retain his job. Upon returning to the Philippines, the respondent filed a complaint claiming he was forced to sign a new contract in Arabic that stipulated a lower salary without overtime pay. The court ruled that R.A. No. 8042 prohibits substituting or altering employment contracts approved by DOLE to the worker's prejudice without DOLE approval. The unauthorized alteration of reducing the respondent's salary was void for violating the original, DOLE-approved contract.
Pre-Employment of Workers; Substitution of Employment Contracts
Case No 57, Bejerano
Placewell International Services vs. Camote FACTS: Petitioner agency deployed respondent Camote to work as building carpenter for SAAD at Saudi Arabia for a contract of two years. At the job site, respondent allegedly found incompetent by his foreign employer, thus the latter decide to terminate his services. However, respondent pleaded for his retention and consented to accept lower salary. Thus, SAAD retained respondent until his return to the Philippines two years after. Soon after, respondent filed a complaint for monetary claims against the petitioner alleging that when he and his fellow Filipino workers were required to sign another employment contract written in Arabic under the constraints of losing their jobs if they refused. The new contract stipulates a lower salary without any overtime pay. ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner may substitute contact. RULING: No. R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the substitution or alteration to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the DOLE. The unauthorized alteration in the employment, particularly the diminution in his salary was rendered void for violation POEA-approved contract which set the minimum standards, terms and condition of his employment. Moreover, the court found that there was no dismissal by SAAD, the termination was clearly a ploy to pressure the respondents to agree a lower wage rate for continued employment. Thus, the original employment contract subsists. MAINPOINT: R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the substitution or alteration to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the DOLE.