SAMEER VS.

MARICEL
Facts: sometime in 1999, petitioner company Sameer Overseas Placement Agency,
Inc. deployed respondents Maricel N. Bajaro et al to Taiwan to work as operators for
its foreign principal, Mabuchi Motors Company Ltd. Under individual two-year
employment contracts. Under the said engagement, they are to receive a monthly
salary of Taiwan dollars 15, 840.00 each. Prior to their deployment, each respondent
paid petitioner company the amount of 47,900 as placement fee. However, after
working for only a period of eleven months and before the expiration of the twoyear period, respondents employment contracts were terminated and they were
repatriated to the Philippines. Dis prompted the filing of the complaint for illegal
dismissal against the petitioner with the payment of their salaries and wages
covering the expenses they have paid including the collection of placement fees.
Respondents likewise sought to be reimbursed for the free tickets alleging that the
contract provided free transportation from in and out Taiwan. Collectively,
respondents prayed for the award of damages as well as attorneys fees. In defense,
petitioners claimed that respondents were validly retrenched due to severe business
losses suffered by their foreign principal. They denied the alleged deductions
amounting to NT$7,500.00 from petitioners monthly salaries and that,
consequently, petitioners are not entitled to damages and attorneys fees.
Labor arbiter ruling:
Labor Arbiter found respondents to have been illegally dismissed for petitioners
failure to substantiate their defense of a valid retrenchment. Hence, the Labor
Arbiter granted respondents money claims, citing Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 804210 as then applicable
NLRCs Ruling:
the NLRC vacated and set aside12 the Labor Arbiters Decision upon a finding that
all the requirements for a valid retrenchment have been established, thus, the
respondents were not illegally dismissed. Therefore, it found that the awards of
salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contracts and the refund of
placement fees to be bereft of any basis in fact and in law.
CAs Ruling:
The CA concurred with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that petitioners failed to
comply with the substantive and procedural requirements to effect a valid
retrenchment. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the
Resolution
Issue:
WON Labor Arbiter misconstrued and misapplied Section 10 of R.A. 8042.
SC Ruling:
SC ruled in favor of the respondents. Respondents illegal dismissal complaint with
money claims is anchored on the overseas employment contracts with petitioners
and the allegations that they were dismissed without just, valid or authorized cause.
With these allegations, Section 10 afore-quoted clearly applies in this case. As
petitioners failed to establish a valid retrenchment, respondents were clearly
dismissed without just, valid or authorized cause. Consequently, petitioner Lamzon
is jointly and severally liable with petitioner company To reiterate, Section 10 of R.A.
8042 provides that [i]f the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the

corporate officers and directors x x x shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable
with the corporation x x x for any claims and damages that may be due to the
overseas workers.

MA. LUISA OLARTE VS. LEOCADA NAYONA

Facts:
On April 8, 1998, Respondent Nayona executed a contract of employment as a
domestic helper/caretaker with petitioner Sunace International Management
Services for its Taiwan-based agency/employer Chung I Manpower Agency.
Respondents employment covered a period of one (1) year or from May 1998
-1999. On May 22, 1998, respondent was deployed to Taiwan to work for Wu Dian
Man with a monthly salary of New Taiwan $ 15,840.00. On June 11, 1998, Tseng
Wen, the owner/manager of Chung I Manpower Agency pre-terminated respondents
work assignment at Wu Dian Man, with an express promise of another employment.
But Tseng Wen reneged on his commitment. Consequently, respondent was
repatriated to the Philippines on June 13, 1998. As a result, aggrieved respondent
then filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch of Dagupan City a complaint for
illegal dismissal, payment of salaries, refund of placement fee and other monetary
claims against petitioners.
Labor Arbiters Ruling:
LA declared the dismissal of the complainant is illegal. Ordering respondents Chung
I Manpower Agency/Tseng Wen-Shu and Sunace International Management Services
to pay jointly and severally the complainant her unpaid salary, salary of the
unexpired portion, refund of placement fee, overtime pay for 3 weeks as well as the
moral and exemplary damages.
NLRCs ruling:
NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA with modification the Arbiters Decision with
respect to the monetary award. It further decided that the claims for payment of
damages and overtime pay are dismissed for lack of merit.
CAs ruling:
CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC that the respondent is illegally dismissed and
then stretched out that in termination cases, the burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. In this
case, the petitioner miserably failed to prove that private respondent was legally
terminated and respondent should be paid her salaries for the unexpired portion of
her employment contract.
Petitioner then filed a certiorari as to the CAs ruling with regard to the amount of
salary which would be awarded to an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker.
Issue:
WON Court of Appeals erred in interpreting Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042[6]
on the amount of the salary which should be awarded to an illegally dismissed
overseas contract worker.
SC ruling:

A plain reading of the above provision clearly reveals that the choice of which
amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker comes into play
only when the employment contract has a term of at least one (1) year or more. SC
is not in accord with the ruling of the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals that
respondent should be paid her salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment
contract. Records show that her actual employment was only for twenty-one (21)
days. Following the above provision, SC holds that she is entitled only to an amount
corresponding to her three (3) months salary, which is obviously less than her
salaries for the unexpired portion of her one-year employment contract.

SKIPPERS LIMITED PACIFIC INC. ET AL VS. NATHANIEL DOZA ET AL.

Facts:
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. deployed, in behalf of Skippers, De Gracia, Lata, and
Aprosta to work on board the vessel MV Wisdom Star. Paragraph 2 of all the
employment contracts stated that Memorandum Circular No. 55, both series of 1996
shall be strictly and faithfully observed. No employment contract was submitted for
Nathaniel Doza. De Gracia, et al. claimed that Skippers failed to remit their
respective allotments for almost five months, compelling them to air their
grievances with the Romanian Seafarers Free Union. On 16 December 1998, ITF
Inspector Adrian Mihalcioiu of the Romanian Seafarers Union sent Captain Savvas of
Cosmos Shipping a fax letter, relaying the complaints of his crew, namely: home
allotment delay, unpaid salaries (only advances), late provisions, lack of laundry
services (only one washing machine), and lack of maintenance of the vessel
(perforated and unrepaired deck). To date, however, Skippers only failed to remit
the home allotment for the month of December 1998. De Gracia, et al. then
unceremoniously discharged from MV Wisdom Stars and immediately repatriated.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, Garcia et al. then filed illegal dismissal in the Labor
Arbiter. The case involves respondents prayer for payment of their home allotment
for the month of December 1998, salaries for the unexpired portion of their
contracts, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
Labor Arbiters Ruling:
Labor Arbiter dismissed De Gracia, et al.s complaint for illegal dismissal because
the seafarers voluntarily pre-terminated their employment contracts by demanding
for immediate repatriation due to dissatisfaction with the ship. The Labor Arbiter
held that such voluntary pre-termination of employment contract is akin to
resignation, a form of termination by employee of his employment contract under
Article 285 of the Labor Code.
NLRCs ruling:
NLRC dismissed De Gracia, et al.s appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor
Arbiters decision and considered De Gracia, et al.s claim for home allotment for
December 1998 unsubstantiated, since home allotment is a benefit which De
Gracia, et al. must prove their entitlement to. However, it denied the claim for
illegal dismissal because De Gracia, et al. were not able to refute the telex received
by Skippers from the vessels master that De Gracia, et al. voluntarily preterminated their contracts and demanded immediate repatriation due to their
dissatisfaction with the ships operations.
CA ruling:

CA declared the Labor Arbiter and NLRC to have committed grave abuse of
discretion when they relied upon the telex message of the captain of the vessel
stating that De Gracia, et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts and
demanded immediate repatriation. The telex message was a self-serving document
that does not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the
conclusion that petitioners indeed voluntarily demanded their immediate
repatriation. For this reason, the repatriation of De Gracia, et al. prior to the
expiration of their contracts showed they were illegally dismissed from employment.
Issue:
1. WON the Court of Appeals seriously erred in not giving due credence to the
masters telex message showing that the respondents voluntarily requested to be
repatriated.
2. WON The Court of Appeals seriously erred in finding petitioners liable to pay
backwages and the alleged unremitted home allotment pay despite the finding of
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the claims are baseless.
SC ruling:
SC denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision, but modified the award. For a
workers dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both procedural and
substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes
procedural due process, while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes
substantive due process. In this case, there was no written notice furnished to De
Gracia, et al. regarding the cause of their dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written
notice (telex) to Skippers, the local manning agency, claiming that De Gracia, et al.
were repatriated because the latter voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts. As to
backwages and allotment, Contrary to the claim of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that
the home allotment pay is in the nature of extraordinary money where the burden
of proof is shifted to the worker who must prove he is entitled to such monetary
benefit, Section 8 of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996, states that
the allotment actually constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of the seafarers
salary. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 (RA 10022) amended Section 10 of the
Migrant Workers Act, and once again reiterated the provision of awarding the
unexpired portion of the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less. Therefore, SC modify the CAs imposition of
award, and grant to De Gracia, et al. salaries representing the unexpired portion of
their contracts, instead of salaries for three (3) months.