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
a recruitment and placement agency.

Placement

Agency,

Inc.,

is

Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a oneyear employment contractfor 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 LAs decision. CA affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations
Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three
months worth of salary, thereimbursement of the cost of her repatriation,
and attorneys 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 respondents 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 RepublicAct. 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.