You are on page 1of 2

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC.

, Petitioner,

vs.

JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014

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 LAs
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 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 clauseor 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 declaredunconstitutional 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.