Case Digest : Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. vs. Villanos, 456 SCRA 313, G.R. No. 151303 April 15, 2005

Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment.

Nonito Villanos is a contract worker recruited by petitioner to work as a caretaker in Taiwan.

Facts:

Villanos applied to work overseas thru Athenna International Manpower Services sometime in February 1998.

Villanos paid P30,000 cash as advance / partial placement fee, while for the remaining amount, Athenna gave him a schedule of his monthly salary deduction payments for one year for his balance, which included interest and other charges, amounting to P90,725

Villanos signed a Contract of Employment with Wei Yu Hsien where it was stipulated that he was to work as caretaker for one year, ten months and twenty-eight days with a monthly pay of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 15,840.

Upon his arrival in Taiwan, he was assigned to a mechanical shop, owned by Hsien, as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car lifters, instead of the job for which he was hired. He did not, however, complain because he needed money to pay for the debts he incurred back home.

Barely a month after his placement, he was terminated by Hsien.  On November 14, 1998, respondent was made to sign a document stating that he was not qualified for the position.  He did not, however, sign the document.  At dawn of November 16, 1998, respondent was handed his salary, with the accompanying computation and instruction for his departure to the Philippines.

he immediately went to petitioner’s office and confronted its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the assignment given to him and demanded that he be reimbursed the P30,000 he paid as downpayment.  Instead of returning the said amount, petitioner gave him a summary of expenses amounting to P30,493, which it allegedly incurred for his deployment abroad.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint docketed as POEA Case No. RV98-12-1586, before the Adjudication Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

However, because of financial constraints, he had to go home to Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte where, on February 17, 1999, he filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery of unpaid salaries and other benefits before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 9, Dipolog City.

Decision of the Labor Arbiter:

The Labor Arbiter declared that the respondents’ act for having severed complainant’s employment, after service of one (1) month founded on unjustifiable grounds and encroaching against the safeguard of fundamental due process and security of tenure clauses as well as for being in contradiction to the well engendered basic policy of the state to grant ample protection to labor, to be illegal.

Decision of NLRC

Reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter  It found that respondent was not at all dismissed, much less illegally.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals held that Wei Yu Hsien violated the contract of employment when respondent was made to work as hydraulic installer/repairer, not as caretaker.  The appellate court concluded that the supposed voluntary resignation of respondent was inconsistent with his immediate demand for refund of the placement fee upon his arrival in the Philippines; his filing of an administrative case before the POEA Adjudication Office; and his subsequent filing of the complaint with the Labor Arbiter.

Issues:

Did the respondent voluntarily resign or was he illegally dismissed?

How is the monetary award properly computed?  

- (a) the award of his supposed salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract, i.e., NT$348,480.00

- (b) the award of “remittance of placement fee” in the amount of P99,110.00?

Ruling:

No, Villanos was illegally dismissed.

An employee voluntarily resigns when he finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.

Records show that upon his repatriation from Taiwan, respondent immediately went to petitioner’s office and confronted its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the assignment given to him which was contrary to the agreed position of caretaker, for which he specifically applied.  He demanded that he be reimbursed the P30,000 he paid as down payment.  When refused, he lodged a complaint with the POEA.  He also immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before Labor Arbiter Cresencio R. Iniego, upon his arrival in his hometown, indicating that respondent did not voluntarily resign, but was forced to resign, which was tantamount to a dismissal. Petitioner did not refute respondent’s contentions regarding these incidents.  Further, it failed to prove the legality of the dismissal, despite the fact that the burden of proof lies on the employment and recruitment agency.  Thus, the presumption stands to the effect that respondent was illegally dismissed by his employer.

Even assuming respondent was a mere probationary employee as claimed by petitioner, respondent could only be terminated for a pertinent and just cause, such as when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards of employment made known to him by his employer at the time of his engagement. Here, it appears that the petitioner failed to prove that, at the time of respondent’s engagement, the employer’s reasonable standards for the job were made known to respondent.  Moreover, in this case, respondent was assigned to a job different from the one he applied and was hired for.

Second Issue:

Pertinent to this issue is Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8042

SEC. 10.  Money Claims. - . . .

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

.  .  .

Thus, for the computation of the lump-sum salary due an illegally dismissed overseas employee, there are two clauses as points of reckoning: first is the cumulative salary for the unexpired portion of his employment; and the other is the grant of three months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is lesser.

Since respondent was dismissed after only one month of service, the unexpired portion of his contract is admittedly one year, nine months and twenty-eight days.  But the applicable clause is not the first but the second: three months salary for every year of the unexpired term, as the lesser amount, hence it is what is due the respondent.

Note that the fraction of nine months and twenty-eight days is considered as one whole year following the Labor Code.  Thus, respondent’s lump-sum salary should be computed as follows: 

 

	3 months x 2   (years)	=						6 months worth of salary
	6 months x   (NT$) 15,840	=						NT$95,040, subject to proper conversion to Philippine currency by Labor Arbiter Cresencio Iniego.

Under the aforequoted provision, an illegally dismissed overseas worker is also entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum.

We note that while respondent was assessed P94,000 in placement fee, he paid only P30,000 on the agreement that the balance of P64,000 would be paid on a monthly salary deduction upon his deployment.  Hence, we cannot grant respondent reimbursement of the entire assessed amount of P94,000.  He is only entitled to the reimbursement of the amount of placement fee he actually paid, which is the P30,000 he gave as downpayment plus interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum.

Lastly, because of the breach of contract and bad faith alleged against the employer and the petitioner, we must sustain the award of P50,000 in moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages, in addition to attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the aggregate monetary awards.