G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.FACTS OF THE CASE:Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency. Responding to an ad it published, respondent, Joy C. Cabiles, submitted her application for a quality control job in Taiwan, and signed with a one-year employment contract for a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00.The agency required her to pay a placement fee of 70,000.00 when she signed the employment contract.She was deployed to work in Taiwan for Wacoal, but was given a position as a cutter.Sameer Overseas Placement Agency 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. According to her, Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.She filed a filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against petitioner and Wacoal for illegal dismissal. Sameers Defense:Respondents termination was due to her inefficiency, negligence in her duties, and her failure to comply with the work requirements [of] her foreign [employer];The agency also claimed that it did not ask for a placement fee of NT$70,000.00 (evidenced by an OR bearing NT% 20,360.00);Petitioner added that Wacoals accreditation with petitioner had already been transferred to the Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (Aug. 06, 1997) thus, obligation is substituted with Pacific, which the latter deniedLabor Arbiter Ruling:Case is dismissed Rationale: Complaint is based on mere allegations.No excess payment of placement fees, based on the official receipt presented by petitionerTransfer of obligation to Pacific is immaterialNLRC Ruling:Joy is illegally dismissedReiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employerIt found that Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove that there were just causes for termination.There was no sufficient proof to show that respondent was inefficient in her work and that she failed to comply with company requirements.41 Furthermore, procedural due process was not observed in terminating respondent.Did not rule on the issue of reimbursement of placement fees for lack of jurisdictionIt refused to entertain the issue of the alleged transfer of obligations to Pacific.It did not acquire jurisdiction over that issue because Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to appeal the Labor Arbiters decision not to rule on the matter.Sameer filed for MR but NLRC dismissed; filed for petition for certiorari at CACA Ruling:Affirmed NLRC with respect to the finding of illegal dismissal, Joys entitlement to the equivalent of three months worth of salary, reimbursement of withheld repatriation expense, and attorneys fees.Remanded case to NLRC to address the validity of petitioners allegations against Pacific.ISSUE OF THE CASE:WON the Court of Appeals erred when it 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 despite the alleged existence of just causes of termination;WON there was a just cause for termination because there was a finding of Wacoal that respondent was inefficient in her work;WON Pacific that should now assume responsibility for Wacoals contractual obligations to the workers originally recruited by petitionerSC RULING/RATIONALE:1.) JUST CAUSE:Sameer Overseas Placement Agencys petition is without merit. SC find for respondent.Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing Joys dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work. They may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply with these standards.59 Failure to comply may be a just cause for their dismissal. Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an employee who is guilty of acts that are inimical to the interest of the employer. While the law acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of workers, it does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence.This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is tempered with the employees right to security of tenure. Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our ConstitutionWith respect to the rights of overseas Filipino workers, follow the principle of lex loci contractus.Pinned - Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRCArticle 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes of termination by the employer. Thus:Art. 282. Termination by employer.An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives;(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.Petitioners allegation that respondent was inefficient in her work and negligent in her duties may, therefore, constitute a just cause for termination under Article 282(b), but only if petitioner was able to prove it.The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that:1) the employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be judged;2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the employee; and3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employees performance assessment.The regular employee must constantly attempt to prove to his or her employer that he or she meets all the standards for employment. Courts should remain vigilant on allegations of the employers failure to communicate work standards that would govern ones employment if [these are] to discharge in good faith [their] duty to adjudicate.2.) DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTPetitioner failed to comply with the due process requirementA valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal.The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination. One of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal.77 The other notice must [inform] the employee of the employers decision. Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given an opportunity to be heard.3.) Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorneys fees and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.Sec 10 of RA 1082 MONEY CLAIMSSEC. 15. REPATRIATION OF WORKERS; EMERGENCY REPATRIATION FUNDThe reinstatement of the clause in Republic Act No. 8042 was not yet in effect at the time of respondents termination from work in 1997. Republic Act No. 8042 before it was amended by Republic Act No. 10022 governs this case.Republic Act. No. 10022, violates the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.SC reiterate their finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, in accordance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of the three-month equivalence of respondents salary must be modified accordingly. Since she started working on June 26, 1997 and was terminated on July 14, 1997, respondent is entitled to her salary from July 15, 1997 to June 25, 1998. To rule otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFWs security of tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law.Respondent is also entitled to an interest of 6% per annum on her money claims from the finality of this judgment.4.) LIABILITIES OF EMPLOYERSC clarify the liabilities of Wacoal as principal and petitioner as the employment agency that facilitated respondents overseas employment.Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the foreign employer and the local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims including claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship and/or damages. This section also provides that the performance bond filed by the local agency shall be answerable for such money claims or damages if they were awarded to the employee.This provision is in line with the states policy of affording protection to labor and alleviating workers plight.The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 ensures that overseas workers have recourse in law despite the circumstances of their employment. By providing that the liability of the foreign employer may be enforced to the full extent against the local agent, the overseas worker is assured of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them.Pinned Prieto vs NLRCThe Court is not unaware of the many abuses suffered by our overseas workers in the foreign land where they have ventured, usually with heavy hearts, in pursuit of a more fulfilling future. Breach of contract, maltreatment, rape, insufficient nourishment, sub-human LODGINGS, insults and other forms of debasement, are only a few of the inhumane acts to which they are subjected by their foreign employers, who probably feel they can do as they please in their own country. While these workers may indeed have relatively little defense against exploitation while they are abroad, that disadvantage must not continue to burden them when they return to their own territory to voice their muted complaint. There is no reason why, in their very own land, the protection of our own laws cannot be extended to them in full measure for the redress of their grievances.The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent attorneys fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment.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.---DARVIN VS CAMacaria Toledo met accused-appellant Imelda Darvin in the latter's residence in Imus, Cavite, through the introductions of common friends Florencio Jake Rivera and Leonila Rivera. Darvin convinced Toledo that by giving her P150,000.00 the latter can immediately leave for the United States without any appearance before the US Embassy. Darvin committed said acts to the effect that she has authority to recruit workers and employees for abroad. Thus, on April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt stating that the "amount of P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa and Air fare."After receiving the money, Darvin assured Toledo that she can leave within one week. When after a week, there was no word from Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire about any development, but could not find Darvin. On May 7, 1992, Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station against Imelda Darvin. Upon further investigation, a certification was issued by the POEA stating that Imelda Darvin is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa and illegal recruitment.Darvin claims that she did not make any promise of employment in the US. She averred that she was approached by Toledo through their common friends to help Toledo secure a passport, a US visa and airline tickets for the US. According to her, the money she received was used as necessary expenses of an intended trip to the US of Toledo and Rivera. She alleged that she was merely acting as a travel agent of Data Travel Agency in assisting individuals to secure passports and visa.ISSUE: Whether Darvin committed illegal recruitmentLAW: Article 13 and 38 of the Labor CodeCASE HISTORY: Cavite RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of simple illegal recruitment but acquitted her of the crime of estafa.Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto.RULING: NO.Art. 13 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides the definition of recruitment and placement as:. . .; b) any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Article 38 of the Labor Code provides:a)Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.To uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two elements need to be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities; and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. As Darvin does not have a license or authority to engage in recruitment activities, the pivotal issue is whether the accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities, as defined under the Labor Code.To prove that accused-appellant was engaged in recruitment activities, it must be shown that the accused appellant gave private respondent the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the private respondent abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed.There was no sufficient evidence to prove that Darvin offered a job to private respondent. What is established is that the Toledo gave Darvin P150,000.00. The claim of the accused that the P150,000.00 was for payment of private respondent's air fare and US visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was presented by both parties during the trial, stated that it was "for Air Fare and Visa to USA." Had the amount been for something else in addition to air fare and visa expenses, such as work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated.By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private respondent, there is nothing to show that accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that the prosecution did not present the testimonies of witnesses who could have corroborated the charge of illegal recruitment, such as Florencio Rivera, and Leonila Rivera, when it had the opportunity to do so. OPINION: