10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

THIRDDIVISION
MERCEDITA ACUA, MYRNA
RAMONES,
and
JULIET
MENDEZ,
Petitioners,

versus

HON. COURT OF APPEALS

and JOIN INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION
and/or
ELIZABETHALAON,
Respondents.

G.R.No.159832

Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,and
VELASCO,JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:

May5,2006

xx

DECISION

QUISUMBING,J.:

[1]
This petition seeks the review and reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated
January 27, 2003, in CAG.R. SP No. 70724, entitled Join International Corporation and/or
Elizabeth Alaon v. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), Mercedita Acua,
JulietMendez,andMyrnaRamones,settingasidetheresolutionsoftheNLRCanddismissing
thecomplaintofpetitioners.

Petitioners are Filipino overseas workers deployed by private respondent Join

International Corporation (JIC), a licensed recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D PreColor
Plastic, Inc., (3D) in Taiwan, Republic of China, under a uniformlyworded employment

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

1/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

contractforaperiodoftwoyears.HereinprivaterespondentElizabethAlaonisthepresidentof
JoinInternationalCorporation.

SometimeinSeptember1999,petitionersfiledwithprivaterespondentsapplicationsfor
employment abroad. They submitted their passports, NBI clearances, medical clearances and
[2]
otherrequirementsandeachpaidaplacementfeeofP14,850,evidencedbyofficialreceipts
issuedbyprivaterespondents.

After their papers were processed, petitioners claimed they signed a uniformlyworded
[3]
employment contract with private respondents which stipulated that they were to work as
machineoperatorswithamonthlysalaryofNT$15,840.00,exclusiveofovertime,foraperiod
oftwoyears.

OnDecember9,1999,with18othercontractworkerstheyleftforTaiwan.Uponarriving
atthejobsite,afactoryownedby3D,theyweremadetosignanothercontractwhichstatedthat
[4]
theirsalarywasonlyNT$11,840.00. Theywerelikewiseinformedthatthedormitorywhich
would serve as their living quarters was still under construction. They were requested to
temporarily bear with the inconvenience but were assured that their dormitory would be
[5]
completedinashorttime.

Petitioners alleged that they were brought to a small room with a cement floor so dirty
andsmellingwithfoulodor(sic).Forty women were jampacked in the room and each person
wasgivenapillow.Sincetheladiescomfortroomwasoutoforder,theyhadtoaskpermission
[6]
tousethemenscomfortroom. Petitionersclaimtheyweremadetoworktwelvehoursaday,
from8:00p.m.to8:00a.m.

The petitioners averred that on December 16, 1999, due to unbearable working
conditions,theywereconstrainedtoinformmanagementthattheywereleaving.Theybookeda
[7]
flighthome,attheirownexpense.Beforetheyleft,theyweremadetosignawrittenwaiver.
[8]
Inaddition,petitionerswerenotpaidanysalaryforworkrenderedonDecember1115,1999.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

2/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

Immediately upon arrival in the Philippines, petitioners went to private respondents

office,narratedwhathappened,anddemandedthereturnoftheirplacementfeesandplanefare.
Privaterespondentsrefused.

On December 28, 1999, private respondents offered a settlement. Petitioner Mendez

[9]
received P15,080. The next day, petitioners Acua and Ramones went back and received
[10]
[11]
P13,640
and P16,200,
respectively. They claim they signed a waiver, otherwise they
[12]
wouldnotberefunded.

[13]
OnJanuary14,2000,petitionersAcuaandMendezinvokingRepublicActNo.8042,
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment/underpayment of salaries or wages,
overtimepay,refundoftransportationfare,paymentofsalaries/wagesfor3months,moraland
exemplary damages, and refund of placement fee before the National Labor Relations
Commission(NLRC).PetitionerRamonesfiledhercomplaintonJanuary20,2000.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring that Myrna Ramones, Juliet
Mendez and Mercedita Acua did not resign voluntarily from their jobs. Thus, private
respondentswereorderedtopayjointlyandseverally,inPhilippinePeso,attherateofexchange
prevailingatthetimeofpayment,thefollowing:
1.MERCEDITAACUA
a.UnexpiredPortion
b.Salaryfor4days
c.Overtimepayfor4hrs.in4
days

NT$95,000.00
2,436.92

1,523.07

NT$98,960.00*

d.Refundofplacementfee
(Less:AmountreceivedperQuitclaim)

e.Moraldamages

f.Exemplarydamages

2.JULIETC.MENDEZ
NT$95,000.00
a.UnexpiredPortion
2,436.92
b.Salaryfor4days

c.Overtimepayfor4hrs.in4
1,523.07
days

PHP45,000.00
13,640.00

d.Refundofplacementfee
(Less:AmountreceivedperQuitclaim)

PHP45,000.00

29,920.00

NT$98,960.00

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

31,360.00
25,000.00
40,000.00

3/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

[14]

15,080.00

e.Moraldamages
f.Exemplarydamages

3.MYRNAR.RAMONES
a.UnexpiredPortion
b.Salaryfor4days
c.Overtimepayfor4hrs.in4
days

NT$95,000.00
2,436.92

1,523.07

NT$98,960.00*

PHP45,000.00
16,200.00

28,800.00
25,000.00

d.Refundofplacementfee
(Less:AmountreceivedperQuitclaim)

e.Moraldamages

f.Exemplarydamages

25,000.00
40,000.00

[15]

40,000.00

The Labor Arbiter likewise ordered the payment of attorneys fees equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the award which totaled NT$296,880.00 and P285,080.00 The other claims
weredismissedforlackofmerit.

Private respondents thereafter appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations
Commission.TheNLRCruledthattheinclusionofAlaonaspartyrespondentinthiscasehad
no basis since respondent JIC, being a juridical person, has a legal personality, separate and
[16]
distinct from its officers.
It partially granted the appeal and ordered that the amounts of
P15,080, P13,640 and P16,200 received under the quitclaim by Mendez, Acua and Ramones,
respectively, be deducted from their respective awards. They were awarded attorneys fees
equivalenttotenpercent(10%)oftheirawardedlaborstandardsclaimsforunpaidwagesand
[17]
overtimepays.Nomoralandexemplarydamagesandplacementfeeswereawarded.
Private
respondentsmotionforpartialreconsiderationwasdenied.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsruledforprivaterespondents.Itsetasidetheresolutions
datedFebruary26,2002andDecember10,2001oftheNLRCanddismissedthecomplaintof
[18]
petitioners.

Intheirpetitionbeforeus,petitionersraisethefollowingissues:
I

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

4/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND/OR

GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN
TAKINGCOGNIZANCEOFTHEPETITIONFORCERTIORARIFILEDBYTHEPRIVATE
RESPONDENTS,DESPITETHEFACTTHATTHENLRCSRESOLUTIONOFDECEMBER
10,2001HADALREADYBECOMEFINALANDEXECUTORY,PRIVATERESPONDENTS
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION WITH THE NLRC HAVING BEEN FILED
OUTOFTIME
II
ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE NLRC, AND IN DISMISSING

[19]

THECOMPLAINTOFTHEPETITIONERS.

Prefatorily,petitionersaverthatprivaterespondentsVerificationandCertificationofthe
Petition for Certiorari stated that the copy of the resolution of the NLRC dated December 10,
2001wasreceivedonJanuary4,2002anditspartialmotionforreconsiderationfiledonJanuary
29,2002,or15daysbeyondthereglementaryperiod.However,aperusalofthePartialMotion
[20]
for Reconsideration
filed by private respondents show that the NLRC Resolution dated
December10,2001wasinfactreceivedbyprivaterespondentsonJanuary24,2002andnoton
January4,2002.Hence,theappealwasproperlyfiledwithinthe10dayreglementaryperiod.

Inthispetitiontheissueleftforresolutioniswhetherpetitionerswereillegallydismissed
underRep.ActNo.8042,thusentitlingthemtobenefitsplusdamages.

TheLaborArbiterandtheNLRCfoundthatpetitionersadmittedtheyresignedfromtheir
jobs without force, coercion, intimidation and pressure from private respondents principal
[21]
abroad.

AccordingtotheLaborArbiter,whileitmaybetruethatpetitionerswerenotcoerced
into giving up their jobs, the deplorable, oppressive and subhuman working conditions drove
petitionerstoresign.Ineffect,accordingtotheLaborArbiter,thepetitionersdidnotvoluntarily
[22]
resign.

The NLRC also ruled that there was constructive dismissal since working under said
[23]
conditionswasunbearable.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

5/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

As we have held previously, constructive dismissal covers the involuntary resignation

resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely when
thereisademotioninrankoradiminutioninpayorwhenacleardiscrimination,insensibility
[24]
ordisdainbyanemployerbecomesunbearabletoanemployee.

In this case, the appellate court found that petitioners did not deny that the
accommodations were not as homely as expected. In the petitioners memorandum, they
admitted that they were told by the principal, upon their arrival, that the dormitory was still
under construction and were requested to bear with the temporary inconvenience and the
dormitory would soon be finished. We likewise note that petitioners did not refute private
respondents assertion that they had deployed approximately sixty other workers to their
principal,andtothebestoftheirknowledge,nootherworkerassignedtothesameprincipalhas
[25]
resigned,muchless,filedacaseforillegaldismissal.

Toourmindthesecitedcircumstancesdonotreflectmalicebyprivaterespondentsnordo
they show the principals intention to subject petitioners to unhealthy accommodations. Under
thesefacts,wecannotrulethattherewasconstructivedismissal.

Private respondents also claim that petitioners were not entitled to overtime pay, since
they had offered no proof that they actually rendered overtime work. Petitioners, on the other
hand,saythattheycouldnotshowanydocumentaryproofsincetheiremploymentrecordswere
allinthecustodyoftheprincipalemployer.Itwassufficient,theyclaim,thattheyallegedthe
samewithparticularity.

On this matter, we rule for the petitioners. The claim for overtime pay should not have
[26]
beendisallowedbecauseofthefailureofthepetitionerstosubstantiatethem.
Theclaimof
overseas workers against foreign employers could not be subjected to same rules of evidence
[27]
and procedure easily obtained by complainants whose employers are locally based.
While
normally we would require the presentation of payrolls, daily time records and similar
documents before allowing claims for overtime pay, in this case, that would be requiring the
nearimpossible.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

6/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

To our mind, it is private respondents who could have obtained the records of their
principal to refute petitioners claim for overtime pay. By their failure to do so, private
respondentswaivedtheirdefenseandineffectadmittedtheallegationsofthepetitioners.

Itisatimehonoredrulethatincontroversiesbetweenaworkerandhisemployer,doubts
reasonablyarisingfromtheevidence,orintheinterpretationofagreementsandwritingshould
[28]
beresolvedintheworkersfavor.
Thepolicyistoextendtheapplicabilityofthedecreetoa
greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonancewiththeavowedpolicyoftheStatetogivemaximumaidandprotectiontolabor.
[29]
Accordingly,werulethatprivaterespondentsaresolidarilyliablewiththeforeignprincipal
fortheovertimepayclaimsofpetitioners.

On the award of moral and exemplary damages, we hold that such award lacks legal
basis.Moralandexemplarydamagesarerecoverableonlywherethedismissalofanemployee
wasattendedbybadfaithorfraud,orconstitutedanactoppressivetolabor,orwasdoneina
[30]
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
The person claiming moral
damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law
[31]
always presumes good faith.
Petitioners allege they suffered humiliation, sleepless nights
andmentalanguish,thinkinghowtheywouldpaythemoneytheyborrowedfortheirplacement
[32]
fees.
Even so, they failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill motive on the part of private
[33]
respondents.
Moraldamagescannotbeawarded.Withouttheawardofmoraldamages,there
[34]
canbenoawardofexemplarydamages,norattorneysfees.

Quitclaimsexecutedbytheemployeesarecommonlyfrowneduponascontrarytopublic
policyandineffectivetobarclaimsforthefullmeasureoftheworkerslegalrights,considering
theeconomicdisadvantageoftheemployeeandtheinevitablepressureuponhimbyfinancial
[35]
necessity.
Nonetheless, the socalled economic difficulties and financial crises allegedly
[36]
confrontingtheemployeeisnotanacceptablegroundtoannulthecompromiseagreement

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

7/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

unless it is accompanied by a gross disparity between the actual claim and the amount of the
[37]
settlement.

Aperusaloftherecordsrevealsthatpetitionerswerenotinanywaydeceived,coercedor
intimidated into signing a quitclaim waiver in the amounts of P13,640, P15,080 and P16,200
respectively. Nor was there a disparity between the amount of the quitclaim and the amount
actuallyduethepetitioners.

ConformablythenthepetitionersareentitledtothefollowingamountsinPhilippinePeso
attherateofexchangeprevailingatthetimeofpayment:
1.MERCEDITAACUA
a.Salaryfor4days
b.Overtimepayfor4hoursin4days

2.JULIETC.MENDEZ
a.Salaryfor4days
b.Overtimepayfor4hoursin4days

3.MYRNAR.RAMONES
a.Salaryfor4days
b.Overtimepayfor4hoursin4days

NT$2,436.92
1,523.07
NT$3,959.99

NT$2,436.92
1,523.07
NT$3,959.99

NT$2,436.92
1,523.07
NT$3,959.99

AccordingtotheBangkoSentralTreasuryDepartment,theprevailingexchangerateson
December 1999 was NT$1 to P1.268805. Hence, after conversion to Philippine pesos, the
amountofthequitclaimpaidtopetitionerswasactuallyhigherthantheamountduethem.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of illegal

recruitmentcomplaintagainsttherespondentspursuanttoSection6(i)ofTheMigrantWorkers
andOverseasFilipinoActof1995(Rep.ActNo.8042).
SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

8/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

9/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo, pp. 8796. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes, and Remedios
SalazarFernandoconcurring.
[2]
Rollo,pp.126127.
[3]
Id.at116119.
[4]
Id.at192.
[5]
Id.at366.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Id.at120125.
[8]
Id.at192193.
[9]
Id.at120.ErroneouslywrittenasFifteenthousand.
[10]
Id.at124.ErroneouslywrittenasThirteenthousandsixhundred.
[11]
Id.at122.WrittenasP16,220infigures.
[12]
Id.at89,157.
[13]
ANACTTOINSTITUTETHEPOLICIESOFOVERSEASEMPLOYMENTANDESTABLISHAHIGHERSTANDARDOF
PROTECTIONANDPROMOTIONOFTHEWELFAREOFMIGRANTWORKERS,THEIRFAMILIESANDOVERSEAS
FILIPINOSINDISTRESS,ANDFOROTHERPURPOSES.
*98,959.99roundedoff.
[14]
ErroneouslywrittenasP1,523.07.
[15]
Rollo,pp.163165.
[16]
Id.at196197.
[17]
Id.at203.
[18]
Id.at95.
[19]
Id.at369370.
[20]
Id.at205214.
[21]
Id.at195.
[22]
Id.at159.
[23]
Id.at198.
[24]
Leonardov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.125303,June16,2000,333SCRA589,598.
[25]
Rollo,p.91.
[26]
Cuadrav.NLRC,G.R.No.98030,March17,1992,207SCRA279,282.
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
Pranganv.NLRC,G.R.No.126529,April15,1998,289SCRA142,148149.
[29]
Sarmientov.EmployeesCompensationCommission,No.L68648,September24,1986,144SCRA421,427.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

10/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.159832

[30]
FordPhilippinesInc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.99039,February3,1997,267SCRA320,330.
[31]
SeeEquitableBankingCorporationv.NLRC,G.R.No.102467,June13,1997,273SCRA352,379.
[32]
Rollo,p.130.
[33]
AudionElectricCo.,Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.No.106648,June17,1999,308SCRA340,355.
[34]
SeeBernardov.CourtofAppeals(SpecialSixthDivision),G.R.No.106153,July14,1997,275SCRA413,432.
[35]
AmericaHomeAssuranceCo.v.NLRC,G.R.No.120043,July24,1996,259SCRA280,293294.
[36]
Olaybar,etalv.NLRC,etal.,G.R.No.108713,October28,1994,237SCRA819,824.
[37]
SeeB.Sta.RitaandCo.,Inc.,etal.v.NLRC,etal.,G.R.No.119617,August14,1995,247SCRA354,359360.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/G.R.%20No.%20159832.htm

11/11