G.R. No.
170139 | August 5, 2014 The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
I. Recit-ready Summary
The case is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of
Appeals’ decision, which partially affirmed the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission’s resolution.
After seeing an ad by Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., a
recruitment and placement agency, Joy C. Cabiles applies for a quality
control job in Taiwan. Having been accepted, Cabiles signed a one-year
employment contract for a monthly salary of NT$15,360 as a quality
control employee. Cabiles claims that said agency required her to pay
PhP70,000 as placement fee. She was then deployed to work for Taiwan
Wacoal, Co. Ltd on June 26, 1997, only to find upon arrival that she
was to work as a cutter.
On July 14, 1997, Mr. Huang from Wacoal dismissed Joy from her job,
without any prior notice beforehand. Wacoal, for the entirety of her
employment, only gave her NT$9,000 from which Wacoal deducted
NT$3,000 to cover her plane tickets going to Manila.
Cabiles filed a complaint with the NLRC on the ground of illegal
dismissal and identified Wacoal as petitioner’s foreign principal.
Cabiles asked for the return of the placement fee, withheld amount for
repartition costs, payment for her salary of 23 months as well as moral
and exemplary damages.
Petitioner on the other hand contests that Cabiles was dismissed because
of her inefficiency and negligence in doing her work. Furthermore, it
argued that it didn’t ask for a placement fee, presenting a receipt with
the value of PHP 20,360 as proof. Lastly, it argued that Wacoal’s
accreditation with them expired and was transferred Pacific Manpower
& Management Services, Inc., making it liable. Pacific denied this.
Labor arbiter dismissed Cabiles’ complaint on the ground that it’s based
on mere speculations. It also said there was no placement fee, with the
receipt provided by petitioner as basis. Cabiles then appealed to NLRC.
Legal Research (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
NLRC ruled that Cabiles was illegally dismissed, with the reasoning
that the employers have the burden to prove that such dismissal in legal
with valid basis and that petitioner failed to prove the causes of Cabiles’
dismissal. Further, it argued that it failed to present proof that Cabiles
was indeed negligent and insufficient in fulfilling her duties. Lastly,
NLRC ruled that Cabiles right to due process was violated.
NLRC didn’t rule on the reimbursement of placement fees and liability
of Pacific. NLRC awarded Cabiles only 3 months worth of salary
(NT$46,080), the NT$3,000 withheld from her, and attorney’s fees of
NT$300.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari with CA who then affirmed NLRC’s ruling
but remanding the case back to NLRC with regard to Pacific’s liability.
Petition then filed present case, for the court to decide whether or not
CA erred in affirming the decision of NLRC.
The court ruled that Cabiles was illegally dismissed on the grounds that
the employers failed to show proof that respondent was indeed negligent
and insufficient, that the termination wasn’t done in the proper process
therefore denying respondent of due process.
Further, it ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is less" of the Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 8042 is invalid, as when examined under the strict scrutiny test,
said law places OFWs in a subject distinction which violates its rights
to equal protection, as previously declared in previous case of Serrano.
Along with this, it ruled that BSP Circular No. 799, which revised the
interest rate for loan and forbearance from 12% to 6% in case of absence
of stipulation, applies to the case.
Further, it argued that Wacoal is jointly liable with the petitioner. With
regard to Pacific’s liability, court ruled that it is impossible to determine.
The court then ordered petitioner 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, along with the
1
PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.
RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles
 G.R. No. 170139 | August 5, 2014
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
reimbursement of the withheld NT$3,000 and respondent attorney's fees
of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the
court’s judgment.
II. Facts of the Case
Respondent, Joy Cabiles, (Joy) submitted her application for a quality
control job in Taiwan to Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency
Inc. (Sameer), a recruitment and placement agency. Her application was
accepted, was asked to sign a one-year employment contract for a salary
of NT$15,360.00 and was alleged to pay a placement fee of PhP
70,000.00.
June 26, 1997 - Joy worked for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) but
was asked to work as a cutter.
July 14, 1997 - Sameer claimed that a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal
informed Joy, without prior notice, that she was terminated and asked to
prepare for immediate repatriation. Joy claims that she only earned
NT$9,000 from June 26 to July 14, 1997, and that Wacoal deducted
NT$3,000 for her plane ticket to Manila.
October 15, 1997 - Joy filed a complaint to National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) against petitioner and Wacoal (the foreign
principal of Sameer) that she was illegally dismissed, and asked for the
return of her placement fee, her withheld amount for repatriation costs,
her salary for 23 months, and for moral and exemplary damages.
Sameer alleged that the respondent was terminated due to her
inefficiency, negligence in her duties, and her failure to comply with the
work requirements. They also did not ask for the PhP 70,000 placement
fee as shown in the official receipt dated June 10, 1997 that it only bore
PhP 20,360. Petitioner added, as of August 6, 1997, Wacoal's
accreditation was transferred to Pacific Manpower & Management
Services (Pacific).
Legal Research (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot
The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
Pacific moved for dismissal of petitioner's claims: there was no
employer-employee relationship between them, therefore, the claims
against it were outside the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction. It argued, that
employment contract should be presented first to identify the contractual
obligations of the employer. Furthermore, it denied liability for the
illegal acts of Sameer.
LABOR ARBITER DISMISSED JOY'S COMPLAINT
July 29, 1998 - Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos ruled
that the respondent's complaint was based on mere allegations. It was
also found that there was no excess payment of placement fees, and that
it was unnecessary a discussion on the transfer of obligations from
Sameer to Pacific.
Joy appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
NATIONAL LARBOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DELCARED THAT
JOY WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
March 31, 2004 - NLRC declared that Joy was illegally dismissed and
that the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was
based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. Sameer failed to
prove the just causes for termination. NLRC did not rule on the issue of
reimbursement of placement fees for lack of jurisdiction and refused to
entertain the issue of alleged obligations transfer to Pacific.
NLRC awarded respondent only three months’ worth of salary NT$
46,080, reimbursement of NT$ 3,000 withheld from her, and attorney's
fees of NT$300. NLRC denied Sameer's motion fo r reconsideration
dated May 12, 2004, through the July 2, 2004 resolution.
Sameer filed for a petition for certiorari with Court of Appeals (CA) to
assail NLRC's resolutions on March 31, 2004 and July 2, 2004.
CA AFFIRMED DECISION OF NLRC
2
PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.
RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles
 G.R. No. 170139 | August 5, 2014
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
However, CA remanded the case to NLRC to address the issue of the
validity of petitioner's allegations against Pacific in order to address the
validity or propriety of petitioner's third-party complaint against Pacific.
Dissatisfied, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency filed a petition to the
Supreme Court (SC) to determine whether CA erred in affirming the
decision of NLRC (respondent was illegally dismissed and awarding her
three months’ worth of salary, reimbursement for repatriation costs,
attorney's fees) despite the alleged just causes of termination. Sameer
reiterates the inefficiency of respondent in her work and that Pacific
should assume responsibility on Wacoal's contractual obligations to
workers.
THE SC FINDS SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY'S
PETITION WITHOUT MERIT AND, THEREFORE, DENIED.
It AFFIRMED CA's decision with modification and ordered Sameer to
pay the respondent.
III. Issue/s
1. W/N respondent was illegally dismissed? YES.
2. W/N respondent should be awarded three months' worth of salary, the
reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorney's fees despite the
alleged existence of just causes of termination? YES with
MODIFICATION.
3. W/N Wacoal's accreditation with petitioner had already been transferred
to the Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (Pacific)? – Cannot
be determined.
IV. Holding/s
1. YES, the CA did not commit an error when it affirmed the decision of the
NLRC because Cabiles was illegally dismissed. Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing Joy's dismissal.
The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.
Legal Research (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot
The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when they
move to work in a different jurisdiction. With respect to the rights of overseas
Filipino workers, we follow the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of
the place where the contract is made). There is no question that the contract
of employment in this case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore,
the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and other laws
affecting labor apply in this case. (Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v.
NLRC)
Petitioner's allegation that respondent was inefficient in her work
and negligent in her duties may constitute a just cause for termination but
only if petitioner was able to prove it. The burden of proving that there is just
cause for termination is on the employer. Failure to show that there was valid
or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was
illegal.
A 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. The other notice must "[inform] the employee of the
employer's decision.” Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must
also be given "an opportunity to be heard." Petitioner failed to comply with
the twin notices and hearing requirements. Respondent started working on
June 26, 1997. She was told that she was terminated on July 14, 1997
effective on the same day and barely a month from her first workday. She
was also repatriated on the same day that she was informed of her
termination. The abruptness of the termination negated any finding that she
was properly notified and given the opportunity to be heard. Her
constitutional right to due process of law was violated.
2. YES with MODIFICATION, Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract that was violated together
with attorney's fees and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, states that overseas
workers who were terminated without just, valid, or authorized cause "shall
be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
3
PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.
RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles
 G.R. No. 170139 | August 5, 2014
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
twelve (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."
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 states that "repatriation of the
worker and the transport of his [or her] personal belongings shall be the
primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or deployed the worker
overseas". The exception is when "termination of employment is due solely
to the fault of the worker.”
The Labor Code also entitles the employee to 10% of the amount of
withheld wages as attorney's fees when the withholding is unlawful. The CA
affirmed the NLRC's decision to award respondent NT$46,080.00 or the
three-month equivalent of her salary, attorney's fees of NT$300.00, and the
reimbursement of the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary, which answered for her
repatriation. We uphold the finding that respondent is entitled to all of these
awards. The award of the three-month equivalent of respondent's salary
should, however, 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 but the same clause was reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042
upon promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 in 2010.
We reiterate our 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.
Equal protection of the law is a guarantee that persons under like
circumstances and falling within the same class are treated alike, in terms of
"privileges conferred and liabilities enforced." A law that does not violate the
equal protection clause prescribes a reasonable classification. A reasonable
classification "(1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane
to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class." The reinstated
clause does not satisfy the requirement of reasonable classification.
Legal Research (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot
The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
On the interest rate, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No.
799 of June 21, 2013, which revised the interest rate for loan or forbearance
from 12% to 6% in the absence of stipulation, applies in this case. Awards
of salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract are covered
by Circular No. 799 because the law does not provide for a specific interest
rate that should apply. In sum, if judgment did not become final and executory
before July 1, 2013 and there was no stipulation in the contract providing for
a different interest rate, other money claims under Section 10 of Republic Act
No. 8042 shall be subject to the 6% interest per annum in accordance with
Circular No. 799.
3. With the present state of the pleadings, it is not possible to determine
whether there was indeed a transfer of obligations from petitioner to Pacific.
This should not be an obstacle for the respondent overseas worker to proceed
with the enforcement of this judgment. Petitioner is possessed with the
resources to determine the proper legal remedies to enforce its rights against
Pacific, if any. 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.
V. Law or Doctrine Applied
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW
Equal protection of the law is a guarantee that persons under like
circumstances and falling within the same class are treated alike, in
terms of "privileges conferred and liabilities enforced."
DUE PROCESS IN TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT
A 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. The other notice must "[inform] the employee
of the employer's decision.” Aside from the notice requirement, the
employee must also be given "an opportunity to be heard.". The burden
4
PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.
RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles
 G.R. No. 170139 | August 5, 2014
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer.
Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would
necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.
VI. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. 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
attorney's 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.
VII. Separate Opinions
BRION, J. (Both concurring and dissenting)
Brion concurs with two points made by the ponencia.
First, he concurs with ponencia’s conclusion that Joy C. Cabiles was
illegally dismissed because the employer failed to gives a valid cause
for the dismissal and that such dismissal was done without following
the process described by law thus denying her of due process.
Furthermore, he also agrees with ponencia declaring Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 8042 with the title Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1996 (as reinstated by R.A. No. 10022) unconstitutional.
However, he dissents from the ponencia with regard to how the
ponencia decided on the unconstitutionality of the said law.
Legal Research (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot
The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
Brion believes that the ponencia erred in taking full adoption of the
ruling in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. et al. He believes
that the use of the strict scrutiny standard in invoking the equal
protection guarantee, the same method used in the previously mentioned
case, was not justified or called for given the circumstances of the case
and therefore, was unnecessary.
By the misuse of the strict scrutiny test, Brion argues that the presumed
constitutionality of statutes are disregarded. Because of this, he further
argues, the court has unnecessarily shifted the burden to the
government, pushing said body to prove that the law (1) talks about a
compelling state interest, and (2) that the legislation is narrowly tailored
to achieve the intended result.
The following are the specific reasons why Brion disagrees with the use.
He doesn’t see that the Congress intended to classify OFWs when it
drafted the concerned law. He argues that the intent of the congress
was to provide a benefit to recruitment and manning agencies in
order to motivate them to pursue better and greater deployment
efforts.
Further, he argues that while the law may have created
classifications, it doesn’t necessarily mean that such are suspect
classifications where a strict scrutiny test should apply. According
to him, section 10 doesn’t curtail civil and human rights of OFWs
but rather, at most, just limits the monetary award an OFW may
receive when illegally dismissed. Thus being said, with the
circumstances, a strict scrutiny test is not proportional to be applied.
Along with this, Brion mentions that while the constitution
specifically mentioned labor as a sector that should be specially
protected, one should not think that this is a suspect classification
wherein the strict scrutiny test should be applied. He argues that the
circumstances of the case as well as other factors should be
considered. He also mentions that the difference in work locations
and working conditions, as also pointed out by the OSG, are not
valid grounds for distinctions that should matter in the enforcement
of employment contracts. Furthermore, he states other than the two
5
PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.
RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles
 G.R. No. 170139 | August 5, 2014
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
mentioned in the case, the OSG could not provide any reason as a
justification for the limitation liability that distinguished OFWs
from local workers.
Brion further argues that a lower level test can be used to prove the
constitutionality of the law involved, particularly the differential or
rational basis scrutiny test wherein a challenged classification only
needs to be proven to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state
interest. He also brings a point forward when he states that the necessity
for a strict scrutiny test must be heavily deliberated before it is applied
as by failing to do so, the courts may misappreciate what a suspect
classification is and thereby lessening its jurisprudential impact and
value.
Thus being said, rather than relying on the strict scrutiny test, Brion
believes that the subject clause of the concerned law should be declared
invalid simply because it goes against the provisions of our constitution,
particularly against Section 18 Article 8 and Article 2 Section 18.
Brion also brings forward that a subject clause may only be declare
constitutional if it has (a) a lawful purpose, and (b) lawful means to
achieve the lawful purpose.
Brion provided the following application of such measures:
In the case, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 provides that the foreign
principal employer has direct and primary liability. However, this
liability is shared with the direct employer (agency). Thus being
said, the measure the law provides provides a loophole wherein the
OFW may just go after the agency and that the agency will be
primarily held liable first on its own rather than with the foreign
employer and that it can just go after said foreign employer for
damages and the like. Brion argues that this is different from what
the the law intended, which is to provide benefits for
recruiting/manning agencies. Thus being said, the law’s means,
while lawful, don’t achieve the law’s purpose.
Second, the liability limitation proposed by the law effectively
imposes a partial condonation of the foreign principal/employer’s
Legal Research (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot
The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles
liability to OFWs. Therefore, this law is just a scheme to sell Filipino
overseas labor at a bargain just to attract a market, reducing OFW to
mere cash cows. This isn’t a lawful purpose.
Lastly, the benefit/incentive scheme, by affording OFWs a lesser
protection through (1) a reduced recovery by operation of law,
which then (2) makes wrongful dismissal situations easier to evade
for foreign employers, provides benefit to recruitment/manning
agencies and foreign principal/employers at the expense of OFWs
who are withdrawn from the salaries stipulated in the unexpired
portions of their contract.
It is under this reasoning that Brion agrees with the ponencia’s point
that the concerned section’s phrase is unconditional.
VIII. Additional Notes
• The Constitution itself, in Article XIII, Section 3, guarantees the
special protection of workers, to wit: The State shall afford full
protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
• Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes of
termination by the employer.
• 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;
6
PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.
RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles
 G.R. No. 170139 | August 5, 2014 The Constitution and Statutory Law: Constitution
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles

(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; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
• 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; and 3) the communication was
made at a reasonable time prior to the employee's performance
assessment.

VII. Random Facts

• Ponente: Justice Marivic Leonen
• Labor Arbiter Acting Executive; Pedro C. Ramos

7
Legal Research (2019) PETITIONER: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc.

DIGEST AUTHOR: Tan, Tanhueco, Yambot RESPONDENT: Joy C. Cabiles