SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 203882, January 11, 2016
LORELEI O. ILADAN, Petitioner, v. LA SUERTE INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER AGENCY, INC., AND DEBBIE LAO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
By this Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 petitioner Lorelei O. Iladan (Iladan) assails the May 16, 2012 Decision2 and October 4, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119903, which reversed the February 23, 20114 and March 31, 20115 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and consequently dismissed her complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents La Suerte International Manpower Agency, Inc. (La Suerte) and its President and General Manager Debbie Lao (Lao).
Factual Antecedents
La Suerte is a recruitment agency duly authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to deploy workers for overseas employment. On March 20, 2009, La Suerte hired Iladan to work as a domestic helper in Hongkong for a period of two years with a monthly salary of HK$3,580.00.6 On July 20, 2009, Iladan was deployed to her principal employer in Hongkong, Domestic Services International (Domestic Services), to work as domestic helper for Ms. Muk Sun Fan.
On July 28, 2009 or barely eight days into her job, Iladan executed a handwritten resignation letter.7 On August 6, 2009, in consideration of P35,000.00 financial assistance given by Domestic Services, Iladan signed an Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim8 duly subscribed before Labor Attache Leonida V. Romulo (Labor Attache Romulo) of the Philippine Consulate General in Hongkong. On the same date, an Agreement,9 was signed by Iladan, Conciliator-Mediator Maria Larisa Q. Diaz (Conciliator-Mediator Diaz) and a representative of Domestic Services, whereby Iladan acknowledged that her acceptance of the financial assistance would constitute as final settlement of her contractual claims and waiver of any cause of action against respondents and Domestic Services. The Agreement was also subscribed before Labor Attache Romulo. On August 10, 2009, Iladan returned to the Philippines.
Thereafter, or on November 23, 2009, Iladan filed a Complaint10 for illegal dismissal, refund of placement fee, payment of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract, as well as moral and exemplary damages, against respondents. Iladan alleged that she was forced to resign by her principal employer, threatened with incarceration; and that she was constrained to accept the amount of P35,000.00 as financial assistance as she needed the money to defray her expenses in going back to the Philippines. She averred that the statements in the Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and the Agreement were not fully explained in the language known to her; that they were considered contracts of adhesion contrary to public policy; and were issued for an unreasonable consideration. Iladan claimed to have been illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract, reimbursement of the placement fee in the amount of P90,000.00, as well as payment of damages and attorney's fee for the litigation of her cause.
To prove that she incurred debts for the placement fee, Iladan presented a) a mortgage deed11 and a deed12 of transfer of rights over her family's properties in favor of other persons, b) a sworn statement13 of her mother, Rebecca U. Ondoy (Ondoy), stating that Iladan paid P30,000.00 in cash to respondents for the placement fee, and borrowed P60,000.00 from Nippon Credit Corp., Inc. (Nippon), a lending company referred by respondents, and c) a demand letter14 from Nippon demanding payment of her loan.
Respondents, on the hand, averred that Iladan was not illegally dismissed but voluntarily resigned as shown by: (1) her handwritten resignation letter and (2) the Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and the Agreement, both voluntarily executed by her before Philippine Consulate officials in Hongkong. Respondents also denied collecting a placement fee considering the prohibition in the POEA rules against the charging of placement fee for domestic helpers deployed to Hongkong.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision15 dated August 11,2010, the Labor Arbiter declared Iladan to have been illegally dismissed and that she was only forced by respondents to resign. The Labor Arbiter was not persuaded by respondents', allegation that Iladan resigned since she was barely eight days into her job without specifying any credible reason considering what she had gone through to get employment abroad. The Labor Arbiter did not consider the Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and the Agreement as proofs that Iladan voluntarily resigned because she was not assisted by any lawyer or Consulate official who could have explained the import of these documents. Moreover, quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor and do not estop employees from pursuing their just claims. The Labor Arbiter also struck down respondents' allegation that they did not charge any placement fee considering that they are engaged in recruitment and placement for profit. Besides, Iladan submitted evidence to prove payment thereof.
Thus, the Labor Arbiter awarded Iladan her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract, net of the P35,000.00 she had already received. Respondents were also ordered to refund the placement fee, and to pay moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's complaint is meritorious as she was illegally terminated by respondents.
Respondents La Suerte International Manpower Agency, Domestic Services International and Debbie S. Lao, are jointly and solidarity liable to pay complainant Lorelei O. Iladan the following monetary awards, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Refund of complainant's placement fee of P90,000.00 plus 12% per annum;
2. Payment of complainant's 24 monthly salary based on the contract at HK$3,580.00 per month or its Philippine Peso equivalent less the P35,000.00 given as financial assistance;
3. Moral damages of P100,000.00;
4. Exemplary damages of P30,000.00;
5. Attorney's fee of 10% of the total monetary award.
SO ORDERED.16cralawlawlibrary
For intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must be present; (1) that the intimidation paused the consent to be given; (2) that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real or serious, there being evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to do as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a well-grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict the threatened injury to his person or property. In the instant case, not one of these essential elements was amply proven by [Iladan]. Bare allegations of threat or force do not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of forced resignation.25cralawred
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether in fact, he or she intended to sever from his or her employment.26cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-33.
2 CA rollo, pp. 388-402; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Rodil V. Zalameda.
3 Id. at 433-435.
4 NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 288-306; penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and concurred in by Commissioners Teresita D. Castillon-Lora and Napoloeon M Menese.
5 Id. at 340-341.
6 Id. at 31-34.
7 Id. at 35.
8 Id. at 36.
9 Id. at 37.
10 Id. at 1-2.
11 Id. at 22.
12 Id. at 23.
13 Id. at 46-47.
14 Id. at 50-51.
15 Id. at 66-75; penned by Labor Arbiter Quintin B. Cueto III.
16 Id. at 75.
17 Id. at 288-306.
18 Id. at 340-341.
19 CA rollo, pp. 388-402.
20 Id. at 433-435.
21Maralit v. Philippine National Bank, 613 Phil. 270,28S-289 (2009),
22 Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Mourn, GR. No. 175002. February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 113, 125.
23Brawn Madonna Press inc. v. Cas,as, G.R. No. 200898, June 15, 2015.
24Hechgnova Bugay Vilchez Lawyers v, Matorre, G.R. No. 198261, October 16, 2013, 707 SCRA 570, 582.
25BMG Records (Phils,), Inc. v, Aparecio, 559 Phil. 80, 93 (2007).
26 Id. at 94.
27Heirs of Brusas v. Court of Appeals, 372 Phil. 47, 58 (1999).
28Sevilla v. Cardenas, 529 Phil. 419,433 (2006).
29Plastimer Industrial Corp. v. Gopo, 658 Phil. 627,635 (2011).
30Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 310, 321 (2001).