FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 160123, June 17, 2015
CENTRO PROJECT MANPOWER SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. AGUINALDO NALUIS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
In the interpretation of their provisions, labor contracts require the resolution of doubts in favor of the laborer because of their being imbued with social justice considerations. This rule of interpretation is demanded by the Labor Code1 and the Civil Code.2redarclaw
Both the Labor Arbiter3 and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)4 resolved the doubt in favor of the employer when it held that respondent Aguinaldo Naluis (Naluis) had been properly repatriated, and, consequently, not illegally dismissed. However, on April 23, 2009, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside their resolutions, and ruled to the contrary.5 Hence, this appeal by the employer.
This Office finds the repatriation of complainant to the Philippines NOT A DISMISSAL BUT AS A RESULT OF THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRY.Naluis appealed to the NLRC, which found that Centro Project had no choice but to terminate the employment contract because the AE issued by the Department of Labor and Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands had limited his stay in Northern Marianas, and that his employment had expired on May 13, 1998 as explicitly provided in the employment contract executed between him and Centro Project. The NLRC thus disposed:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
x x x x
Although complainant has not served the twelve (12) months period stated in the Contract of Employment, the Employer has no other alternative but to repatriate complainant otherwise, the employer could be liable for violation of the Commonwealth’s Immigration Rules x x x.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED lack of merit.10
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Commission resolves to affirm the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismiss the instant appeal for lack of merit.11redarclawOn April 23, 2009, the CA promulgated its judgment setting aside the decision of the NLRC, holding that the AE did not have any effect on Naluis’ employment status; that the AE did not limit his stay in Northern Marianas; and that, consequently, Centro Project had breached the contract by ordering his repatriation. The CA decreed as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Naluis assailed the decision of the NLRC in the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered DIRECTING the private respondent to pay the petitioner the following:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
a) Four (4) months salary corresponding to the unpaid portion of his contract at $520.00 (Five Hundred Twenty U.S. Dollars) per month; b) Guaranteed overtime pay at an average of thirty (30) to forty (40) hours per month in excess of straight eight (8) hours regular work schedule corresponding to the unexpired portion of four (4) months in the contract; c) Placement fee of Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred (13,500.00) Pesos; d) Legal holiday equivalent to ten (10) days with pay; e) Twelve (12) days vacation leave with pay; and f) Attorney’s fees of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
SO ORDERED.12
x x x the document upon which the employer predicated its action to terminate and repatriate the petitioner i.e., the Authorization of Entry issued by the immigration authorities of CNMI does not appear to limit the employee’s stay in the said country. The authorization upon its face simply shows that the person to whom it is issued should enter CNMI not later than May 13, 1998 as a general rule or, if he is an employee, not later than three months from its issuance. We submit that an authorization of entry is different from a limitation of stay in the country visited, which is not indicated in any of the documents submitted by the respondent.13We concur with the CA. The burden of proof to show that the employment contract had been validly terminated pertained to the employer.14 To discharge its burden, the employer must rely on the strength of its own evidence. However, Centro Project’s reliance on the AE limiting Naluis’ stay was unwarranted, and, worse, it did not discharge its burden of proof as the employer to show that Naluis’ repatriation had been justified.
This letter allows authorized entry into the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for Aguinaldo S. Naluis.The AE thereby clearly indicated that the date of May 13, 1998 appearing thereon referred only to the expiration of the document itself. Centro Project stretched its interpretation to bolster its contention that May 13, 1998 was the limit of stay for Naluis in Northern Marianas. The interpretation is unacceptable, for item number 3 of the AE even recognized any employment period if the AE was issued for the purpose of employment. This meant that contrary to the position of Centro Project there was no clear and categorical entry in the AE to the effect that the AE limited his stay in Northern Marianas.
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryYou are hereby notified of the following requirements:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
AGUINALDO S NALUIS Expires Gender Birthdate Citizenship 5/13/98 M 4/11/57 PHL Employer: PACIFIC MICRONESIA CORPORATION Occupation: PLUMBER Class: 706K Issue Date 6/3/97 Wage Rate: $3.25 Wage Type: HOURLY
1. Present this Authorization for Entry letter to an Immigration Officer immediately upon arrival at your designated port of entry into the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. x x x x 3. The Entry Permit, if issued for the purpose of employment, expires automatically upon termination of such employment and must be surrendered to your employer. x x x x 5. You must enter the CNMI within 90 days of issuance of this “Authorization for Entry” letter if you are entering for the purpose of employment. (emphasis supplied)
We affirm the awards except those for the guaranteed overtime pay and legal holiday pay. Under Section 1020 of Republic Act No. 8042, the unjustly terminated employee is entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at 12% per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. We further allow the payment of vacation leave pay and sick leave pay because the employment contract21 stipulated 12 days vacation leave with pay and seven days sick leave with pay that could be taken after one year. With his premature repatriation being unjustified, Naluis should receive his vacation and sick leave pays, but not the guaranteed overtime pay and legal holiday pay because the employment contract did not extend such benefits.
a) Four (4) months salary corresponding to the unpaid portion of his contract at $520.00 (Five Hundred Twenty U.S. Dollars) per month; b) Guaranteed overtime pay at an average of thirty (30) to forty (40) hours per month in excess of straight eight (8) hours regular work schedule corresponding to the unexpired portion of four (4) months in the contract; c) Placement fee of Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred (13,500.00) Pesos; d) Legal holiday equivalent to ten (10) days with pay; e) Twelve (12) days vacation leave with pay; and f) Attorney’s fees of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
Endnotes:
1 Article 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
2 Article 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
3 CA rollo, pp. 17-26.
4 Id. at 28-39.
5Rollo, pp. 23-30; penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (retired), with Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam (deceased) concurring.
6 Id. at 36-38.
7 Id. at 41.
8 CA rollo, p. 14.
9Rollo, p. 24.
10 CA rollo, pp. 24-25.
11 Id. at 39.
12 Supra note 5, at 30.
13 Id. at 29 (bold emphasis supplied).
14 Article 277, par. (b) of the Labor Code; see Dacuital v. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation, G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 702, 715.
15Rollo, p. 41.
16 Supra notes 1 and 2; also Wesleyan University Philippines v. Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association, G.R. No. 181806, March 12, 2014, 718 SCRA 601; Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc., G.R. No. 174179, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 263; Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 490; Asian Terminal Manpower Services, Inc. (AIMS) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169652, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 103.
17 Article 1702, Civil Code; see Babcock-Hitachi (Phils.), Inc. v. Babcock-Hitachi (Phils.), Inc., Makati Employees Union (BHPIMEU), G. R. No. 156260, March 10, 2005, 453 SCRA 156.
18ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v. Rachel G. Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014, 734 SCRA 76; Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117495, May 29, 1997, 272 SCRA 793, 801.
19 Supra note 6.
20 Section 10. Money Claims
x x x x
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.
x x x x
21 Supra note 6, at 37 (page 2 of the Employment Contract).