FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 250439, September 22, 2020
FIL-EXPAT PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA ANTONIETTE CUDAL LEE, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
Whether substantial evidence exists to establish contract substitution and constructive dismissal is the main issue in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision2 dated May 27, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 157997.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are found guilty of breach of contract and constructive dismissal. Accordingly, respondents, except Mark Amielle De Ocampo, are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay complainant the following:Dissatisfied, Fil-Expat and Thanaya Al-Yaqoot appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On June 27, 2018, the NLRC reversed the arbiter's findings, and ruled that there was no breach of contract and constructive dismissal.8 There was no contract substitution since there was no intention on the part of the foreign employer to prejudice Maria Antoniette in the execution of the new employment contract. There is also no constructive dismissal because there is no evidence that Maria Antoniette's continued employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(a) salary equivalent to [the] unexpired portion of her contract from June 23, 2016 to December 3, 2017 at its peso equivalent at the time of payment;
(b) unpaid salary of 14,666 SR at its peso equivalent at the time of payment;
(c) refund of placement fee in the amount of 3,637.75 SR[;]
(d) cost of transporting her personal belongings amounting to 3,560 SR at its peso equivalent at the time of payment;
(e) moral damages of P20,000.00;
(f) exemplary damages of P10,000.00;
(g) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award; and
(h) interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.7 (Emphases in the original.)
Explicitly, from the Report of the one who conducted an investigation regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident of contract substitution. it becomes very clear that THERE WAS NONE. Contract substitution if it had taken place is an illegal activity pursuant to R.A. 8042 as amended by R.A. 10022. Under No. 1) it is made illegal if there is an intention to prejudice the worker.Aggrieved, Maria Antoniette elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R SP No. 157997. On May 27, 2019, the CA reinstated the Decision of the LA, and found substantial evidence that the foreign employer attempted to force Maria Antoniette into signing a new employment contract. It stressed that the attempt to commit contract substitution should be punished in order to avoid repetition. It also held that Maria Antoniette was compelled to seek repatriation because her employment became intolerable as she suffered verbal and psychological abuses after she refused to sign the new contract. Fil-Expat sought reconsideration but was denied.10 Hence, this recourse.11
Where the purpose however, is to comply with a foreign law requirement both for the protection of the worker and the employer from Saudi Labor [I]nspection then there could be no violation. Finally, since complainant furnished the investigator of a copy of her contract, there was no longer any need for complainant to accomplish another form for submission to Saudi authorities - Health and Labor.
On the claim that there is constructive dismissal, there is no evidence that complainant's continued empioyment was rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely or that complainant was treated with discrimination, insensibility or disdain.9 (Emphasis supplied.)
Private respondents also argued that petitioner was asked to sign a new employment contract because she failed to furnish her foreign employer with a copy of the POEA-approved Standard Employment Contract. This is baffling to say the least. Petitioner started working at the Thanaya Al-Yaqoot Medical Specialist Clinic on December 8, 2015. It was on May 22, 2016 or five months after that she was asked by the foreign employer to sign a new employment contract. It is quite unbelievable then that petitioner was allowed to work at the clinic without the foreign employer having a copy of the POEA-approved employment contract. Even assuming for the nonce that petitioner failed to provide her foreign employer with a copy of the POEA-approved contract, the latter could just easily request a copy of the same from private respondent Fil-Expat, petitioner's recruitment agency.Similarly, we reject Fil-Expat's contention that the mere attempt in contract substitution should not be considered illegal if the signing of the second contract was not consummated. In PHILSA International Placement & Services Corp. v. Secretary of Labor & Employment,19 the recruitment agency was found guilty of two counts of prohibited contract substitution, even though the workers refused the second attempt to compel them to sign another contract. In that case, the Court quoted with approval the POEA's findings that the OFW's refusal to sign does not absolve the agency from liability and the mere intention to commit contract substitution should not be left unpunished.
As regards private respondents' asseveration that the purpose of the new employment contract was to comply with the foreign labor law requirement, suffice it to state that the records are bereft of any evidence to show the specific foreign law requiring another employment contract for overseas Filipino contract workers apart from the POEA-approved Standard Employment Contract which was designed primarily for the workers' protection and benefit.18 (Emphases supplied.)
Further aggravating the foreign employer's intent to commit contract substitution, petitioner was made to suffer verbal and psychological abuse and threat from her employers on account of her refusal to sign the new employment contract. As narrated in detail by petitioner, she was threatened by her employer Dr. Mohammad Al-Qarni that "she will see hell" if she will inform the Philippine embassy about the situation she is in. She was also threatened that her salary will be reduced as penalty for her refusal to sign the new contract. Petitioner was also constantly harassed and pressured into signing the new employment contract even in the middle of work. She was humiliated in front of her co-workers and her employer's relatives and friends. Her foreign employer also showed no concern when she reported that she is suffering from severe allergic reaction to latex surgical gloves causing her hands to swell and have blisters. Such oppressive working condition had even impelled petitioner to seek assistance from the Philippine Embassy and Consulate Officials in Saudi Arabia, as well as from the media, regarding her situation.21 (Emphasis supplied.)Taken together, these circumstances were sufficient indications of the foreign employer's bad faith, hostility, and disdain toward Maria Antoniette. While there was no formal termination of her services, Maria Antoniette's continued employment was rendered unlikely and unbearable amounting to constructive dismissal. She was left without any option except to quit from her job.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2788 dated September 16, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 8-38.
2Id. at 42-55; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jt. and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
3Id. at 108-156; Position Paper dated July 11, 2017 and Affidavit dated July 11, 2017.
4Id. at 157-164; Reply (to the Complainant's Position Paper) dated August 11, 2017.
5Id. at 72-75.
6Id. at 235-258.
7Id. at 257-258.
8Id. at 335-351; Decision dated June 27, 2018; and pp. 364-365, Resolution dated August 15, 2018.
9Id. at 361.
10Id. at 58-59.
11Id. at 8-38.
12Paredes v. Feed the Children Phils., Inc., 769 Phil. 418, 434 (2015), citing Univac Development, Inc. v. Soriano, 711 Phil. 516, 525 (2013).
13Id., citing Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, Jr., 729 Phil. 364, 376 (2014).
14Id. at 435, citing Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, 704 Phil. 120, 133 (2013).
15Id., citing Pastimer Industrial Corporation v. Gopo, 658 Phil. 627, 633 (2011).
16 ART. 34. Prohibited Practices. - It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority:
(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor[.]
17 THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINO ACT OF 1995; approved on June 7, 1995, as amended by RA No. 10022; lapsed into law on March 8, 2010; Princess Joy Placement & General Services, Inc. v. Binalla (Resolution), 735 Phil. 270, 283 (2014).
18Rollo, p. 53.
19 408 Phil. 270 (2001).
20Gilles v. CA, 606 Phil. 286, 306 (2009); Madrigalejos v. Geminilou Trucking Service, 595 Phil. 1153, 1157 (2008).
21Rollo, p. 53.cralawredlibrary