G.R. No. L-16492. October 27, 1961
MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTELITA G. BARRERA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
the Municipal Court of Manila praying for the refund of P390.50 allegedly paid
by her in employing three housemaids thru defendants as owners and operators of
the Gloria Employment Agency.
On March 19, 1958, defendants filed their answer with a counterclaim
admitting some of the items mentioned in the complaint but denying having
received the extra charge of P60.00. After trial, the court rendered judgment
ordering defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of P390.00, plus P100.00 as
attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.
Defendants appealed to the court of first instance and after the issues were
joined, the court set the case for hearing on August 27, 1958, where, instead of
presenting their evidence, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts from
which the following may be deduced: On three different occasions the Gloria
Employment Agency secured for plaintiff the services of three housemaids: Ivonne
Provido on May 23, 1957, Yolanda Jaime on July 14, 1957, and Vicenta Novalis on
July 23, 1957, each to work for a period of one year at a monthly salary of
P20.00 each. For this service, plaintiff paid defendants the following amounts:
P154.50 representing the office and tax fees of the Agency at P51.50 for each of
the three housemaids; P176.00 representing the debts of said maids advanced by
the Agency to wit: P62.00 for Ivonne Provido; P62.00 for Yolanda Jaime; and
P52.00 for Vicenta Novalis.
On September 11, 1957, the maids escaped and having been informed thereof
defendants located and delivered the maids, to plaintiff, but the latter
returned them to the Agency on December 7, 1957. On December 14, 1957, plaintiff
wrote defendants demanding the refund of the amount of P390.00 claimed to have
originally paid by her to which defendants replied offering to reimburse only
the amount of P116.90, and as plaintiff was not agreeable to the proposal she
instituted the present action. With respect to the damages and attorney’s fees
claimed by both parties, the same were left to the discretion of the court.
On November 3, 1958, the court a quo sentenced defendants to pay
plaintiff the sum of P390.00, plus P200.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation. In due time, defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals but the
latter certified the case to us for the reason that there are no questions of
fact involved.
The amount of P390.50 claimed by appellee is itemized as follows:
On the back of each of the receipts issued by appellants in connection with
the employment of the three maids the following clause appears:
“That in cases, where an employee placed by the agency terminates the
contract of employment without having been dismissed by the employer if exchange
is not elected by the agency, the employer is entitled to a refund from the
agency of the fee paid by him in accordance with the following schedule,
FEAS/NESS form No. VI)
- Within 10 days 100%.
- Within the 1st Month 75%.
- Within the 2nd and 3rd month 50%.
- Within the 4th to the 6th month 25%.
- After the 6th month, no refund.”
Pertinent portions of the Code of Ruiles and Regulations promulgated by the
Commissioner of the National Employment Service pursuant to the authority vested
in him by Republic Act No. 761, approved by the Secretary of Labor, are quoted
hereunder:
“Section 53.—An ‘Office fee’ not to exceed Fifty Pesos (P50.00) may be
charged by the agency against any employer for each placement or employment of a
recruit, which shall be for the exclusive account of the employer and never
chargeable against the employee.“Section 54.—In cases where an employee place by the agency terminates the
contract of employment without having been dismissed by the employer and is
returned by the latter to the agency, if exchange is not elected by the agency,
the employer is entitled to refund of the fee paid by him in accordance with the
following schedule:
* * * * * *
“Provided, however, that, if the employer terminated the contract of
employment for a valid or sufficient cause, he shall have the option of either
getting a refund or an exchange, in accordance with the above schedules: * *
*.”
It would appear from the above that an office fee not to exceed P50.00 may be
charged by an employment agency against an employer for each recruit which shall
be for the exclusive account of the employer, while on the other hand, when a
recruit placed by the Agency terminates his contract of employment without
having been dismissed by the employer, the latter is entitled to a refund from
the Agency of certain percentage of the fee paid by the employer in accordance
with the schedule set forth therein. There is no dispute that on September 11,
1957 the three maids herein involved escaped from the house of their em- ployer
for reasons that do not appear clear in the record but who upon being detected
were returned to their employer who however chose not to re-employ them thereby
terminating their contract of employment. It may therefore be said that the
three maids chose to leave the service of their employer without having been
dismissed by the latter thus giving the employer the right to ask for a refund
of the fees paid by her to the Agency in the manner provided for in the contract
and in the rules above-quoted. In this sense, the employer is entitled to a
refund of P62.50 computed as follows: P12.50 for Ivonne Provido, P25.00 for
Yolanda Jaime, and P25.00 for Vicenta Novalis.
In our opinion this is the only item which the employer may recover from the
Agency considering the contract and the rules already adverted to. Thus, the
employer cannot be reimbursed of the tax fees she paid for the three maids in
the total sum of P4.50 for they are due the government. The employer is not also
entitled to the refund of the alleged extra charge of P60.00 for there is
nothing in the record to show any reason or justification for the payment of
such extra charge. No evidence has been presented to this effect. And with
regard to the sum of P176.00 which was paid by the employer to the Agency as
reimbursement for the personal obligations of the maids advanced by the latter,
the evidence is clear that such indebtedness/ if any, is only chargeable against
the maids for he had. personally assumed to pay it in the contract of employment
entered into between them and the employer (Exhibits B, D and F). By entering
into the contract, the implication is that the employer has relieved the Agency
from its liability therefor in the event the maids terminate their employment
before the period agreed upon. There is, moreover, on the back of each of the
receipts issued by the Agency to the employer a notation of this tenor:
“Important: In case of escape the Agency does not guarantee the accounts of
the servant-employee“, which shows that the Agency has not assumed any
subsidiary liability for the accounts of the maids. It is therefore clear that
of the items claimed by the employer, she is only entitled to a refund in the
sum of P62.5O.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified by ordering appellants to
pay appellee only the amount of P62.50, without pronouncement as to costs.
Considering the outcome of this case, the item relative to attorney’s fees
should also be eliminated.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.