SPOUSES PAUL CAESAR AND ANNA MARIE TORRENTE MARIQUIT, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), NATION MANPOWER CORPORATION, MVPS MANPOWER SERVICES …
GAERLAN, S.H., J.:
dated 29 April 2011 of public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), Third Division, in NLRC LAC No. 12-001063-10. The
assailed Resolution, which was rendered by the public respondent NLRC in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, affirmed but modified the
Decision[3] dated 1 October 2010 of Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas in NLRC NCR OFW Case No. (L)06-08345-10.
FACTS
The records show that in April 2009, petitioner-spouses Paul
Caesar and Anna Marie Torrente Mariquit applied for jobs abroad with
private respondent Nation Manpower Corporation (NMC). On 22 April 2009,
NMC offered petitioner-spouses jobs in Brunei, which the latter
accepted.[4]
Under his Contract of Employment,[5]
petitioner Paul Caesar Mariquit was hired for the position of Logistic
Crew with the company Innerspace. The duration of his employment was for
a period of two (2) years commencing on the date he reported for duty,
with a monthly salary of B$380.
On the other hand, the Contract of Employment[6]
of petitioner Anna Marie provided that she was hired for the position
of Retail Associate with Thann Sanctuary Spa and Beauty Salon. The
duration of her employment was also for a period of two (2) years
commencing on the date she reported for duty, with a monthly salary of
B$420.
It appears that sometime thereafter, NMC indorsed
petitioner-spouses to private respondent MVPS Manpower Services Company
(MVPS).[7]
On 27 September 2009, petitioner-spouses left for Brunei and arrived the following day, 28 September 2009.
According to petitioner-spouses, on the date of their arrival,
a certain Ms. Amal Lee Abdullah asked them to sign sets of documents,
including promissory notes[8]
to cover their placement fees equivalent to two (2) months of their
respective salaries. This supposedly was not in accordance with their
previously agreed placement fee with NMC, equivalent to one (1) month
salary of the spouses.
On the same day, they were brought to Innerspace and Thann
Sanctuary Spa and Beauty Salon, where Paul Caesar was allegedly assigned
as delivery truck driver and not as Logistic Crew. They likewise allege
that a week thereafter, or on 3 October 2009, they were asked to go to
Riverview Hotel, where they were asked to sign new employment contracts[9]
with the latter. But the new contracts, notwithstanding, they allegedly
continued to report for work to Innerspace and Thann Sanctuary Spa and
Beauty Salon as delivery truck driver and retail associate.
Thereafter, petitioner Paul Caesar noticed that he was only
receiving a monthly salary of B$300 instead of B$380. Around that time,
petitioner Anna Marie was terminated from employment at Thann Sanctuary
Spa and Beauty Salon, and transferred to Jungle Gym as attendant.
These circumstances allegedly prompted the petitioner-spouses to
consult the Philippine Embassy in Brunei. They found out that private
respondent NMC is not an accredited agent of Innerspace and Thann
Sanctuary Spa and Beauty Salon. They likewise learned that there was no
job offer from Innerspace and Thann Sanctuary Spa and Beauty Salon
authorizing it to hire workers from the Philippines.
On 11
December 2009, petitioner-spouses requested for copies of their
contracts from a certain Mr. Javen Ang. The following day, they were
reprimanded by Javen Ang for reporting to the Philippine Embassy and, on
the same day, were asked to leave the company. Petitioner Paul Caesar
asked for payment of their salaries but were not given anything.
Petitioner-spouses went to the Philippine Embassy to take refuge. After
two (2) months, Mr. Javen Ang finally gave their unpaid salaries and
boat tickets to Malaysia, then plane tickets to the Philippines.
Petitioner-spouses were required to sign documents. On 29 January 2010,
they arrived back to the Philippines.
Petitioner-spouses filed
the instant complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, overtime pay
and damages against NMC, MVPS, Innerspace and Thann Sanctuary Spa and
Beauty Salon, Riverview Hotel, NMC President Mary Grace Dass and MVPS
President Victor San Luis.
On 1 October 2010, Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas rendered a Decision[10] declaring petitioner-spouses to have been illegally dismissed and awarding their money claims in this wise, viz:
“As it is, this office finds that respondents failed to
discharge the evidentiary burden that complainants were dismissed for
cause and with due process. Such being the case, respondents are hereby
adjudged liable for the payment of the unexpired portion of
complainants’ contracts plus the refund of their placement fees.Section 10 of R.A. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995) in relation to the case of Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime
Services Inc., et al. (G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009) provides that an
illegally dismissed overseas contract worker is entitled to his
salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract and to
the refund of placement fee with legal interest (where applicable). The
recruitment/manning agency and its foreign employer are held solidarily
liable for monetary awards granted pursuant to this provision.With a contracted salary of B$380.00 and B$420.00, complainants
are therefore entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired
portion of their contracts or for nineteen months and twenty eight days
in the amounts of B$7,630.20 in the case of complainant Mariquit and
B$8,432.20 on the part of complainant Torrente as well as the refund of
their placement fees in the amount of P5,600.00 to each complainant,
which the latter claimed to have been paid and as stated in the
computation of claims.xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering respondents Nation Manpower Corporation / MVPS Manpower
Services Company, Innerspace / Riverview Hotel and/or Mary Grace Dass
and Victor San Luis to jointly and severally pay complainants the peso
equivalent at the time of actual payment of the sums of B$7,630.20 to
complainant Paul Cesar (sic) M. Mariquit and the sum of B$8,432.20 to
complainant Anna Marie S. Torrente representing salaries for the entire
unexpired portion of their contracts. Respondents are further ordered to
pay complainants the sum of P5,600.00 each as refund of placement fees.All other claims are ordered dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
Petitioner-spouses, NMC and MVPS filed their respective appeals
before the public respondent NLRC. For their part, petitioner-spouses
challenged the Labor Arbiter’s computation of the unexpired term of
their respective contracts, claiming that it should be twenty-one (21)
months and nineteen (19) days rather that nineteen (19) months and
twenty-eight (28) days as computed in the 1 October 2010 Decision.
On 21 February 2011, public respondent NLRC rendered a Resolution[11]
dismissing the parties’ appeals for non-perfection. On Motion for
Reconsideration of private respondent NMC, public respondent rendered
the assailed Resolution[12]
reinstating NMC’s appeal. In the assailed Resolution, public respondent
affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal but modified the Labor
Arbiter’s award in this wise:
“Complainants also questioned the computation of the unexpired
portion of the employment contract. Instead of nineteen (19) months, it
should be twenty one (21) months.We are constrained to modify the amount of judgment award of the
Labor Arbiter in view of the re-enactment of R.A. 10022 (An Act
Amending R.A. No. 8042 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Act of
1995) which took effect on March 8, 2010 reiterating Sec. 10 of R.A.
8042 to wit:‘Sec. 7. Sec. 10 of R.A. 8042, as amended is hereby amended to read as follows:
‘Sec. 10. Money claims.
xxx xxx xxx
‘In case of termination of overseas employment without just,
valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any
unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker’s salary, the worker
shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee and the
deductions made 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.’Although the above provision of Section 10, R.A. 8042 was partly
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Antonio
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co.
Inc. (G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009), the aforesaid provision limiting
the unexpired term of the complainant to 3 months for every year of the
unexpired portion whichever is less has again been incorporated and
reiterated in the Amendatory Law R.A. 10022 which took effect on March
8, 2010. Unless and until the said provision is again challenged and
declared unconstitutional, We have no other recourse but to follow the
latest law enacted by Congress pursuant to their law making powers under
the Constitution. Thus, complainants (sic) unexpired term is limited to
3 months per year of their contracts or for a total of 6 months salary
for each of the complainants.Wherefore, respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED,
however their appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant’s
appeal is likewise DISMISSED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is
hereby MODIFIED by ordering respondents Nation Manpower Corporation and
MVPS Manpower Services Co. to pay jointly and severally complainants
Paul Caesar M. Mariquit and Anna Marie S. Torrente the amounts of
B$2,280.00 and B$2,520.00 respectively, representing the salaries of the
complainants for the unexpired portions of their employment contracts
or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever
is less. The refund of placement fee in the amount of P5,600.00 each is
DELETED.SO ORDERED.”
Thus, petitioner-spouses filed the instant Petition on the following grounds:[13]
GROUNDS
I.
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN MODIFYING THE LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION BY GIVING THE
COMPLAINANT-PETITIONERS THE MONETARY AWARD EQUIVALENT TO THREE (3)
MONTHS OF THEIR MONTHLY SALARY INSTEAD OF TWENTY ONE (21) MONTHS AND
NINETEEN (19) DAYS.
II.
THE AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF R.A. 10022 RETAINING THE SUBJECT CLAUSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE COURT’S RULING
The Petition is impressed with merit.
The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract or three (3) months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, shall be awarded to
the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal dismissal. However,
in the Decision dated 24 March 2009 in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,[14] the Supreme Court deciding En Banc,
declared unconstitutional the clause “or for three months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” and awarded the entire
unexpired portion of the employment contract to the overseas Filipino
worker.[15]
On 8 March 2010, however, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022
(R.A. No. 10022) amended Section 10 of the Migrant Workers Act, and once
again reiterated the provision of awarding the unexpired portion of the
employment contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less.[16]
Nevertheless, since the termination of petitioner-spouses
occurred on December 2009 before the passage of the amendatory R.A. No.
10022, We shall apply R.A. No. 8042, as unamended, without touching on
the constitutionality of Section 7 of R.A. No. 10022.
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided. By its very nature, the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10022
— restoring a provision of R.A. No. 8042 declared unconstitutional —
cannot be given retroactive effect, not only because there is no express
declaration of retroactivity in the law, but because retroactive
application will result in an impairment of a right that had accrued to
the petitioner-spouses by virtue of the Serrano ruling — entitlement to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts.[17]
All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective
application, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give
them a retrospective effect are expressly declared or are necessarily
implied from the language used. We thus see no reason to nullify the
application of the Serrano ruling in the present case. Whether
or not R.A. No. 10022 is constitutional is not for us to rule upon in
the present case as this is an issue that is not squarely before us. In
other words, this is an issue that awaits its proper day in court; in
the meanwhile, We make no pronouncement on it.[18]
On this score, it behooves Us to note that petitioner-spouses’
tenure lasted only for a period of two (2) months and thirteen (13)
days, computed from the date they started reporting for work at
Innerspace and Thann Sanctuary Spa and Beauty Salon on 28 September 2009
until their dismissal on 11 December 2011. Considering that the
duration of their employment contracts are for a period of two (2) years
or twenty-four (24) months, the unexpired portion thereof is twenty-one
(21) months and nineteen (19) days, more or less.
Finally, to
address the alleged procedural lapse committed by petitioner-spouses for
not filing a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of the
instant petition for certiorari, this Court holds that the argument
lacks merit.
One of the recognized exceptions to the rule that a
motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a petition
for certiorari is when the decision is a patent nullity. In this case,
considering that the reduction or limitation of the award of salaries to
overseas Filipino workers to three (3) months per year of the unexpired
portion of their contracts, has been declared unconstitutional pursuant
the Serrano doctrine, public respondent’s assailed Resolution clearly comes within the purview of the said exception.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated 29 April 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, is hereby MODIFIED
by ordering private respondents Nation Manpower Corporation / MVPS
Manpower Services Company, Innerspace / Riverview Hotel and or Mary
Grace Dass and Victor San Luis to jointly and severally pay
petitioner-spouses Paul Caesar M. Mariquit and Anna Marie Torrente
Mariquit their salaries for the entire unexpired portion of their
respective contracts, equivalent to twenty-one (21) months and nineteen
(19) days.
SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando (Chairperson) and Bruselas, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-32.
[2] Rollo, pp. 33-39.
[3] Rollo, pp. 40-65.
[4] Rollo, pp. 93 and 96.
[5] Rollo, pp. 94-95.
[6] Rollo, pp. 97-98.
[7] Rollo, page 90.
[8] Rollo, pp. 99 and 101.
[9] Rollo, 100 and 102.
[10] Supra, see footnote 3.
[11] Rollo, pp. 67-70.
[12] Supra, see footnote 2.
[13] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[14] G.R. No. 167614, 24 March 2009.
[15] Skippers United Pacific, Inc., et a’. vs. Nathaniel Doza, et al., G.R. No. 175558, 8 February 2012.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. vs. Armando A. Vinuya, et al., G.R. No. 197528, 5 September 2012.
[18] Ibid.