ANDRES E. DITAN, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ASIA-WORLD RECRUITMENT, INC., AND/OR INTRACO S…

The petitioner had the rare experience of being taken hostage in
1984, along with a number of his co-workers,
by the rebels in Angola.  His captivity for more than two months and
the events that followed his release are the subject of the present petition.

Andres E. Ditan was recruited by private respondent Intraco Sales
Corporation, through its local agent, Asia World, the other private respondent,
to work in Angola
as a welding supervisor.  The contract
was for nine months, at a monthly salary of US$1,100.00 or US$275.00 weekly, and
contained the required standard stipulations for the protection of our overseas
workers.

Arriving on November 30, 1984, in Luanda,
capital of Angola,
the petitioner was assigned as an ordinary welder in the INTRACO central
maintenance shop from December 2 to
25, 1984.  On December 26, 1984, he was informed,
to his distress, that he would be transferred to Kafunfo, some 350 kilometers east of Luanda.  This was the place where, earlier that year,
the rebels had attacked and kidnaped expatriate workers, killing two Filipinos
in the raid.  Naturally, Ditan was reluctant
to go.  However, he was assured by the INTRACO
manager that Kafunfo was safe and adequately protected by government troops;
moreover – and this was more persuasive – he was told he would be sent home if
he refused the new
assignment.  In the end, with much
misgiving, he relented and agreed.

On December 29, 1984,
his fears were confirmed.  The Unita
rebels attacked the diamond mining site where Ditan was working and took him
and sixteen other Filipino hostages, along with other foreign workers.  The rebels and their captives walked through
jungle terrain for 31 days to the Unita stronghold near the Namibian
border.  They trekked for almost a thousand
kilometers.  They subsisted on meager
fare.  Some of them had diarrhea.  Their feet were blistered.  It was only on March 16, 1985, that the hostages were finally released
after the intercession of their governments and the International Red
Cross.  Six days later, Ditan and the
other Filipino hostages were back in the Philippines.^[1]

The repatriated workers had been assured by INTRACO that they
would be given priority in re-employment abroad, and eventually eleven of them
were taken back.  Ditan having been
excluded, he filed in June 1985
a complaint against the private respondents for breach of contract and various
other claims.  Specifically, he sought
the amount of
US$4,675.00, representing his salaries for the unexpired 17 weeks of his
contract; US$25,000.00 as war risk bonus; US$2,196.50 as the value of his lost belongings;
US$1,100 for unpaid vacation leave; and moral and exemplary damages in the sum
of US$50,000.00, plus attorney’s fees.

All these claims were dismissed by POEA Administrator Tomas D.
Achacoso in a decision dated January
27, 1987.^[2]
This was affirmed in toto by respondent NLRC in a resolution
dated July 14, 1987,^[3]
which is now being challenged in this petition.

Going over the record, we find that the public respondent correctly
rejected the petitioner’s claim for paid vacation leave.  The express stipulation in Clause 5 of the employment contract
reads:

Should the Employee enter into a further 9 or 12 months contract at
the completion contract, he will be entitled to one month’s paid vacation
before commencement of his second or subsequent contract.

It appears that the petitioner had not entered into a second
contract with the employer after the expiration of the first.  Such re-employment was not a matter of right on the part
of the petitioner but dependent on the need for his skills in another project
the employer might later be undertaking.

As regards the cost of
his belongings, the evidence shows that they were not really lost but in fact
returned to him by the rebels prior to their release.  If he had other properties that were not
recovered, there was no proof of
their loss that could support
his allegations.  They were therefore
also properly rejected.

We find, though, that the claims for breach of contract and war
risk bonus deserve a little more reflection in view of the peculiar
circumstances of this case.

The fact that stands out most prominently in the record is the risk to which the petitioner was
subjected when he was assigned, after his reluctant consent, to the
rebel-infested region of Kafunfo.  This
was a dangerous area.  This same place
had earlier been the target of a rebel
attack that had resulted in the death of two Filipino workers and the capture of several others.  Knowing all this, INTRACO still pressured
Ditan into agreeing to be transferred to that place, dismissing his initial
objection and, more important, threatening to send him home if he refused.

We feel that in failing to provide for the safety of the
petitioner, the private respondents were clearly remiss in the discharge of one
of the primary duties of the employer.  Worse, they not only neglected that duty but indeed
deliberately violated it by actually subjecting and exposing Ditan to a real
and demonstrated danger.  It does not
help to argue that he was not forced to go to Kafunfo and had the option of
coming home.  That was a cruel choice, to
say the least.  The petitioner had gone
to that foreign land in search of a better life that he could share with his
loved ones after his stint
abroad.  That choice would have required
him to come home empty-handed to the disappointment of an expectant family.

It is not explained why the petitioner was not paid for the
unexpired portion of his contract which had 17 more weeks to go.  The hostages were immediately repatriated
after their release, presumably so they could recover from their ordeal.  The promise of INTRACO was that they would be
given priority in re-employment should their services be needed.  In the particular case of the petitioner, the
promise was not fulfilled.  It would seem
that his work was terminated, and not again
required, because it was really intended all along to assign him only to
Kafunfo.

The private respondents stress that the contract Ditan entered
into called for his employment in Angola,
without indication of any particular place of assignment in the country.  This meant he agreed to be assigned to work anywhere in that country, including Kafunfo.  When INTRACO assigned Ditan to that place in
the regular course of its business, it was merely exercising its rights under
the employment contract that Ditan had freely entered into.  Hence, it is argued, he cannot now complain that there was a breach of that contract
for which he is entitled to monetary redress.

The private respondents also reject the claim for war risk bonus
and point out that POEA Memorandum Circular No. 4, issued pursuant to the
mandatory war risk coverage provision in Section 2, Rule VI, of the POEA Rules
and Regulations on Overseas Employment, categorizing Angola as a war risk took
effect only on February 6, 1985, “after the petitioner’s deployment to
Angola on November 27,
1984.” Consequently, the stipulation could not be applied to the
petitioner as it was not supposed to have a retroactive effect.

A strict interpretation of the cold facts before us might support
the position taken by the respondents. 
However, we are dealing here not with an ordinary transaction but with a
labor contract which deserves special treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of
the worker.  As the Solicitor General
observes in his Comment supporting the petitioner, the Constitution mandates
the protection of labor and the sympathetic concern of the State for the
working class conformably to the social justice policy.  This is a command we cannot disregard in the
resolution of the case before us.

The paramount duty of this Court is to render justice through
law.  The law in this case allows two
opposite interpretations, one strictly in favor of the employers and the other
liberally in favor of the worker.  The
choice is obvious.  We find, considering
the totality of the circumstances attending this case, that the petitioner is
entitled to relief.

The petitioner went to Angola
prepared to work as he had
promised in accordance with the employment contract he had entered into in good
faith with the private respondents.  Over
his objection, he was sent to a dangerous
assignment and as
he feared was taken hostage in a rebel attack that prevented him from
fulfilling his contract while in captivity. 
Upon his release, he was immediately sent home and was not paid the
salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract.  He was immediately repatriated with the
promise that he would be given priority in re-employment, which never came.  To rub salt on the wound, many of his
co-hostages were re-employed as promised. 
The petitioner was left only with a bleak experience and nothing to show
for it except dashed hopes and a
sense of rejection.

In these circumstances, the Court feels that the petitioner
should be paid the salary corresponding
to the 17 unserved weeks of his contract, which was terminated by the
private respondents despite his willingness to work out the balance of his
term.  In addition, to assuage the ordeal
he underwent while in captivity by the rebels, the Court has also decided in
its discretion to award him nominal damages in the sum of P20,000.00.  This is not
payment of the war risk claim which, as
earlier noted, was not provided for in the employment contract in question,
or indemnification for any loss suffered by him.  This is but a token of the tenderness of the law towards the petitioning workman vis-a-vis the private respondents and their more comfortable resources.

Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward
to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification
that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in
law.  That is why our judgment today must
be for the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the challenged resolution of the NLRC is hereby
MODIFIED.  The private respondents are
hereby DIRECTED jointly and severally to pay the petitioner:  a) the current equivalent in Philippine pesos
of US$4,675.00, representing his unpaid salaries for the balance of the contract
term; b) nominal damages in the amount of P20,000.00; and c) 10% attorney’s fees.  No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, p. 47.

^[2] Ibid., pp. 46-54.

^[3] Id., pp. 65-69.