ALEJANDRO J. CUADRA, MAXIMO D. SOSA, MAGNO BALATBAT, ANTONIO AGOLAN, AND PABLITO IRLANDA[] (REPRESENTED BY HIS SPOUSE, CELESTINA IRLANDA), PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATI…

The petitioners seek modification of the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission dated November 20, 1990,^[1]
affirming the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
dated June 8, 1990, except as to the award of salary differentials.

It is averred that the public respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in reducing the award of salary differentials to Maximo D. Sosa,
rejecting the petitioners’ claim for overtime pay and meal allowance, and
disallowing attorney’s fees.

As found by the POEA, the petitioners were recruited by Majal
Development Corporation (through its President, Ahmed Bondagjy, the other
private respondent) for employment in Saudi Arabia for a period of 24
months. The corresponding Agency Worker
Agreements,^[2]
which were duly submitted to and approved by the POEA, provided for the
respective positions and salaries of the petitioners as follows:

Name                                Position                                   Salary
(Per Mo. in US Dollars)

CUADRA                                 aluminum worker                      $320.00

SOSA                                      sewage
plant operator                        550.00

BALATBAT                              fab. steel cutting
grinder                     320.00

AGOLAN                                 cabinet maker                                     320.00

Before their departure, the petitioners were required by Majal to
sign uniform documents captioned “Contract for Purchase of Services”
providing for each of them a
salary of 800 Saudi riyals, or about $213 at the prevailing exchange rate. The petitioners were reluctant to sign but
were assured they would be paid in accordance with the Agency Worker
Agreements.

This assurance was not honored by the foreign employer for the
petitioners were each paid only 800 Saudi riyals and their food allowance was
reduced from 300 to 200 Saudi riyals. Nevertheless, they continued working until the expiration of their
contracts, following which they returned to the Philippines and filed their
complaint.

After considering the position papers and evidence of the
parties, the POEA awarded the petitioners differential pay in the uniform
amount of US$361.60 except for Sosa, who was awarded $7,881.60, his basic pay
being higher. Their claim for overtime pay was denied for lack of evidentiary
basis. No mention was made of their
claim for unpaid food allowance and attorney’s fees.^[3]

This decision was appealed to and affirmed by the NLRC, except
that the salary differential for all the five petitioners was made uniform in
the amount of US$2,568.00. The result
was a reduction for Sosa and an increase for the other petitioners in their
respective salary differentials.^[4]

The petitioners are now before this Court and ask for reversal of
the decision of the NLRC for being tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Sosa claims a higher differential pay and,
with the other petitioners, insist on the award of their overtime pay and
unpaid meal allowance, plus attorney’s fees.

It is immediately clear from a study of the record that the
reduction of Sosa’s salary differential is unwarranted. The obvious reason is that he was promised a
higher salary than that of the other petitioners, who were all entitled to be
paid at the uniform rate of US$320.00 per month. Sosa’s stipulated monthly salary was US$550.00. Consequently, his salary differential, based
on his higher salary, should also be higher than that due the other
petitioners.

In its decision, the NLRC observed that –

….. as regards the amount of salary
differentials due to the complainants, there is merit to the contention of the
complainants in its Motion for Reconsideration that the correct computation
should be the exchange rate actually prevailing at the time that complainants
were employed in Saudi Arabia from 1987 to 1989 which as US$1 : SR3.76 and not
US$1 : SR3.61 as computed by the Administrator. The correct equivalent therefore of SR800 should be US$213.00 and
not US$221.00.

Applying that rate, we find that Sosa, who received a salary of
only US$213.00 per month during the two years of his employment, is entitled to
a salary differential of US$337.00 per month, or a total of US$8,088.00 for 24
months.

Regarding the claim for overtime pay, we do not agree that it
should have been disallowed because of the failure of the petitioners to
substantiate it. The petitioners
complained in separate but identical affidavits^[5] that
“we were frequently made to work overtime at the King Faisel Military
Academy but we were not paid the corresponding overtime pay despite our
repeated demands.” They also submitted a document in Arabic, with an
English translation thereof, in which Cuadra authorized one Abdal Gan Orink to
collect his overtime pay for him, but which the agent returned to Cuadra
because such overtime pay had not been collected.^[6] The
NLRC found this evidence inadequate, but we think it was, under the circumstances
of this case.

The claim of our overseas workers against their foreign employers
should not be subjected to the rules of evidence and procedure that we usually
apply to other complainants who have more facility in obtaining the required
evidence to prove their demands.

The petitioners did not have access to the records of the foreign
employer, which was no less than the Saudi Arabia Armed Forces. They were working in a military camp which, if only for security
reasons, could not be expected to make their records available to just any
person desiring to examine and copy them. Much less would they have been accessible to
the petitioners, who were foreigners and adverse claimants to boot.

The Court feels that in this situation, the public respondent should
have given credence to the petitioners rather than the private respondents,
which merely denied the claim without submitting their own evidence to refute
it. It is so easy to say that the
petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to support their claims without taking
into account that more convincing evidence could not have been obtained by them
in any case, in view of their particular predicament. Let it be repeated for emphasis that they were mere laborers in a
foreign land, with adverse claims against no less than its government itself.

On the other hand, the private respondents could have refuted the
assertions of the petitioners by producing the records and logbooks of the
foreign employer, which could have been easily obtained by them. As agents of such employer, the private
respondents could have submitted these documents to show that their foreign
principal had not violated its employment contract with the petitioners and the
requirements of our labor laws. For
failure to present such evidence, the private respondents defaulted in their
defense and in effect admitted the allegations of the petitioners. They are therefore solidarily responsible
with their foreign principal for the claims of the overseas workers.

The NLRC, in its own comment, which it filed after the Solicitor
General had expressed his support for the petitioners, contends that
“before the workers may be entitled to overtime pay, the element of
necessity and/or authorization must be present.” This argument is unrealistic,
to say the least, and legally untenable. Surely, the petitioners were not
in a position to prove such necessity nor could they have obtained such
authorization from their employer, given its proven attitude toward its foreign
employees.

We agree with the Solicitor General that, again applying the
exchange rate approved by the NLRC, the petitioners should be granted overtime
pay as follows:

For Cuadra, Balatbat and Agolan –

Amount of
compensation per hour:

$320.00
per month                  =          $ 13.33 per day

24 working days per month

$13.33
per day                             =          $ 1.66 per hour

8 hours per day

Total number of hours
of overtime:

Hours of overtime per day x number of
working days

2
hours/day x 576 working days

= 1152 hours

Total overtime pay:

$1.66 per hour x 1152 hours       =         
$1,912.32

For Sosa –

Amount of compensation
per hour:

$550.00
per month                        =          $ 22.91 per day

24 working days per
month

$22.91
per day                              =          $ 2.86 per hour

8 hours per day

Total number of hours
of overtime:

Hours of overtime per
day x number of working days

2 hours/day x 576 working days

=
1152 hours

Total overtime pay:

$2.86 per hour x 1152 hours       =          $
3,294.72

The petitioners’ claim for unpaid food allowance should also have
been upheld by the NLRC. On this
particular claim, the petitioners were able to submit in evidence a notice
issued by the foreign employer, (and written not only in Arabic but also in
English, presumably for the benefit of the foreign workers) that the said food
allowance had been reduced from 300 to 200 Saudi riyals.^[7] That
notice alone proved that the original stipulated food allowance was 300 Saudi
riyals and had been unilaterally reduced without the consent of the
employees. The underpayment has also
not been denied by the respondents, who must therefore be also held liable
therefor.

As computed by the petitioners without refutation from the
respondents, such underpayment is in the total amount of 2,400 riyals for each
of the petitioners, at the rate of 100 Saudi riyals per month for 24
months. At the exchange rate found by
the NLRC, this would translate to US$638.32 per petitioner.

Denial of the claim for attorney’s fees was also erroneous in
view of the clear provision of Article III of the Labor Code reading as
follows:

Art. III. Attorney’s
fees. – (a) In cases of unlawful
withholding of wages the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees
equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

Such attorney’s fees may be assessed in accordance with Rule
VIII, Sec. 11, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, thus:

Sec. 11. Attorney’s fees. – Attorney’s fees in any judicial or
administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages shall not exceed 10% of
the amount awarded. The fees may be
deducted from the total amount due the winning party.

Our overseas workers are, to begin with, mostly ordinary laborers
not conversant with legal principles and with the manner they can assert and
protect their rights. They have no
compatriot-lawyers to consult and no labor unions to support them in the
foreign land. Some of them have
complained, not without reason, that the staffs of our own embassies and
consulates have not been available or ready to give them assistance. Denied the protection they need, they are
easy prey to exploitation by the foreign employers, who are usually able to get
away with these abuses because they are, so to speak, in their own
territory. The claims of our overseas
workers should therefore be received with sympathy, and allowed if warranted,
conformably to the constitutional mandate for the protection of the working
class.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is MODIFIED and the
following awards are hereby made:

For Maximo Sosa:

Unpaid salaries – – – – – – – – – – US$ 8,088.00

Unpaid overtime pay – –
– – – – US$ 3,294.72

Unpaid food allowance – – – – -US$ 638.30;

Total – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – US$12,021.02

For Alejandro Cuadra:

Unpaid salaries – – –
– – – – – – – US$2,568.00

Unpaid overtime pay – – – – – –  US$1,912.32

Unpaid food allowance – – – –   US$ 638.30;

Total – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– US$5,118.62

For Magno Balatbat:

Unpaid salaries – – –
– – – – – – US$2,568.00

Unpaid overtime pay – – – – – – US$1,912.32

Unpaid food allowance – – – – US$ 638.30;

Total – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – US$5,118.62

For Antonio Agolan

Unpaid salaries – – – – – – – – –   US$2,568.00

Unpaid overtime pay – – – – – –  US$1,912.32

Unpaid food allowance – – – –   US$ 638.30.

Total – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –    US$5,118.62

Attorney’s fees in the amount of US$2,737.69, representing 10% of
the total award of US$27,376.88, shall also be paid by the private respondents
directly to the petitioners’ common counsel.

SO ORDERED.

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

Bellosillo, J., no part did not
participate in the deliberations.

* The complaint of Pablito Irlanda
was dismissed by the POEA because it was not signed by him or by a person duly
authorized.

^[1]
Rollo,  p. 140; penned by Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto-Perez, with Commissioners Domingo M. Zapanta
and Rustico L. Diokno, concurring.

^[2]
Ibid., pp. 36-42.

^[3]
Id., p. 125.

^[4]
id., pp. 146-147.

^[5]
id., pp. 105-113.

^[6]
id., pp. 155-156.

^[7]
id., p. 104.