Imagine that You are a Filipina domestic worker, promised a job in Riyadh, but end up in Abha. Days into your work, you’re sexually harassed, locked up in poor conditions, starved, and forced to sign a letter saying you quit voluntarily—just to get home.

TOPIC: RIGHTS OF OFWS - PART 6 OF 10 

Can a Filipina domestic helper who was sexually harassed, imprisoned, and starved by her foreign employer and recruiter abroad be deemed to have "voluntarily resigned"—or was she, in fact, constructively dismissed under Philippine labor law?

 

CASE TITLE:
Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc., et al. v. Alma Tacda Manuel
G.R. No. 249843 | October 6, 2021

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Alma Tacda Manuel was deployed by Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. to work as a domestic helper in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However, upon departure, she discovered her ticket was bound for Jeddah, and she was eventually brought to Abha—not the contracted location. She accepted the assignment due to financial necessity.

Only three days into her job, her male employer sexually harassed her—grazing her breast and forcing her to touch his genitals. Traumatized, she fled to Ascent’s foreign principal, Silver Contract, seeking a transfer. Offered another job in the same city where she was abused (Abha), she refused, insisting on being deployed to Riyadh as initially agreed.

Instead of being helped, she was forcibly taken by a former employee to the United Project Company (UPC), where she was locked up with seven others, denied proper food and water, and forced to eat spoiled leftovers. After over two months of inhumane conditions, she asked to be repatriated. Before her return, she was compelled to sign a letter stating that she wanted to go home and had no claims against the agency.

A month later, Manuel filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, moral and exemplary damages, trafficking, discrimination, and attorney’s fees against Ascent and its officers.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring she was constructively dismissed and awarded her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The NLRC reversed the ruling, finding her resignation to be voluntary based on the letter she signed. It denied her motion for reconsideration.

She elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The CA held that the totality of circumstances showed coercion and abuse, not voluntary resignation.

Ascent and its officers elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

 

ISSUE IN THE SUPREME COURT:

Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the NLRC and ruling that Alma Manuel was constructively dismissed, not a voluntary resignee?

 

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA's decision, declaring that Alma Manuel was constructively dismissed.

The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating the totality of circumstances—including the sexual harassment, contract breach (workplace misrepresentation), confinement, and psychological trauma—which clearly negated any notion of voluntary resignation.

The quitclaim letter, executed under duress, was not proof of resignation. It was a product of her desperation to escape the abuses she endured abroad. The Court further condemned the bad faith and negligence of the recruitment agency and its officers, holding them solidarily liable.

The moral and exemplary damages were increased from ₱10,000 to ₱100,000 each, recognizing the gravity of the agency’s neglect and the trauma suffered by Manuel.

 

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated 15 April 2019 and Resolution dated 08 October 2019, issued by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 157847, reinstating the 19 December 2017 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioners are ordered to pay respondent’s wages representing the unexpired portion of her contract in the amount of SR 31,455.00 or in its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment; moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to ₱100,000 each and 10% attorney’s fees.

In addition, legal interest shall be computed at the rate of 6% per annum of the total monetary award from date of finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.

SO ORDERED.

 

Should foreign employers and local recruitment agencies be permanently blacklisted when found complicit in abuses against OFWs—or is financial liability enough justice for the victims?

 

IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:

1. "Constructive dismissal exists where the employer's actions make continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely."
   – Includes acts of sexual harassment, maltreatment, or contract misrepresentation that make the worker’s environment unbearable.
2. "The burden is on the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned."
   – A resignation letter, especially when executed under duress, is not conclusive evidence.
3. "Quitclaims signed under coercive conditions are void for being contrary to public policy."
   – Workers do not stand equal to employers in bargaining power; thus, such waivers are often invalid.
4. "Corporate officers and directors of recruitment agencies are solidarily liable for OFW money claims."
   – Under Section 10, RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022, corporate veil is pierced in OFW claims.
5. "OFWs are entitled to the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts if illegally dismissed."
   – A protection reinforced by RA 10022, safeguarding the economic security of our migrant workers.

 

CLASSIFICATION:
Labor Law – Involves the illegal dismissal and labor rights violations of an overseas Filipino worker.

 

 

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.

READ FULL TEXT HERE 

🎓 Constructive Dismissal of OFWs and Quitclaims Under Labor Law

Welcome, future lawyers and baristas! In this short legal review, we dissect a powerful labor law case that explores constructive dismissal, quitclaims, and solidary liability of recruitment agencies and corporate officers. This video is designed to help law students and bar reviewees quickly recall key doctrines in a digestible format.

 

🔍 CASE INTRODUCTION
Nature of the Case: Labor Law (Constructive Dismissal of an OFW)
Case Title: Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc., et al. vs. Alma Tacda Manuel
G.R. No.: 249843
Promulgation Date: October 6, 2021

Summary: Alma Manuel, an OFW deployed as a domestic helper, was sexually harassed, misassigned to another city, locked up in poor conditions, and forced to "resign" by signing a quitclaim. The Supreme Court ruled that these acts amounted to constructive dismissal, entitling her to monetary compensation and damages.

📌 Supreme Court Ruling: Petition Denied. CA Decision Reinstated. Damages increased to ₱100,000 each for moral and exemplary damages, plus wages, legal interest, and attorney’s fees.

🤔 Should forced quitclaims under traumatic or desperate conditions ever be legally binding?
Comment your thoughts and experiences below.

 

📚 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES IN THE CASE

1. Constructive Dismissal Defined
   “Constructive dismissal exists when continued employment becomes unbearable due to employer’s unjust acts.”
   📖 (Jacob v. First Step Manpower, cited in G.R. No. 249843)
2. Quitclaims Are Not Absolute
   “Quitclaims are disfavored and do not bar valid claims, especially when signed under duress or unequal bargaining.”
   📖 (Toquero v. Crossworld Marine, cited)
3. Employer’s Burden in Proving Resignation
   “In resignation cases, the employer has the burden to prove the employee resigned voluntarily.”
   📖 (Vicente v. CA, cited)
4. Totality of Circumstances Rule
   “Courts must assess all facts holistically to determine whether constructive dismissal occurred.”
   📖 (Al-Masiya v. Viernes, cited)
5. Right to Refuse Contract Breach
   “An OFW has the right to reject deployment to a place not in the POEA-approved contract.”
   📖 (CA ruling, affirmed by SC)
6. Solidary Liability of Corporate Officers
   “Under Sec. 10, RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022, directors of recruitment agencies are solidarily liable.”
   📖 (G.R. No. 249843)
7. Award of Unexpired Wages under RA 10022
   “Illegally dismissed OFWs are entitled to the full unexpired portion of their employment contract.”
   📖 (Sec. 7, RA 10022)
8. Increased Moral and Exemplary Damages
   “When bad faith or oppressive acts are clear, moral and exemplary damages may be significantly increased.”
   📖 (SC modification of LA award)
9. Voluntariness Requires Both Act and Intent
   “Resignation must include both the physical act and genuine intent to relinquish the job.”
   📖 (Cokia Industries v. Bug-Os, cited)
10. POLO Complaint Not a Prerequisite for Constructive Dismissal
    “Failure to file a POLO complaint doesn’t negate a valid labor claim filed post-repatriation.”
    📖 (G.R. No. 249843)

 

🛑 DISCLAIMER:
This content is made for educational purposes only and not guaranteed to be infallible. Made using premium Artificial Intelligence, it is meant to aid legal understanding, not substitute actual case reading or legal advice.

🔔 SUBSCRIBE and HIT THE BELL ICON for more legal doctrines and case reviews!