TOPIC: RIGHTS OF OFWS - PART 2 OF 10
Can an overseas Filipino worker be deprived of her full contractual salary through a clause in the law that arbitrarily limits the compensation of illegally dismissed OFWs to just three months—effectively placing a price cap on injustice?
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. v. JOY C. CABILES
G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
FACTS OF THE CASE
Joy C. Cabiles applied for a job with Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. and was deployed to Taiwan to work for Wacoal Co. Ltd. under a one-year employment contract as a quality control staff, with a salary of NT$15,360. Upon arrival, however, she was made to work as a cutter. Less than a month into her contract, Joy was summarily terminated without notice, allegedly for inefficiency, and was immediately repatriated. She received only NT$9,000 for her services, with NT$3,000 deducted for her plane fare.
Back in the Philippines, Joy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims including her full unpaid wages and placement fee refund. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint, finding the allegations insufficient. However, upon appeal, the NLRC ruled in Joy’s favor, declaring the dismissal illegal due to the agency’s failure to show just cause and due process. She was awarded three months’ worth of salary (NT$46,080), reimbursement of NT$3,000, and attorney’s fees.
Sameer Overseas elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that it should not be held liable due to the subsequent transfer of Wacoal's accreditation to another agency, Pacific Manpower. The CA upheld the NLRC’s ruling on illegal dismissal and awards but remanded the issue of the agency substitution to the NLRC for resolution.
Still aggrieved, Sameer filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, insisting that Joy's dismissal was valid and that the law only entitled her to three months’ pay.
ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
Can an illegally dismissed overseas Filipino worker be limited to only three months of salary as compensation, even if the unexpired portion of her contract is longer?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
NO. The Supreme Court ruled against Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, affirming that Joy Cabiles was illegally dismissed without just cause or due process. Moreover, the Court held that she is entitled to the entire salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, not merely three months.
In an important constitutional pronouncement, the Court declared unconstitutional the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” in Section 10 of RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022. The Court reiterated its earlier ruling in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., holding that the clause violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification.
Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is hereby ORDERED to pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles:
The amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment contract with 6% interest per annum from finality of this judgment,
NT$3,000.00 as reimbursement of withheld salary,
NT$300.00 as attorney’s fees with 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment.
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less," in Section 7 of RA 10022 amending Section 10 of RA 8042, is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL and, therefore, NULL AND VOID.
Should Congress be allowed to reinstate a law that has already been struck down as unconstitutional, especially if it results in diminished labor rights for OFWs?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:
-
Security of Tenure Applies to OFWs:
"Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when they move to work in a different jurisdiction."
— The Constitution and the Labor Code apply to overseas contracts perfected in the Philippines. -
Due Process in Dismissal Applies Abroad:
"The twin requirements of notice and hearing apply strictly even in international maritime or overseas employment."
— Procedural due process cannot be ignored just because the employment is abroad. -
Unconstitutionality of the Three-Month Cap:
"The clause… ‘or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less’… is declared unconstitutional and null and void."
— Equal protection and due process are violated by arbitrarily limiting the recovery of wages. -
Joint and Solidary Liability of Agencies:
"The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency… shall be joint and several."
— Ensures that OFWs can obtain redress even if foreign principals are beyond reach.
CLASSIFICATION:
🧑⚖️ Labor Law
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!
Read Full Text of the Decision Here.
🎓 Welcome, future lawyers and bar takers! In this video, we’ll unpack key labor doctrines from the landmark case of Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Joy C. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, promulgated August 5, 2014.
This content aims to help law students and baristas reinforce their recall of essential doctrines from this decision by the Supreme Court En Banc.
📌 Nature of the Case: Labor Law – Illegal Dismissal of Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW)
👩⚖️ Parties: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. (Petitioner) vs. Joy C. Cabiles (Respondent)
🗓️ Date Promulgated: August 5, 2014
🔍 Brief Summary:
Joy Cabiles, an OFW in Taiwan, was illegally dismissed barely a month into her contract. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her claim, but the NLRC and Court of Appeals ruled in her favor. The Supreme Court affirmed the illegality of her dismissal and declared Section 10 of RA 8042 (as amended) — specifically the clause limiting compensation to three months — unconstitutional for violating equal protection and due process.
💭Should foreign employers and agencies be allowed to limit the compensation of OFWs, knowing they are the most vulnerable labor sector?
📚 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES FROM THE CASE
-
Security of Tenure Extends to OFWs
Even if employed abroad, OFWs are entitled to the same protection against illegal dismissal. (See: Decision, p. 13) -
Due Process Is Universal
The “twin-notice rule” and right to be heard apply even to overseas employment. (Decision, p. 18) -
Burden of Proof in Dismissal
The employer must prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. (Decision, p. 14) -
Unconstitutional Clause in RA 8042
The phrase “or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” violates due process and equal protection. (Decision, p. 37) -
Full Salary for Unexpired Term
Illegally dismissed OFWs are entitled to their salary covering the full unexpired portion of their employment contract. (Decision, p. 34) -
Joint and Solidary Liability
Local recruitment agencies are jointly and severally liable with the foreign principal for OFW claims. (Decision, p. 44) -
Lex Loci Contractus Rule
Philippine labor laws apply to OFWs when the contract is executed in the Philippines. (Decision, p. 12) -
Interest on Money Claims
6% interest per annum applies to salary claims; placement fee reimbursements earn 12% interest per RA 8042. (Decision, pp. 40–42) -
Placement Fee Reimbursement
Even if the agency denies overcharging, reimbursement is mandatory if illegal dismissal occurs. (Decision, p. 35) -
Invalid Substitution Defense
Agencies cannot evade liability by claiming that another agency assumed obligations without proper proof. (Decision, p. 10)
📌 This is for educational purposes only. This video does not claim to be infallible. Content made using premium artificial intelligence to assist legal understanding.
👍 Like, comment your insights, and subscribe for more case digests and bar review content!
No comments:
Post a Comment