Imagine you’re an OFW promised a monthly salary abroad, only to be paid less, overworked, and illegally terminated—then forced to sign a compromise for survival.

TOPIC: RIGHTS OF OFWS - PART 4 OF 10 

Can a law that limits illegally dismissed overseas Filipino workers’ monetary claims to only three months’ worth of salary—even if their unexpired contract is longer—pass constitutional muster, or does it trample on their right to due process and equal protection under the law?

 

Julita M. Aldovino, et al. v. Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development Services, Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 200811, January 18, 2021

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Julita M. Aldovino and her co-workers—Joan B. Lagrimas, Winnie B. Lingat, Chita A. Sales, Sherly L. Guinto, Revilla S. De Jesus, and Laila V. Orpilla—applied for overseas employment through Gold and Green Manpower, a local agency. They were hired as sewers for Dipper Semi-Conductor Co. in Taiwan via contracts stipulating fixed monthly salaries, 8-hour workdays, and overtime pay. However, before deployment, they were forced to pay ₱72,000 in placement fees, which they obtained through loans facilitated by the agency.

Upon arrival in Taiwan, their passports were confiscated, and they were compelled to sign new contracts that imposed a piece-rate wage system. They were overworked, underpaid, and often made to work on Sundays without overtime compensation. Because of the lower piece-rate pay, they defaulted on their loans.

In 2009, all but one of them filed a complaint in Taiwan. During a government-facilitated dialogue, their employer unilaterally terminated their contracts, escorted them to a train station, and left them stranded. After seeking help, they stayed in shelters in Taiwan for months.

Eventually, they entered into a Compromise Agreement, receiving NT$1.5 million as total settlement. Upon return to the Philippines, they filed complaints before the Labor Arbiter alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment, contract substitution, and human trafficking.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed their case, citing the Compromise Agreement. The NLRC affirmed and even removed the ₱20,000 financial assistance award. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA reversed the labor tribunals and ruled that they were illegally dismissed, and that the Compromise Agreement did not bar them from pursuing their claims. It awarded salaries equivalent to the unexpired portion of their contracts, but capped at "three months for every year of the unexpired term" under Section 7 of R.A. No. 10022.

Petitioners challenged this cap, invoking Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, where the same limitation was previously declared unconstitutional.

 

PRIMARY ISSUE:

Is the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 constitutional and enforceable?

 

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

NO. The Supreme Court held that the clause is unconstitutional. Citing Serrano and reaffirming Sameer Overseas v. Cabiles, it ruled that limiting compensation to "three months" violates both due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. The law unjustly discriminates against overseas Filipino workers and provides undue advantage to employers, encouraging them to violate employment contracts without significant financial consequence.

The Court further held that quitclaims and compromise agreements executed under economic duress are not valid bars to labor claims. It declared that the petitioners were illegally dismissed, were denied both substantive and procedural due process, and were entitled to:

• Full payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts
• Reimbursement of placement fees with 12% annual interest
• Moral and exemplary damages
• Attorney's fees
• 6% annual interest on total monetary awards (except for the placement fee reimbursement)

 

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

"WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The September 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116953 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION... Respondents... are ORDERED to pay petitioners:

(a) salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts;
(b) reimbursement of placement fees with 12% interest;
(c) ₱50,000 moral damages each;
(d) ₱25,000 exemplary damages each;
(e) attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of monetary awards;
(f) 6% legal interest per annum on all awards, except for the 12% interest on placement fees."

 

Should Congress be held accountable when it reenacts provisions that the Supreme Court already declared unconstitutional, especially when such laws hurt the very people they are meant to protect?

 

IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:

1. “A law once declared unconstitutional confers no rights, imposes no duties, and is inoperative as if it had not been passed at all.”
• Once a clause is declared unconstitutional, its reenactment in a later statute does not cure its defects.
2. “Quitclaims and waivers do not bar labor claims when executed under economic duress.”
• Public policy frowns upon quitclaims signed by employees who are not in a position to refuse due to desperation.
3. “Lex loci contractus governs overseas employment contracts.”
• Philippine labor laws apply when contracts are executed in the Philippines, even if the work is done abroad.
4. “Due process must be observed even in overseas employment.”
• Overseas Filipino workers are entitled to the same constitutional protections as workers employed domestically.

 

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!

📢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 In this Link 

🎓 LAW LECTURE INTRODUCTION FOR STUDENTS AND BAR REVIEWEES
🧠 "Helping you recall core doctrines—faster, clearer, sharper."

 

📚 Welcome, future attorneys and fellow legal scholars! In this episode, we explore a landmark Labor Law case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court that carries tremendous weight in understanding the protection of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and the doctrine of unconstitutional statutory limitations on their monetary claims.

This video will focus on important doctrines extracted from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of:

 

📌 Case Title: Julita M. Aldovino, et al. v. Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development Services, Inc., et al.
📌 G.R. No.: 200811
📌 Promulgation Date: January 18, 2021
📌 Nature of the Case: Labor Law – Illegal Dismissal and Unconstitutionality of Section 7, R.A. No. 10022

 

📝 Brief Summary:

This case involved seven OFWs who were hired as sewers and deployed to Taiwan under fixed monthly contracts. Upon arrival, their contracts were substituted, wages were reduced via piece-rate system, and eventually, they were terminated without just cause or due process. A Compromise Agreement was signed abroad, but later, they sued for illegal dismissal and full compensation under Philippine law.

The key issue:
Is the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" under Section 7 of R.A. No. 10022 constitutional?

The Supreme Court declared the clause unconstitutional, ruling that it violates substantive due process and equal protection, and restored full wage recovery rights to illegally dismissed OFWs.

 

🤔 Should Congress be held liable when it reenacts a clause previously declared unconstitutional—especially if it disadvantages vulnerable Filipino workers?

 

📌 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES FROM THE DECISION
(Sourced from G.R. No. 200811, Jan. 18, 2021, ponente: J. Leonen)

1. Unconstitutional Clause Cannot Be Revived by Reenactment

A provision once declared unconstitutional—such as the 3-month salary cap—remains void and without force or effect even if reinserted into a new statute.
(Refer to: p. 49, citing Serrano and Sameer cases)

2. Full Salary for Unexpired Portion of Contract is Due

Illegally dismissed OFWs are entitled to the entire unexpired portion of their contract, not just 3 months per year remaining.
(pp. 50-51)

3. Compromise Agreements Cannot Waive Statutory Labor Rights

Quitclaims or waivers do not bar recovery of labor rights, especially when signed under economic duress.
(pp. 28-30, citing Land and Housing Dev’t Corp. v. Esquillo)

4. OFWs Are Covered by Philippine Labor Laws

Employment contracts executed in the Philippines are governed by Philippine laws, even if work is performed abroad.
(p. 26, citing lex loci contractus and Triple Eight Integrated Services v. NLRC)

5. Termination Must Be for Just or Authorized Cause

Employers cannot terminate OFWs “at will.” There must be legal grounds and due process.
(p. 34, citing Articles 297–300, Labor Code)

6. Burden of Proof in Dismissal Cases Lies with Employer

Employers must prove valid dismissal; failure to do so makes termination illegal.
(p. 35)

7. Illegal Dismissal Entitles Workers to Damages

Moral and exemplary damages are proper when the employer acted in bad faith or in an oppressive manner.
(pp. 36-37, citing Torreda v. ICCP)

8. Attorney’s Fees Are Recoverable in Labor Disputes

Award is proper when exemplary damages are granted or there is evident bad faith.
(p. 38, citing Article 2208, Civil Code)

9. 12% Interest on Placement Fee Reimbursement

OFWs wrongfully terminated are entitled to full refund of placement fees with 12% interest per annum.
(p. 38, citing Section 7, R.A. No. 10022)

10. Public Policy Favors Labor; Labor Laws Are Liberally Interpreted in Their Favor

The Constitution and jurisprudence provide special protection to labor, especially vulnerable sectors like OFWs.
(p. 26 and conclusion section)

 

🛑 DISCLAIMER:
This is an educational video meant to assist law students and bar examinees in recalling essential doctrines. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee that this content is infallible. Always refer to the full text of the decision and updated jurisprudence.

🎥 Made using premium AI to support your legal education.

 

📌 SUBSCRIBE for more case digests and doctrine breakdowns!
💬 Comment your answers and reactions to the question posed. Let's discuss!