Acuna vs CA

7/25/2019 Acuna vs CA

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 159832 May 5, 2006

MERCEDITA ACUA, MYRNA RAMONES, an !U"IET MENDE#, Petitioners,vs.$ON. COURT O% APPEA"S an !OIN INTERNATIONA" CORPORATION an&o'E"I#A(ET$ A"AON,Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

)UISUM(ING,J.:

This petition see"s the revie# and reversal of the !ourt of $ppeals% D*+-on&dated'anuar( )*, )++, in !$-.R. SP No. *+*)/, entitled Join International Corporationand/or Elizabeth Alaon v. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division!"er#edita A#$a! J$liet "endez! and "%rna Ramones, settin0 aside the resolutionsof the N1R! and dis2issin0 the co2plaint of petitioners.

Petitioners are 3ilipino overseas #or"ers deplo(ed b( private respondent 'oinInternational !orporation 4'I!5, a licensed recruit2ent a0enc(, to its principal, DPre-!olor Plastic, Inc., 4D5 in Tai#an, Republic of !hina, under a unifor2l(-#ordede2plo(2ent contract for a period of t#o (ears. Herein private respondent li6abeth

$la7on is the president of 'oin International !orporation.

So2eti2e in Septe2ber &888, petitioners filed #ith private respondents applicationsfor e2plo(2ent abroad. The( sub2itted their passports, N9I clearances, 2edicalclearances and other re:uire2ents and each paid a place2ent fee of P&/,;pense. 9efore the( left, the( #ere 2ade tosi0n a #ritten #aiver.*In addition, petitioners #ere not paid an( salar( for #or"rendered on Dece2ber &&-&


2/6

On Dece2ber );, &888, private respondents offered a settle2ent. Petitioner Mende6received P&t da(, petitioners $cu7a and Ra2ones #ent bac" andreceived P&,B/+&+and P&B,)++,&&respectivel(. The( clai2 the( si0ned a #aiver,other#ise the( #ould not be refunded.&)

On 'anuar( &/, )+++, petitioners $cu7a and Mende6 invo"in0 Republic $ct No.;+/),&filed a co2plaint for ille0al dis2issal and non-pa(2entunderpa(2ent ofsalaries or #a0es, overti2e pa(, refund of transportation fare, pa(2ent ofsalaries#a0es for 2onths, 2oral and e>e2plar( da2a0es, and refund ofplace2ent fee before the National 1abor Relations !o22ission 4N1R!5. PetitionerRa2ones filed her co2plaint on 'anuar( )+, )+++.

The 1abor $rbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declarin0 that M(rna Ra2ones, 'ulietMende6 and Mercedita $cu7a did not resi0n voluntaril( fro2 their @obs. Thus, privaterespondents #ere ordered to pa( @ointl( and severall(, in Philippine Peso, at the rateof e>chan0e prevailin0 at the ti2e of pa(2ent, the follo#in0C

1. MERCEDITA ACUA

a. ?ne>pired Portion NT=8


3/6

d. Refund of place2ent fee PHP/


4/6

The N1R! also ruled that there #as constructive dis2issal since #or"in0 under saidconditions #as unbearable.)

$s #e have held previousl(, constructive dis2issal covers the involuntar( resi0nationresorted to #hen continued e2plo(2ent beco2es i2possible, unreasonable or

unli"el(J #hen there is a de2otion in ran" or a di2inution in pa(J or #hen a cleardiscri2ination, insensibilit( or disdain b( an e2plo(er beco2es unbearable to ane2plo(ee.)/

In this case, the appellate court found that petitioners did not den( that theacco22odations #ere not as ho2el( as e>pected. In the petitioners% 2e2orandu2,the( ad2itted that the( #ere told b( the principal, upon their arrival, that thedor2itor( #as still under construction and #ere re:uested to bear #ith the te2porar(inconvenience and the dor2itor( #ould soon be finished. e li"e#ise note thatpetitioners did not refute private respondents% assertion that the( had deplo(edappro>i2atel( si>t( other #or"ers to their principal, and to the best of their"no#led0e, no other #or"er assi0ned to the sa2e principal has resi0ned, 2uch less,

filed a case for ille0al dis2issal.)tend theapplicabilit( of the decree to a 0reater nu2ber of e2plo(ees #ho can avail of thebenefits under the la#, #hich is in consonance #ith the avo#ed polic( of the State to0ive 2a>i2u2 aid and protection to labor.)8$ccordin0l(, #e rule that privaterespondents are solidaril( liable #ith the forei0n principal for the overti2e pa( clai2sof petitioners.

On the a#ard of 2oral and e>e2plar( da2a0es, #e hold that such a#ard lac"s le0albasis. Moral and e>e2plar( da2a0es are recoverable onl( #here the dis2issal of ane2plo(ee #as attended b( bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive tolabor, or #as done in a 2anner contrar( to 2orals, 0ood custo2s or publicpolic(.+The person clai2in0 2oral da2a0es 2ust prove the e>istence of bad faithb( clear and convincin0 evidence, for the la# al#a(s presu2es 0oodfaith.&Petitioners alle0e the( suffered hu2iliation, sleepless ni0hts and 2entalan0uish, thin"in0 ho# the( #ould pa( the 2one( the( borro#ed for their place2entfees.)ven so, the( failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill 2otive on the part of privaterespondents.Moral da2a0es cannot be a#arded. ithout the a#ard of 2oralda2a0es, there can be no a#ard of e>e2plar( da2a0es, nor attorne(%s fees./
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_159832_2006.html#fnt34


5/6

Fuitclai2s e>ecuted b( the e2plo(ees are co22onl( fro#ned upon as contrar( topublic polic( and ineffective to bar clai2s for the full 2easure of the #or"ers% le0alri0hts, considerin0 the econo2ic disadvanta0e of the e2plo(ee and the inevitablepressure upon hi2 b( financial necessit(.chan0e rateson Dece2ber &888 #as NT=& to P&.)B;;+


6/6

ANTONIO T. CARPIO$ssociate 'ustice

CONC$ITA CARPIO MORA"ES$sscociate 'ustice

DANTE O. TINGA$ssociate 'ustice

PRES(ITERO !. /E"ASCO, !R.$sscociate 'ustice

$ T T S T $ T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultationbefore the case #as assi0ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourt%s Division.

"EONARDO A. )UISUM(ING$ssociate 'ustice!hairperson

Acuna vs CA

Documents

Transcript of Acuna vs CA