4/6/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
the unexpired portion of her contract, the refund of her placement fee, repatriation
expenses, plus damages and attorney's fees against herein petitioners.[9]
The complaints of Baybayan and Beltran (collectively, respondents) were then
consolidated.
In response,[10] petitioners denied that Baybayan was underpaid as his payslips for the
months of March and April 2009 indicated that he received a monthly salary of
NT$17,280.00 during his employment with Wacoal.[11] Petitioners explained that
Baybayan signed an Addendum to the Employment Contract (Addendum),[12] which
authorized the deduction of the amount of NT$4,000.00 as payment for his monthly
food and accomodation. In the same Addendum, Baybayan was apprised that the
transportation expenses for his round trip tickets from the Philippines to Taiwan shall be
at his own expense.[13] Petitioners further explained that Baybayan paid P26,769.00 as
placement fee and P22,190.00 as documentation fee, and supported by an official
receipt, sworn statement of Baybayan, Written Acknowledgment, Foreign Worker's
Affidavit Regarding Expenses Incurred For Entry Into the Republic of China To Work and
the Wage and Salary and Overseas Contract Worker's Questionnaire which he
personally accomplished.[14]
With respect to Beltran, petitioners contended that it was Beltran who voluntarily
preterminated her contract for personal reasons. According to petitioners, Beltran
approached the management and expressed her intent to return to the Philippines as
evidenced by her handwritten statement which she duly signed on July 4, 2009.
Petitioners admitted that it charged Beltran P25,056.00 as placement fee and
P20,560.00 as documentation fee, and supported by an official receipt, her sworn
statement, written acknowledgment, Foreign Worker's Affidavit, and Overseas Contract
Worker's Questionnaire.[15]
In Beltran's Reply,[16] she countered that she signed the pretermination agreement
under duress since she was helpless in a foreign country, and was afraid that her
refusal might endanger her status, liberty, and limbs.[17] She further averred that her
supervisor Melody discriminated her, and that it was Melody who dictated the words she
used in the Worker Discontinue Employment Affidavit she executed.[18]
The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA)
In the Decision[19] dated March 30, 2010, LA Edgardo M. Madriaga dismissed the
consolidated cases for lack of merit.[20] The LA found substantial documentary
evidence to prove that Baybayan was paid all the salaries and benefits pursuant to his
employment contract.[21] In the same vein, the LA gave more weight to the evidence
presented by petitioners that Beltran preterminated her employment contract for
reasons of her own and was thus not entitled to her money claims.[22]
Respondents appealed the dismissal citing that it was grave error on the part of the LA
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66097
2/12