G.R. No. 167614 7 of 33 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm the same monetary award for local workers when their dismissal is declared illegal; that the disparate [33] and that it treatment is not reasonable as there is no substantial distinction between the two groups; [34] defeats Section 18, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees the protection of the rights and [35] welfare of all Filipino workers, whether deployed locally or overseas. Moreover, petitioner argues that the decisions of the CA and the labor tribunals are not in line with existing jurisprudence on the issue of money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs. Though there are conflicting rulings on this, petitioner urges the Court to sort them out for the guidance of affected [36] OFWs. Petitioner further underscores that the insertion of the subject clause into R.A. No. 8042 serves no other purpose but to benefit local placement agencies. He marks the statement made by the Solicitor General in his Memorandum, viz.: Often, placement agencies, their liability being solidary, shoulder the payment of money claims in the event that jurisdiction over the foreign employer is not acquired by the court or if the foreign employer reneges on its obligation. Hence, placement agencies that are in good faith and which fulfill their obligations are unnecessarily penalized for the acts of the foreign employer. To protect them and to promote their continued helpful contribution in deploying Filipino migrant workers, liability for [37] money claims was reduced under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner argues that in mitigating the solidary liability of placement agencies, the subject clause sacrifices the well-being of OFWs. Not only that, the provision makes foreign employers better off than local employers because in cases involving the illegal dismissal of employees, foreign employers are liable for salaries covering a maximum of only three months of the unexpired employment contract while local employers are liable for the full lump-sum salaries of their employees. As petitioner puts it: In terms of practical application, the local employers are not limited to the amount of backwages they have to give their employees they have illegally dismissed, following well-entrenched and unequivocal jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, foreign employers will only be limited to giving the illegally dismissed migrant workers the maximum of three (3) months unpaid salaries [38] notwithstanding the unexpired term of the contract that can be more than three (3) months. Lastly, petitioner claims that the subject clause violates the due process clause, for it deprives him of the salaries and other emoluments he is entitled to under his fixed-period employment [39] contract. The Arguments of Respondents 1/26/2016 3:06 PM