Phil. Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation vs NLRC : 123354 : N...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/123354.htm
[Syllabus]
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 123354. November 19, 1996]
PHIL. INTEGRATED LABOR ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LEONORA L.
DAYAG, respondents.
RESOLUTION
FRANCISCO, J.:
[1]
[2]
Dissatisfied with her income as a DSWD
social worker, Leonora Dayag
applied with
petitioner Philippine Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation (PHILAC) for employment
[3]
[4]
abroad.
After complying with the requirements for overseas employment,
Dayag paid a
placement fee of P22,500 on five different occasions. PHILAC, however, did not issue complete
receipts covering such payments informing Dayag that such receipts are unnecessary because
[5]
the payments were recorded in a log book.
[6]
On January 11, 1992, Dayag signed an employment contract with PHILAC providing for a
fixed two-year term as a domestic helper/babysitter in Hongkong with a monthly salary of
[7]
HK$3,200 and an allowance of HK$20/day. She left for Hongkong on May 7, 1992 and started
working the following day as the domestic helper of Roger Chan Chan Hongs family. On the
seventh day of her work, Dayag was suddenly told by Mr. Hongs wife to pack-up and leave at
[8]
Upon her return, Dayag filed a
once. She was given HK$750 for the services rendered.
complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal exaction for non-issuance of receipts and payment of
HK$76,000 (salary and allowance) for the unexpired portion of the contract with the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). PHILAC countered that Dayags dismissal was for
cause due to dishonesty and misrepresentation in her application that she was previously
[9]
employed as a househelper
and that she is an experienced baby sitter thereby allegedly
[10]
exposing Mr. Hongs baby to risks.
The POEA found that Dayag was dismissed without cause and ordered PHILAC to pay her
[11]
HK$76,053.18 or its peso equivalent for the unexpired portion of the contract.
PHILAC
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but limited its appeal on the
[12]
the appeal was
award of salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract.
[13]
dismissed.
Hence, this petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of public
respondent NLRC for affirming the findings of facts and conclusion of the POEA which are not
[14]
Alternatively, PHILAC contends that its liability is limited
supported by substantial evidence.
only to a 15-day salary of the employee under Article 149 of the Labor Code and not to the
salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of the employment contract.
The petition has no merit. The findings of the POEA that Dayag was dismissed without just
1 of 3
1/20/2016 3:29 PM