Phil. Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation vs NLRC : 123354 : N...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/123354.htm
cause can no longer be reviewed. It is already final considering that PHILAC limited its appeal to
the NLRC only on the monetary award. Besides, findings of the facts of the POEA and the
NLRC, as quasi-judicial bodies exercising particular expertise, are accorded great respect and
[15]
even finality if supported by substantial evidence.
Our review of the records failed to
convince us that the assailed findings of the agencies below are not supported by substantial
evidence. Furthermore, PHILAC has the burden of proving that the dismissal of Dayag was for a
[16]
which burden PHILAC failed to discharge.
just or lawful cause,
Philacs alternative argument that its liability is limited to a 15-day salary instead of that
corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract, is not correct. Article 149 of the Labor
Code states:
ART. 149. Indemnity for unjust termination of services if the period of household service is fixed,
neither the employer nor the househelper may terminate the contract before the expiration of the
term, except for a just cause. If the househelper is unjustly dismissed, he or she shall paid the
compensation already earned plus that for fifteen (15) days by way of indemnity.
If the househelper leaves without justifiable reason, he or she shall forfeit any unpaid salary due
him or her not exceeding fifteen (15) days.
The 15-day salary is awarded in the form of an indemnity due to unjust dismissal, i.e., dismissal
without just cause and notice and before the lapse of the contract term. The amount is in
addition to and not a substitute for the househelpers salary for the unexpired portion of the
contract. The salary for the unexpired portion of the contract, as a settled rule, is awarded as a
[17]
result of the violation of her security of tenure under the contract term.
Moreover, the employment contract states:
12(a) In the event of either party wishing to terminate this Contract prior to the expiry of this
Contract, the initiating party shall give in writing to the other party ONE months/months notice
or forfeit ONE months/month wages in lieu of notice. In the case of the former, both the
Employer and the Helper shall within seven working days following notice of termination of the
Contract inform the Director of Immigration and the Commissioner for Labor of the date of
termination. In the case of the latter, the written notification should be made within one working
day. In both cases, the Employer shall provide to the Director of Immigration of a copy of the
written advice or termination or notice of termination of the Contract given to the helper.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision of Clause 12(a), the employer may in writing, terminate
contract without notice or payment in lieu of notice x x x.
[18]
which clearly shows the intention of the contracting parties to provide for a payment or indemnify
in case the employer terminates the services of the employee without notice. And while the
amount and nature thereof was not specified in the contract, resort can be had to Article 149 of
the Labor Code under the settled principle that laws are deemed incorporated in the contract
[19]
without need for the parties expressly making reference to them,
especially laws affecting
public policy, as in this case. Petitioners interpretation of the word payment under clause 12(b) to
refer to the salary for the unexpired portion of the contract is therefore misplaced. The payment
contemplated by the parties in their contract is more in the concept of a penalty or damages
arising from the manner of the dismissal. In any event, ambiguities in a contract are interpreted
[20]
which in this case is PHILAC, the party that
against the party that caused the ambiguity,
drafted and caused the inclusion of the subject clause.
Petitioner, as the recruiter and agent of the foreign employer, is solidarily liable with the latter
2 of 3
1/20/2016 3:29 PM