8/27/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
contract which she submit before (sic), [and] refuse to care my baby (sic)."[9]
Petitioner filed a case against her employer before the Minor Employment Claims
Adjudication Board, but it was eventually dismissed and petitioner was repatriated at
the instance of AWI.[10] Petitioner alleged that while in Manila, AWI offered her
P15,000.00 as a settlement fee but she declined it, believing that she is entitled to a
higher amount.[11]
Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal
dismissal, payment of unpaid salaries and salaries corresponding to the unexpired
portion of the contract of employment, reimbursement of placement fee and other fees
incident to petitioner's deployment to Hong Kong, and moral and exemplary damages.
[12] Petitioner denied committing the acts imputed to her by Cheng Chi Ho, and claimed
that those were baseless and fabricated. Further, at no time was her attention called
with respect to those acts that she allegedly committed.[13]
On June 16, 2008, the Executive LA (ELA) rendered a Decision[14] finding the
termination of petitioner's employment contract without notice as valid and legal.[15]
The ELA held that petitioner was already warned by her employer to improve her work,
yet she did not show improvement in her work performance and attitude. She also
misrepresented herself to be single, but later on admitted that she was separated with
a child. This information does not match with the information stated in her employment
contract and constitutes dishonesty on her part. Moreover, the termination of her
employment contract was in accordance with Hong Kong's Employment Ordinance
Chapter 57, Section 9 of which states that "[a]n employer may terminate a contract of
employment without notice or payment in lieu x x x if an employee, in relation to his
employment x x x wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order; x x x misconducts
himself such conduct being inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his
duties; x x x is guilty of fraud or dishonesty."[16] This provision being part of
petitioner's employment contract, it must be respected as the law between the parties.
With regard to money claims, the ELA held that petitioner is not entitled to salaries
corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract since she was dismissed for
cause. However, she is entitled to be paid salaries for the six days that she has
rendered service to her employer, or the total amount of HK$679.98.[17] Since
petitioner was dismissed for cause, this amount shall be set off against the repatriation
expenses incurred by AWT in the amount of HK$750.00.[18] Petitioner appealed the
Decision with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On May 29, 2009, the NLRC issued a Resolution[19] nullifying and setting aside the ELA
Decision. It held that there is insufficient proof of petitioner's alleged poor work
performance. The August 11, 2017 warning letter that petitioner received from her
employer did not even specify what work needs improvement. It was only on August
16, 2007, when petitioner's employment contract was terminated, that she was
criticized for disobeying orders. Petitioner was not given notice of specific violations
that she allegedly committed and a chance to explain her side. She was also denied
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65433
2/13