Equals:
Total Money Claims.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner avers that respondent failed to substantiate the allegation that he
was forced to enter into the new employment contract with SAAD which proves
that the new contract was actually voluntarily entered and agreed upon between
said parties; that if respondent was indeed forced to sign the new contract, his
claims are now barred by laches because respondent never informed petitioner of
any problem at the job site until two years after his deployment; that the appellate
court’s award for unauthorized deductions in the amount of P171,780.00 should be
deleted for lack of legal or factual basis; that respondent is not entitled to
attorney’s fees.
R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the substitution or alteration to the
prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same
without the approval of the DOLE.[9] Thus, we held in Chavez v. BontoPerez[10] that the subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract
worker with her foreign employer which reduced her salary below the amount
approved by the POEA is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and
public policy. The said side agreement cannot supersede her standard employment
contract approved by the POEA.[11]
Applying the same rule in the case at bar, the unauthorized alteration in the
employment contract of respondent, particularly the diminution in his salary from
US$370.00 to SR 800.00 per month, is void for violating the POEA-approved
contract which set the minimum standards, terms, and conditions of his
employment.
Moreover, we find that there was no proper dismissal of respondent by
SAAD; the “termination” of respondent was clearly a ploy to pressure him to agree
to a lower wage rate for continued employment. Thus, the original POEA-