JSCI denied liability for herein respondent’s monetary claims in view of the
transfer of accreditation to petitioner.[4] To refute the charge of excessive
placement fee, JSCI presented Official Receipt No. 5890 dated October 28, 1994 in
the amount ofP18,350.00.[5]
For its part, petitioner averred that it cannot be held liable as transferee agent
because it had no privity of contract with respondent. Nonetheless, it argued that
respondent is not entitled to her claim of salary differential, night shift differential
and full attendance bonus as she was duly paid her salary and other emoluments
under her employment contract. It further alleged that respondent’s claims were
laid to rest in the Decision dated December 9, 1996 in NLRC NCR OCW Case No.
00-02-1362-96, which is a similar case for unpaid monetary benefits filed by
Lilibeth Lazaga, respondent’s co-worker, wherein the claim of Lazaga is dismissed
by
the
Labor
Arbiter,
affirmed
by
the
NLRC
and
the
petition
for certiorari dismissed by this Court in G.R. No. 130953.[6]
On February 20, 1997, Labor Arbiter Potenciano S. Cañizares, Jr. rendered a
decision in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the respondents are hereby ordered to pay the complainant
the sum of P207,300.00 representing night shift differential, excess of placement
fee, annual bonus, and full attendance bonus, plus her salary differential of
NT$78,600.00 as computed by her, and the respondents failed to refute by clear
and convincing evidence.[7]
The Labor Arbiter held that: JSCI failed to refute respondent’s monetary
claims; there was no legal basis to JSCI’s allegation that petitioner, as transferee
agent, is answerable as the breach of contract happened when JSCI was Philips’
agent; on the issue of transfer of accreditation, Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the
Rules and Regulations governing overseas employment issued by the Secretary of