6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
alleged that she was forced to resign by her principal employer, threatened with
incarceration; and that she was constrained to accept the amount of P35,000.00 as
financial assistance as she needed the money to defray her expenses in going back to
the Philippines. She averred that the statements in the Affidavit of Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim and the Agreement were not fully explained in the language known to her;
that they were considered contracts of adhesion contrary to public policy; and were
issued for an unreasonable consideration. Iladan claimed to have been illegally
dismissed and entitled to backwages corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
contract, reimbursement of the placement fee in the amount of P90,000.00, as well as
payment of damages and attorney's fee for the litigation of her cause.
To prove that she incurred debts for the placement fee, Iladan presented a) a mortgage
deed[11] and a deed[12] of transfer of rights over her family's properties in favor of
other persons, b) a sworn statement[13] of her mother, Rebecca U. Ondoy (Ondoy),
stating that Iladan paid P30,000.00 in cash to respondents for the placement fee, and
borrowed P60,000.00 from Nippon Credit Corp., Inc. (Nippon), a lending company
referred by respondents, and c) a demand letter[14] from Nippon demanding payment
of her loan.
Respondents, on the hand, averred that Iladan was not illegally dismissed but
voluntarily resigned as shown by: (1) her handwritten resignation letter and (2) the
Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and the Agreement, both voluntarily
executed by her before Philippine Consulate officials in Hongkong. Respondents also
denied collecting a placement fee considering the prohibition in the POEA rules against
the charging of placement fee for domestic helpers deployed to Hongkong.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision[15] dated August 11,2010, the Labor Arbiter declared Iladan to have been
illegally dismissed and that she was only forced by respondents to resign. The Labor
Arbiter was not persuaded by respondents', allegation that Iladan resigned since she
was barely eight days into her job without specifying any credible reason considering
what she had gone through to get employment abroad. The Labor Arbiter did not
consider the Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and the Agreement as proofs
that Iladan voluntarily resigned because she was not assisted by any lawyer or
Consulate official who could have explained the import of these documents. Moreover,
quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor and do not estop employees from pursuing
their just claims. The Labor Arbiter also struck down respondents' allegation that they
did not charge any placement fee considering that they are engaged in recruitment and
placement for profit. Besides, Iladan submitted evidence to prove payment thereof.
Thus, the Labor Arbiter awarded Iladan her salaries corresponding to the unexpired
portion of her contract, net of the P35,000.00 she had already received. Respondents
were also ordered to refund the placement fee, and to pay moral and exemplary
damages as well as attorney's fees. Thus:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61554
2/8