5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) Information
___________________________________________________________
Name :
ODULIO, NOMER POMEDA
xxx
OFW Type :
Landbased (Worker-on-leave)
xxx
Local Agent: CENTER
EASTERN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
INC
Principal/Employer :
AL AWADH COMPANY TRADING AND CONTRACTING
xxx
Contract status :
New
xxx
Processing Unit:
BMAD[23] (Emphasis supplied.)
Eastern Overseas being indicated as Nomer's local agent in his OFW Information Sheet in June 2011, the Court considers Nomer as an
agency-hired worker when he returned to Al Awadh Company in June 2011. Likewise, considering that Nomer's OFW Information
indicated his contract status to be "New," the Court finds it to be without merit petitioners' argument that Nomer was a rehire and a
worker-on-leave who returned to Al Awadh Company just to finish the unexpired portion of his contract.
Eastern Overseas now banks on the fact that Nomer was indicated to be a worker-on-leave per his OFW Information Sheet. Being a
worker-on-leave, Eastern Overseas contends that Nomer was a rehire; hence not covered by the compulsory insurance policy.
The Court is not persuaded.
To elucidate, a worker-on-leave is a worker who is on vacation or on leave from employment under a valid and existing employment
contract, and who is returning to the same employer to finish the remaining unexpired portion of the contract.[24]
If Nomer was indeed a worker-on-leave when he returned to the Philippines in April 2011, the Court will have to concede to Eastern
Overseas' argument that Nomer was not covered by compulsory insurance policy. This is because Nomer would be considered as
merely on vacation and was still under the 2009 contract, he alone negotiated with Al Awadh Company. Being merely on leave, Nomer
would have to return to Al Awadh Company to finish the unexpired portion of his 2009 contract. Eastern Overseas having no hand in
the consummation of his 2009 contract, Nomer would not be indeed covered by any compulsory insurance policy under such
circumstances.
Being faced with two interpretations of Nomer's status of employment, the Court is inclined to rule in favor of Nomer's compulsory
insurance policy coverage, in light of Article 1702 of the Labor Code, which provides that in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all
labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.[25] While Nomer's OFW Information Sheet
indicated that he was a worker-on-leave, the same document, as earlier discussed, indicated that his redeployment to Al Awadh
Company on June 11, 2011 was by virtue of a new contract. The information sheet even stated that Eastern Overseas was Nomer's
local agent, meaning it was the agency which processed his new contract with Al Awadh Company in June 2011. This negates the claim
that Nomer was a worker-on-leave when he returned to the Philippines in April 2011.
To reiterate, insurance coverage is compulsory for agency-hired migrant workers. Nomer having availed himself of the services of
Eastern Overseas in securing his employment with Al Awadh and deployment to Saudi Arabia in June 2011, the CA aptly reinstated the
findings of facts of the LA and correctly ruled that Nomer was covered by a compulsory insurance policy.
Per Section 1(b),[26] Guideline VII of the Insurance Guidelines on Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing RA
8042, the insurance benefit of an agency-hired OFW, such as Nomer, who suffered a natural death is US$10,000. Indubitably, the CA
committed no error in reinstating the LA's award of $10,000 in favor of respondents. The award of 10% attorney's fees in favor of
respondents is likewise affirmed.
Following the ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al.,[27] the total monetary award shall earn an interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from May 19, 2012 to June 30, 2013, and 6% interest rate from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 27, 2018 and the Resolution dated July 20, 2018 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 135583 which reinstated the Decision dated July 25, 2013 of the Labor Arbiter are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION by imposing on the total monetary award an interest rate of 12% per annum from May 19, 2012 to June 30, 2013,
and 6% interest rate from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66719
3/5