4/10/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The Court, therefore, shall limit the resolution of this case on the sole question of
whether the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, as reinstated in toto by the CA, properly applied
and interpreted Section 10 of R.A. 8042, the pertinent portions of which state:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of the complaint, the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
xxx
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized cause as defined by law or contract, x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Indisputably, respondents’ illegal dismissal complaint with money claims is anchored on
the overseas employment contracts with petitioners and the allegations that they were
dismissed without just, valid or authorized cause. With these allegations, Section 10
afore-quoted clearly applies in this case.[19] As petitioners failed to establish a valid
retrenchment, respondents were clearly dismissed without just, valid or authorized
cause.
Consequently, petitioner Lamzon is jointly and severally liable with petitioner company.
To reiterate, Section 10 of R.A. 8042 provides that “[i]f the recruitment/placement
agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors x x x shall themselves
be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation x x x” for any claims and damages
that may be due to the overseas workers.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Court finds that a modification of the
monetary award in the amount of NT$47,520.00 per respondent – corresponding to
three (3) months’ worth of salaries – granted by the Labor Arbiter is in order,
conformably with the pronouncement in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.[20] (Serrano case) where the Court En Banc
declared unconstitutional, for being violative of the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights
to equal protection and due process of the overseas workers, the clause “or for three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” found in Section 10 of
R.A. 8042, which originally reads:
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid
or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers
shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee
with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum plus his salaries
for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55311
5/8