Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 151303. April 15, 2005 ATHENNA* INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., Petitioners, vs. NONITO VILLANOS, Respondents. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: For review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated May 23, 2001 and Resolution2 dated November 23, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59594. The Court of Appeals reversed the Resolutions3 of the National Labor Relations Commission and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision4 in NLRC Case No. Sub-RAB-09-OFW-(LB)-02-00002-99. The antecedent facts, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: Petitioner Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment. Respondent Nonito Villanos is a contract worker recruited by petitioner to work as a caretaker in Taiwan. Respondent applied to work overseas thru petitioner sometime in February 1998. He alleged that he was assessed P100,000 placement fee by petitioner. As he had only P30,000 to pay petitioner, respondent begged for a reduced fee. Petitioner agreed and the placement fee was reduced to P94,000 only, on the condition that the remaining balance of P64,000 shall be paid through salary deductions upon his deployment. Respondent received no receipt for the P30,000 cash that he advanced as partial placement fee. Instead, petitioner gave him a schedule of his monthly salary deduction payments for one year for his balance, which included interest and other charges, amounting to P90,725. In October 1998, respondent’s Contract of Employment with a certain Wei Yu Hsien arrived. Under this contract, he was to work as caretaker for one year, ten months and twenty-eight days with a monthly pay of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 15,840. On October 15, 1998, he flew to Taiwan. Respondent alleged that upon his arrival in Taiwan, he was assigned to a mechanical shop, owned by Hsien, as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car lifters, instead of the job for which he was hired. He found out that Hsien was actually engaged in the installation and repair of hydraulic machines for gasoline stations and other mechanical shops. Since then, he traveled from one place to another, even during nighttime as hydraulic installer/repair man for car lifters, as required by his employer. He did not, however, complain because he needed money to pay for the debts he incurred back home. Barely a month after his placement, he was terminated by Hsien. On November 14, 1998, respondent was made to sign a document stating that he was not qualified for the position. He did not, however, sign the document. At dawn of November 16, 1998,5 respondent was handed his salary, with the accompanying computation and instruction for his departure to the Philippines. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he immediately went to petitioner’s office and confronted its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the assignment given to him and demanded that he be reimbursed the P30,000 he paid as downpayment. Instead of returning the said amount, petitioner gave him a summary of expenses amounting toP30,493, which it allegedly incurred for his deployment abroad. Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint docketed as POEA Case No. RV98-12-1586, before the Adjudication Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). However, because of financial constraints, he had to go home to Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte where, on February 17, 1999, he filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery of unpaid salaries and other benefits before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 9, Dipolog City. In its defense, petitioner alleged that it hired respondent to work in Taiwan for one year and that for his deployment, he was charged a placement fee of merely P15,840 plus P5,050 for documentation expenses. Petitioner further claimed that under the employment contract, respondent was to undergo a probationary period of forty (40) days. However, at the job site, respondent was found to be unfit for his work, thus he resigned from his employment and requested for his repatriation signing a statement to that effect. On May 14, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien solidarily liable for the wages representing the unserved portion of the employment contract, the amount unlawfully deducted from respondent’s monthly wage, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. For the remittance of illegal placement fee in the amount of P99,110, petitioner was held solely liable. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, couched in the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered:

Select target paragraph3