8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (b) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days; or (c) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years. Provided, however, That the penalties herein provided shall be without prejudice to any liability which any such official may have incurred under other existing laws or rules and regulations as a consequence of violating the provisions of this paragraph. (Emphasis supplied) In Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles,[62] this Court was confronted with the question of the constitutionality of the reinstated clause in Republic Act No. 10022. Reiterating our finding in Serrano, we ruled that "limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution."[63] In striking down the clause, we ruled: Putting a cap on the money claims of certain overseas workers does not increase the standard of protection afforded to them. On the other hand, foreign employers are more incentivized by the reinstated clause to enter into contracts of at least a year because it gives them more flexibility to violate our overseas workers' rights. Their liability for arbitrarily terminating overseas workers is decreased at the expense of the workers whose rights they violated. Meanwhile, these overseas workers who are impressed with an expectation of a stable job overseas for the longer contract period disregard other opportunities only to be terminated earlier. They are left with claims that are less than what others in the same situation would receive. The reinstated clause, therefore, creates a situation where the law meant to protect them makes violation of rights easier and simply benign to the violator.[64] This case should be no different from Serrano and Sameer. A statute declared unconstitutional "confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all." [65] Incorporating a similarly worded provision in a subsequent legislation does not cure its unconstitutionality. Without any discemable change in the circumstances warranting a reversal, this Court will not hesitate to strike down the same provision. As such, we reiterate our ruling in Sameer that the reinstated clause in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 has no force and effect of law. It is unconstitutional.[66] Hence, petitioners are entitled to the award of salaries based on the actual unexpired portion of their employment contracts. The award of petitioners' salaries, in relation to the three (3)-month cap, must be modified accordingly. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The September 29, 2011 Decision of the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65230 12/19