8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly August 16, 2007 termination letter,[50] which was submitted to the Immigration Department of Wanchai, Hong Kong. Petitioner alleged that she learned of the termination of her employment the following day, and that she was able to get a copy of the termination letter only with the help of Helpers for Domestic Helpers, an organization of Filipino helpers in Hong Kong.[51] The provisions in the employment contract and the employer's conduct are patently inconsistent with the right of security of tenure guaranteed to local or overseas Filipino workers under the Constitution[52] and the Labor Code.[53] Security of tenure guarantees workers substantive and procedural due process before they are dismissed from work.[54] It is a right which cannot be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and nebulous basis.[55] Undeniably, the NLRC properly ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed on both substantive and procedural grounds. II. Respondents cannot escape liability from petitioner's money claims. Section 10 of RA 8042 provides that the employer and the recruitment or placement agency are jointly liable for money claims arising from the employment relationship or any contract involving overseas Filipino workers. If the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their foreign principals, RA 8042 precisely affords OFWs with a recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them.[56] We now rule on the appropriate monetary award. First, we note that both the NLRC and CA omitted to compute unpaid wages for services rendered by petitioner. The ELA, on the other hand, awarded unpaid wages in the sum of HK$679.98,[57] relying on respondents' allegation that petitioner worked for only six days.[58] The ELA's computation is erroneous. Petitioner's employment commenced on August 3, 2007, the day she arrived in Hong Kong, as provided by her employment contract,[59] and ended on August 16, 2007, when her employer unjustly terminated her employment contract. In total, petitioner is considered to have worked for 14 days. In her position paper, petitioner alleged that on August 6, 2007, she was sent by her employer to a recruitment agency in Hong Kong supposedly for retraining, and returned on August 12, 2007. However, no retraining was conducted.[60] We hold that the period that petitioner was away from her workplace pursuant to her employer's instruction should be considered as days worked for the employer. In the first place, retraining is not provided for in the employment contract. Petitioner was even oblivious of the reason why she had to undergo retraining.[61] Moreover, petitioner was ready, willing, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65433 7/13