4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker’s salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement “of” his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.[52] (emphasis ours) This argument fails to persuade us. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.[53] By its very nature, the amendment introduced by R.A. 10022 — restoring a provision of R.A. 8042 declared unconstitutional — cannot be given retroactive effect, not only because there is no express declaration of retroactivity in the law, but because retroactive application will result in an impairment of a right that had accrued to the respondents by virtue of the Serrano ruling -entitlement to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts. All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective application, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect are expressly declared or are necessarily implied from the language used.[54] We thus see no reason to nullity the application of the Serrano ruling in the present case. Whether or not R.A. 10022 is constitutional is not for us to rule upon in the present case as this is· an issue that is not squarely before us. In other words, this is an issue that awaits its proper day in court; in the meanwhile, we make no pronouncement on it. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 9, 2011 and the Resolution dated June 23, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114353 are AFFIRMED. Let this Decision be brought to the attention of the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment and the Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration as a black mark in the deployment record of petitioner Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc., and as a record that should be considered in· any similar future violations. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta,* Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur. * Designated Additional Member vice Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bemabe per Raffle dated September 5, 2012. [1] Rollo, pp. 27-64; filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [2] Id. at 107-121; penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55155 12/15