G.R. No. 167614 21 of 33 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm [119] Trans & Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Ople, involving seafarers who were illegally discharged. In [120] an OFW who Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, was illegally dismissed prior to the expiration of her fixed-period employment contract as a baby sitter, was awarded salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract. The Court arrived at the [121] same ruling in Anderson v. National Labor Relations Commission, which involved a foreman hired in 1988 in Saudi Arabia for a fixed term of two years, but who was illegally dismissed after only nine months on the job -- the Court awarded him salaries corresponding to 15 months, the unexpired [122] portion of his contract. In Asia World Recruitment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, a Filipino working as a security officer in 1989 in Angola was awarded his salaries for the remaining period of his 12-month contract after he was wrongfully discharged. Finally, in Vinta Maritime Co., [123] Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, an OFW whose 12-month contract was illegally cut short in the second month was declared entitled to his salaries for the remaining 10 months of his contract. In sum, prior to R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term employment who were illegally discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation of their money claims: they were uniformly entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. But with the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, specifically the adoption of the subject clause, illegally dismissed OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their employment contract have since been differently treated in that their money claims are subject to a 3-month cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local workers with fixed-term employment. The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage. There being a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector protected by the Constitution, the Court now subjects the classification to a strict judicial scrutiny, and determines whether it serves a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means. What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers arrayed 1/26/2016 3:06 PM