6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We cannot subscribe to [respondent's] contention that she was illegally dismissed from her employment. Records show that the Model Employment Contract presented as evidence by both [respondent] and [petitioners and SAENCO] would prove that [respondent's] employment was for a period of six (6) months only. Aside from [respondent's] allegation that [petitioners and SAENCO] misrepresented to her that her contract is for a period of one (1) year, there is no other evidence on record which will corroborate and strengthen such allegation. We took note of the fact that [respondent's] Model Employment Contract was verified by the Labor Attache of the Philippine Embassy in Korea and duly approved by the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). There is no showing that her contract was extended by [petitioners and SAENCO], or that an extension was approved by the POEA. All the pieces of documentary evidence on record prove otherwise. We agree with [petitioners and SAENCO's] argument that [respondent] was given a copy of her employment contract prior to her departure for Korea because [respondent] was required to submit a copy thereof to the Philippine Labor Office upon her arrival in Korea. We are also convinced that [respondent] read and understood the terms and conditions of her Model Employment Contract because of the following reasons: First, [respondent] was informed thereof when a post arrival briefing was conducted at the Philippine Embassy Overseas Labor Office. This procedure is mandatory, and the booking of the talent shall be effective only within three (3) days after her arrival in Korea. Second, [respondent's] passport shows that her visa is valid only for six (6) months x x x. Third, the Model Employment Contract has been signed by [respondent] on the left hand margin on each and every page and on the bottom of the last page thereof x x x. Fourth, [respondent's] claim that [petitioners and SAENCO] forced her in signing two (2) employment contracts appears to be doubtful considering that she avers that she was not able to read the terms and conditions of her employment contract. It is amazing how she was able to differentiate the contents of the two (2) contracts she allegedly signed without first reading it. On the basis of the foregoing, [respondent's] contention that she did not know the terms and conditions of her Model Employment Contract, in particular the provision which states that her contract and her visa is valid only for six (6) months, lacks credence. Thus, it can be concluded that she was not dismissed at all by [petitioners and SAENCO] as her employment contract merely expired. As to [respondent's] allegation that she was not paid her salaries during her stay in Korea, [petitioners and SAENCO] presented cash vouchers and affidavits of co-employees showing that [respondent] was paid US$600 per month by her Korean employer. [Respondent] failed to prove that the vouchers were faked, or her signatures appearing thereon were falsified. Hence, [respondent] is not entitled to her claim for unpaid salaries. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 9/27