8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly due process when the warning letter gave her one month to improve her work performance, but she was dismissed five days after.[20] With respect to petitioner's alleged dishonesty in concealing her civil status, jurisprudence has settled that this is a form of dishonesty so trivial that it will not warrant the penalty of dismissal. Consequently, the NLRC found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and awarded her full reimbursement of her placement fee of P45,000.00 with 12% interest per annum pursuant to RA 8042, reimbursement of P2,500.00 medical examination fee, and unpaid salaries equivalent to three months for every year of the unexpired portion of the contract, or a total period of six months.[21] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.[22] Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari[23] with the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 26, 2012, the CA rendered its Decision[24] affirming with modification the NLRC Resolution. It held that AWI cannot evade responsibility for the money claims of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) whom it deploys abroad by the mere expediency of claiming that its foreign principal is a government agency clothed with immunity from suit, or that such foreign principal's liability must be established first before it, as agent, can be held jointly and solidarily liable. Otherwise, the rule on joint and solidary liability of the agent with the foreign principal would be rendered inutile.[25] Moreover, the contention that Hong Kong law governs petitioner's employment contract lacks merit since respondents failed to prove Hong Kong law. The rule is that where a foreign law is not pleaded, or even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that it is the same as Philippine law. Thus, Philippine law should apply in resolving the issues in the case.[26] Finally, petitioner was not afforded due process. The notice of termination was not properly served on her and did not properly inform her of the grounds for termination. In fact, petitioner was given one month from the date of the warning letter to improve her work but her employment was terminated just four[27] days thereafter. [28] The CA consequently awarded petitioner three-months' salary, refund of her placement fee with 12% interest per annum, and attorney's fees which shall be 10% of the total monetary award.[29] Petitioner filed a partial motion for reconsideration[30] pertaining to the award of threemonths' salary. She pointed out that the CA based this award on Section 10, RA 8042, which provides that "[i]n case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to x x x 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." However, the cases of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[31] and Yap v. Thenamaris Ship's Management[32] already declared this provision unconstitutional and awarded illegally dismissed overseas workers with salaries equivalent to the entire unexpired portion of their employment contract. Thus, petitioner claims that she is entitled to the award of salaries equivalent to the entire unexpired portion of her unemployment contract. On July 30, 2013, the CA issued a Resolution[33] denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. It held that the cases cited by petitioner are not on all fours with the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65433 3/13