8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and able to work, but her employer prevented her from doing so by unreasonably sending her away from her workplace. The employer's actions should not be taken to prejudice petitioner. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence or, in the interpretation of agreements and writings, should be resolved in the former's favor.[62] Consequently, petitioner's salary for the 14-day period she is deemed to have worked is computed as follows: HK$3,400.00 per month/30 x 14 days = HK$1,586.67 Finally, as regards the issue of how much salary petitioner is entitled based on the unexpired portion of her contract, the NLRC awarded petitioner six-months' salary while the CA reduced this amount to three months, pursuant to Section 10, RA 8042, which provides: Sec. 10. Money Claims. – xxxx In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee 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. xxxx The proviso "for three months for every year of the unexpired term [of the employment contract], whichever is less" has been declared unconstitutional by this Court for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.[63] In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.,[64] we explained that the said 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 three-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.[65] Moreover, there is no compelling state interest that the subject clause may possibly serve. Thus, following Serrano, we rule that petitioner is entitled to her monthly salary of HK$3,400.00, or its Philippine peso equivalent, for the entire unexpired portion of her employment contract. We reverse the CA's award of placement fee for being unsubstantiated. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65433 8/13