4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court, therefore, shall limit the resolution of this case on the sole question of whether the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, as reinstated in toto by the CA, properly applied and interpreted Section 10 of R.A. 8042, the pertinent portions of which state: Sec. 10. Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. xxx In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, x x x (Emphasis supplied) Indisputably, respondents’ illegal dismissal complaint with money claims is anchored on the overseas employment contracts with petitioners and the allegations that they were dismissed without just, valid or authorized cause. With these allegations, Section 10 afore-quoted clearly applies in this case.[19] As petitioners failed to establish a valid retrenchment, respondents were clearly dismissed without just, valid or authorized cause. Consequently, petitioner Lamzon is jointly and severally liable with petitioner company. To reiterate, Section 10 of R.A. 8042 provides that “[i]f the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors x x x shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation x x x” for any claims and damages that may be due to the overseas workers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Court finds that a modification of the monetary award in the amount of NT$47,520.00 per respondent – corresponding to three (3) months’ worth of salaries – granted by the Labor Arbiter is in order, conformably with the pronouncement in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.[20] (Serrano case) where the Court En Banc declared unconstitutional, for being violative of the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to equal protection and due process of the overseas workers, the clause “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” found in Section 10 of R.A. 8042, which originally reads: In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55311 5/8