Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > October 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16492 October 27, 1961 - MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS v. ESTELITA G. BARRERA, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16492. October 27, 1961.]

MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTELITA G. BARRERA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Nicanor T. Santos and Silverio B. Rey for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose T. Nery and R. T. Capulong, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY; OFFICE FEE CHARGEABLE AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR RECRUIT (MAID); REFUND OF FEE IF RECRUIT TERMINATES EMPLOYMENT NOT DISMISSED. — Under the Code of Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the National Employment Service, an office fee not to exceed P50.00 may be charged by employment agency against an employer for each recruit which shall be for the exclusive account of the employer, while on the other hand, when a recruit placed by the Agency terminates her contract of employment without having been dismissed by the employer, the latter is entitled to refund from the agency of certain percentage of the fee paid by the employer in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.

2. ID.; EMPLOYER NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS OF MAIDS. — If the employer had paid the Agency for the personal obligations of the maids advanced by the latter, the employer is not entitled for reimbursement because such indebtedness, if any, is only chargeable against the maids who had personally assumed to pay it in the contract of employment entered into between them and the employer. By entering into that contract, the implication is that the employer has relieved the Agency from its liability therefor in the event the maids terminate their employment before the period agreed upon. Moreover, on the back of the receipts issued by the agency a condition was written to the effect that in case of escape the Agency does not guarantee the accounts of the servant-employee which means that the Agency has not assumed any subsidiary liability for the accounts of the maids.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This appeal stems from a complaint filed by Maria Salao Vda. de Santos before the Municipal Court of Manila praying for the refund of P390.50 allegedly paid by her in employing three housemaids thru defendants as owners and operators of the Gloria Employment Agency.

On March 19, 1958, defendants filed their answer with a counterclaim admitting some of the items mentioned in the complaint but denying having received the extra charge of P60.00. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of P390.00, plus P100.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.

Defendants appealed to the court of first instance and after the issues were joined, the court set the case for hearing on August 27, 1958, where, instead of presenting their evidence, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts from which the following may be deduced: On three different occasions the Gloria Employment Agency secured for plaintiff the services of three housemaids: Ivonne Provido on May 23, 1957, Yolanda Jaime on July 14, 1957, and Vicenta Novalis on July 23, 1957, each to work for a period of one year at a monthly salary of P20.00 each. For this service, plaintiff paid defendants the following amounts: P154.50 representing the office and tax fees of the Agency at P51.50 for each of the three housemaids; P176.00 representing the debts of said maids advanced by the Agency to wit: P62.00 for Ivonne Provido; P62.00 for Yolanda Jaime; and P52.00 for Vicenta Novalis.

On September 11, 1957, the maids escaped and having been informed thereof defendants located and delivered the maids, to plaintiff, but the latter returned them to the Agency on December 7, 1957. On December 14, 1957, plaintiff wrote defendants demanding the refund of the amount of P390.00 claimed to have originally paid by her to which defendants replied offering to reimburse only the amount of P116.90, and as plaintiff was not agreeable to the proposal she instituted the present action. With respect to the damages and attorney’s fees claimed by both parties, the same were left to the discretion of the court.

On November 3, 1958, the court a quo sentenced defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of P390.00, plus P200.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. In due time, defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals but the latter certified the case to us for the reason that there are no questions of fact involved.

The amount of P390.50 claimed by appellee is itemized as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Office fees of P50.00 for each of the three maids P150.00

Tax of P1.50 for each of the three maids 4.50

Personal obligations of the maids to the Agency 176.00

Extra charge of P20.00 each for the three maids 60.00

On the back of each of the receipts issued by appellants in connection with the employment of the three maids the following clause appears:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That in cases, where an employee placed by the agency terminates the contract of employment without having been dismissed by the employer if exchange is not elected by the agency, the employer is entitled to a refund from the agency of the fee paid by him in accordance with the following schedule, FEAS/NES form No. VI)

1. Within 10 days 100%.

2. Within the 1st Month 75%.

3. Within the 2nd and 3rd month 50%.

4. Within the 4th to the 6th month 25%.

5. After the 6th month, no refund."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pertinent portions of the Code of Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the National Employment Service pursuant to the authority vested in him by Republic Act No. 761, approved by the Secretary of Labor, are quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 53. — An ‘OFFICE FEE’ not to exceed Fifty Pesos (P50.00) may be charged by the agency against any employer for each placement or employment of a recruit, which shall be for the exclusive account of the employer and never chargeable against the employee.

"Section 54. — In cases where an employee place by the agency terminates the contract of employment without having been dismissed by the employer and is returned by the latter to the agency, if exchange is not elected by the agency, the employer is entitled to refund of the fee paid by him in accordance with the following schedule:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Within the 1st month P37.50

(b) After the 1st month up to the 3rd month 25.00

(c) After the 3rd month up to the 6th month 12.50

(d) After the 6th month No refund of office fee.

x       x       x


"PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that. if the employer terminated the contract of employment for a valid or sufficient cause, he shall have the option of either getting a refund or an exchange, in accordance with the above schedules: . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would appear from the above that an office fee not to exceed P50.00 may be charged by an employment agency against an employer for each recruit which shall be for the exclusive account of the employer, while on the other hand, when a recruit placed by the Agency terminates his contract of employment without having been dismissed by the employer, the latter is entitled to a refund from the Agency of certain percentage of the fee paid by the employer in accordance with the schedule set forth therein. There is no dispute that on September 11, 1957 the three maids herein involved escaped from the house of their employer for reasons that do not appear clear in the record but who upon being detected were returned to their employer who however chose not to re-employ them thereby terminating their contract of employment. It may therefore be said that the three maids chose to leave the service of their employer without having been dismissed by the latter thus giving the employer the right to ask for a refund of the fees paid by her to the Agency in the manner provided for in the contract and in the rules above-quoted. In this sense, the employer is entitled to a refund of P62.50 computed as follows: P12.50 for Ivonne Provido, P25.00 for Yolanda Jaime, and P25.00 for Vicenta Novalis.

In our opinion this is the only item which the employer may recover from the Agency considering the contract and the rules already adverted to. Thus, the employer cannot be reimbursed of the tax fees she paid for the three maids in the total sum of P4.50 for they are due the government. The employer is not also entitled to the refund of the alleged extra charge of P60.00 for there is nothing in the record to show any reason or justification for the payment of such extra charge. No evidence has been presented to this effect. And with regard to the sum of P176.00 which was paid by the employer to the Agency as reimbursement for the personal obligations of the maids advanced by the latter, the evidence is clear that such indebtedness, if any, is only chargeable against the maids for he had personally assumed to pay it in the contract of employment entered into between them and the employer (Exhibits B, D and F). By entering into the contract, the implication is that the employer has relieved the Agency from its liability therefor in the event the maids terminate their employment before the period agreed upon. There is, moreover, on the back of each of the receipts issued by the Agency to the employer a notation of this tenor: "IMPORTANT: In case of escape the Agency does not guarantee the accounts of the servant-employee", which shows that the Agency has not assumed any subsidiary liability for the accounts of the maids. It is therefore clear that of the items claimed by the employer, she is only entitled to a refund in the sum of P62.50.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified by ordering appellants to pay appellee only the amount of P62.50, without pronouncement as to costs. Considering the outcome of this case, the item relative to attorney’s fees should also be eliminated.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17722 October 9, 1961 - MAURICIO GORDULAN v. CESAREO GORDULAN

  • G.R. No. L-15525 October 11, 1961 - MUNICIPALITY OF LUCBAN v. NAT’L. WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-15959 October 11, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11870 October 16, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17721 October 16, 1961 - GREGORIO APELARIO v. INES CHAVEZ & CO., LTD., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-5733 October 19, 1961 - NORTHWEST TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT (PHIL.) CORP. v. MORALES SHIPPING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14957 October 19, 1961 - CO KE TONG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16135 October 19, 1961 - NAPOLEON R. MALOLOS v. ANDRES REYES, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16495 October 19, 1961 - LA MALLORCA-PAMBUSCO v. CIRILO ISIP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14321 October 20, 1961 - SATURNlNO MOLDERO v. RENEE J. YANDOC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16109 October 20, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO ALMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-15108 October 26, 1961 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ELEUTERIO SEMAÑA

  • G.R. No. L-15955 October 26, 1961 - IN RE: NARCISO CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16254 October 26, 1961 - GREGORIO ABING, ET AL. v. AGO AMISTAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18275 October 26, 1961 - COTABATO RICE MILL, INC. v. SALAZAR ADAM

  • G.R. No. L-14968 October 27, 1961 - GEORGE MCENTEE v. PERPETUA MANOTOK

  • G.R. No. L-15584 October 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO PECZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16287 October 27, 1961 - JULIAN DE LEMOS v. MANUEL E. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16492 October 27, 1961 - MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS v. ESTELITA G. BARRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16504 October 27, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO S. GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. L-16538 October 27, 1961 - "Y" SHIPPING CORP. v. AGUSTIN BORCELIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16592 October 27, 1961 - ENRIQUE ICASIANO v. FELISA ICASIANO

  • G.R. No. L-16938 October 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY ESCARE

  • G.R. No. L-17055 October 27, 1961 - MANUEL LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17707 October 27, 1961 - MANUEL F. PORTILLO v. LUIS B. REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-12518 October 28, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. J.C. YUSECO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14045 October 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO C. CABRAL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-16943-44 October 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID DICHUPA

  • G.R. No. L-14150 October 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CLARIT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15865 October 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARDONIO SURBIDA

  • G.R. No. L-16403 October 30, 1961 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. JESUS BETIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17395 October 30, 1961 - ISIDRO DE LEON v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-13324 October 31, 1961 - MARCELO CAGUIOA, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA FARMERS’ CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-14279 October 31, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL v. EASTERN SEA TRADING

  • G.R. No. L-14409 October 31, 1961 - AGAPITO FUELLAS v. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14456 October 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GALBON IJAD, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-14948 and L-14972 October 31, 1961 - COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15596 October 31, 1961 - RUFINO M. CORTEZ v. FLORENTINO MANIMBO

  • G.R. No. L-15772 October 31, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST "NEW JERUSALEM"

  • G.R. No. L-15868 October 31, 1961 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. FAUSTO GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15934 October 31, 1961 - CARMEN PLANAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15995 October 31, 1961 - RUFINO DELANTES v. GO TAO & COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16031 October 31, 1961 - CONCORDIA CAGALAWAN v. CUSTOMS CANTEEN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16108 October 31, 1961 - IN RE: ELEUTERIA FELISETA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16271 October 31, 1961 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16290 October 31, 1961 - SANTOS TABUENA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16370 October 31, 1961 - JOSE S. GALVEZ, ET AL v. PLDT COMPANY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16476 October 31, 1961 - LEONCIO KIMPO v. NEMESIO T. TABAÑAR

  • G.R. No. L-16735 October 31, 1961 - FRUCTUOSO ALQUESA, ET AL v. BLAS G. CAVADA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16786 October 31, 1961 - EMILIANO M. PEREZ v. CITY MAYOR OF CABANATUAN

  • G.R. No. L-17072 October 31, 1961 - CRISTINA MARCELO VDA. DE BAUTISTA v. BRIGIDA MARCOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17186 October 31, 1961 - GSIS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17384 October 31, 1961 - NESTOR RIGOR VDA. DE QUIAMBAO, ET AL. v. MANILA MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17953 October 31, 1961 - LESLIE H. BROWN, ET AL v. SALUD Q. BROWN, ET AL