Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions > [G. R. No. 190450 : February 03, 2010] MECTAP INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, PETITIONER VS. RICHARD S. GUTIB, RESPONDENT :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 03 February 2010:

G. R. No. 190450 - MECTAP INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, petitioner -versus- RICHARD S. GUTIB, respondent.

45 petition for review on certiorari now before us, the Decision dated February 26, 2009 and Resolution dated November 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 102359^[1] reversing the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that in rum reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter holding Mectap solidarity liable with the respondent Richard S. Gutib's (Gutib) Taiwanese employer, Li Yu Quin (Li), for illegal dismissal and the payment of Gutib's salary differential and placement fee. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on the finding that Gutib resigned and was not dismissed.

The case has its roots in the violation of Gutib's employment contract and the consequent termination of his employment. Gutib alleged that instead of working as a caretaker as his contract provided, he was assigned to do construction work and was dismissed after he refused. He subsequently consented to sign a voluntary resignation letter and a waiver after he was kept in isolation for two weeks. The petitioner, on the other hand, relied on the voluntary resignation letter it presented as basis for its defense.

The CA, in reversing the NLRC, found that Gutib did not resign, as the filing of his complaint was inconsistent with the voluntary resignation that petitioner alleged. The CA also placed great weight to Gutib's allegation that his Taiwanese employer forced him to work as a construction worker, in violation of the terms of his employment contract. Moreover, the CA was convinced that when Gutib refused to work as a construction worker, his Taiwanese employer forced him to sign the resignation letter.

The CA awarded Gutib the following sums of money:

a) P25,344.00 as refund for placement fee plus 12% interest, until fully paid;

b) NT$110,880.00, corresponding to the 7 months' salaries due;

c) NT$38,720.00 as salary differential for the 8 months that Gutib's salary was reduced from NT$15,840.00 to NT$11,000.00

The CA, acting on petitioner's motion for reconsideration, thereafter amended the decision, by ruling that Gutib was entitled to his salaries for the whole unexpired portion of his contract, the equivalent of NT$253,330.00.

The monetary awards were based on the provision of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,^[2] as interpreted in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime^[3] that a migrant worker illegally dismissed is entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee plus salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. Gutib was repatriated after serving only 8 months out of the 24 months indicated in the employment contract.

We find the petition unmeritorious on its face in light of the following ruling we established in Oriental Ship Management v. CA^[4] where we held that:

The law is solicitous of the welfare of employees because they stand on unequal footing with their employers and are usually left at the mercy of the latter. This is especially true of Filipino migrant workers who, alone in a foreign country, might have no adequate alternative resources even for their own personal daily needs.

Hence, quitclaims signed by our migrant workers, such as the Letters of Indemnity in the instant case, are viewed with strong disfavor. Public policy dictates that they be presumed to have been executed at the behest of the employer. It is the employer's duty to prove that such quitclaims were voluntary. The employee's acknowledgment of his termination with nary a protest or objection is not enough to satisfy the requirement of voluntariness on his part. [Emphasis ours]

Contrary to this ruling, the NLRC relied solely on Gutib's resignation letter, without even requiring petitioner to prove that his resignation was voluntary. The fact that Gutip, after having worked for only a few months as a caretaker, suddenly resigned and, more significantly, even offered to pay for his own plane ticket back, should have raised the NLRC's suspicions and compelled it to examine the attendant circumstances of the case more carefully. The NLRC did not even look into Gutib's claim that the reason for his forced resignation was his refusal to work as a construction worker. These facts, taken together, support the conclusion that Gutib was forced to resign.

In ruling as it did, the NLRC did not only commit a legal error; it likewise gravely abused its discretion in ruling on the case. Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to obvious errors of jurisdiction but also to cases where the factual or legal error is so gross and is equated to lack of jurisdiction. These occur when gross misapprehension of facts^[5] or failure to take relevant considerations exist,^[6] as in the present case where the NLRC grossly misapprehended the facts because it focused solely on the voluntarily resignation letter the petitioner submitted without further inquiring whether this letter was written voluntarily. Under the circumstances, the CA was correct in granting the petition for certiorari, thereby effectively reversing the NLRC.

The CA was also correct when it retroactively applied the Serrano ruling to the present case. Under Serrano, Court unequivocally stated that the phrase "or for three months for every year of the unexpired tenn, whichever is less" found in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042^[7] is unconstitutional. As an unconstitutional provision, it produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed.^[8] Therefore, Gutib's claim should cover the entire duration of the unserved portion of the overseas employment contract.

Finally, we also note that the petition is also procedurally defective for failing to indicate a material date - the date the petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration of the assailed CA decision.

WHEREFORE,  premises  considered,  we resolve to DENY the petition outright for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged rulings of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No.102359, and for failure to indicate a material date pursuant to Rule 45, Section 4(b) of the Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Roberto A. Abad, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 3^rd day of February, 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Veloso, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo Cruz and Ricardo Rosario.

^[2] R.A. No. 8042, which took effect on My 15,1995.

^[3] G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009.

^[4] G.R. No. 153750, January 25, 2006.

^[5] UCPB v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007.

^[6] Pecson v. Commission on Elections, GR. No. 182865, December 24, 2008, citing Almeida v. Court of Appeals, 489 Phil. 649 (2005), where the Court ruled that in granting or denying injunctive relief, a court abuses its discretion when it lacks jurisdiction, fails to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, considers clearly irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to one factor, relies on erroneous conclusions of law, or equity, or misapplies its factual or legal conclusions.

^[7] SEC. 10. MONEY CLAIMS.

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 (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, x x x

^[8] Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008.