ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 146249.February 4, 2002]
ASIAN PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. vs. CA & GO
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, or your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 04 FEB 2002.
G.R. No. 146249(Asian Placement Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Estrellita Go.)
Assailed in this petition for certiorari are the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 31 January 2000 and 13 November, 2000, respectively.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On 09 December 1988, private respondent Estrellita E. Go entered into an employment contract with HBA Management, Inc., (HBA) to work as a nurse at Voorhees Pediatric Facility in New Jersey, USA, for a period of one (1) year, with a salary of US$16.32 per hour. Petitioner Asian Placement Services, Inc. (Asian Placement) acted as HBA's local agent. Private respondent was deployed to the United States on 15 March 1989 but upon her arrival in New Jersey, she was informed by Liza Beredo, HBA's representative, that she could not be accommodated at Voorhees. Private respondent was instead referred to Greenwood Skilled and Health Care Center, Inc. (Greenwood). In view of Beredo's promise that she would later on be accommodated at Voorhees, petitioner in the meanwhile accepted the employment at Greenwood, which turned out to be a hospital with substandard conditions. Petitioner was offered a salary of US$14.75 per hour for night shift and US$13.00 for day shift. On 30 March 1989, private respondent was asked to sign a new contract for a salary of $12.00 per hour. Since Greenwood had much poorer facilities, accommodation and working conditions than Voorhees, private respondent complained, only to be told that Voorhees was no longer a client of HBA. Private respondent decided to quit the job after three (3) days of service, sought the help of her relatives in New York, and returned to the Philippines on 12 May 1989.
On 30 June 1989, Go filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) a complaint against Asian Placement for "Breach and/or Alteration of Employment Contract amounting to Constructive Dismissal or Misrepresentation," praying for reimbursement of her transportation expenses, damages, lost of income and other benefits, amounting to about $46,992.20.
In a decision, dated 02 July 1990, the POEA dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground that Go abandoned her job without the permission of the foreign employer. Nevertheless, the POEA ordered Asian Placement to pay Go the sum of US$103.68 as salary differential since she was supposed to receive the salary of US$16.32 per the contract of employment.
On appeal, the NLRC, in its decision promulgated on 03 July 1992, set aside the POEA decision and ordered Asian Placement to pay Go the amount of US$47,225.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment. The NLRC ruled:
We cannot believe, however much we try to convince ourselves, the truth of respondent's assertion that upon arrival at New Jersey complainant was merely told to wait until such time that she gets her temporary work authority from the state. In the first place the contract is precise that she shall work at Voorhees Pediatric Facility at New Jersey and she was deployed for that particular work place. If her papers are incomplete why was she deployed, and if she were to wait, for how long?Respondent's version of work accommodation is full of holes, so to speak.
The complainant's version of the incident is more credible and persuasive.
x x x
Indeed if ever she accepted the job at Greenwood Nursing Home it was not because she wished to. No right thinking person would accept a job with less pay than what one has contracted for unless that worker is compelled by circumstances, with more reason if the worker is in a foreign land and there is an imperative need to survive.
Complainant's resignation from Greenwood from which the POEA administration anchored its findings that there is no illegal dismissal, is of no moment in this instant case, it appearing that there was no possibility of her working at Voorhees Pediatric Facility since HBA Management, Inc. has severed its ties with Voorhees. At the least under the given facts there is constructive dismissal. [1] cralaw
Asian Placement moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC decision. In a complete turn-about, the NLRC, in its 30 July 1993 decision, reversed and set aside its 03 July 1993 decision and dismissed the complaint. The NLRC stated that "(f)rom the sparse record of the case, this Commission, on a second look, cannot determine exactly several factual issues. [2] cralaw Hence, it declared:
After assaying the parties' respective positions and another review of the Record, we find the movant's arguments persuasive. A constructive dismissal has been defined as "a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay (Moreno's Philippine Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., p. 129 citing the case of Alia vs. Salam Una Transportation Co., 29 January 1991; Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp. vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 164, as cited in Jam Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Flores, et al., 19 March 1993. There were no illegal dismissals under the two contracts of employment. As stated in our Decision, the relationship between Voorhees Pediatric Facility and HBA Management, Inc. had ceased for reasons not clear from the Record by the time the complainant arrived. There could not have been any dismissal constructive or actual for the basic reason that employment had not even commenced. The contract of employment complainant had entered into could not have been performed due to this physical impossibility. The performance of the obligation entered into could not have been legally compellable for the same reason that Voorhees and HBA could not be forced into retaining their business relationship. Stated in another way, the commencement and continued employment of the complainant depended upon the existence of this relationship between the two. With the impossibility of employment as per the contract, the only obligation left is for the repatriation of the complainant at the expense of the respondent Asian Placement Services, Inc.
x x x
The complainant, however, chose to accept another contract of which the respondent Asian Placement was totally unaware of. She opted for the rescission of the original contract of employment and directly contracted with HBA Management for employment at another facility, Greenwood Nursing Home. What compelled her to accept this proposition is also unclear from the Record. It is admitted, however, that she agreed to the conditions of employment offered her and which act by itself released whatever legal obligations respondent Asian Placement would have assumed under the original contract.
Moreover, we are convinced that the predicament of both the complainant and HBA Management were borne out of exigencies of the situation where the latter had just lost a client and the former was desperate for employment. It was also from this situation that the complainant and Barredo [3] cralaw extemporized a relationship for her to be accommodated at Greenwood subject to transfer at the first opportunity.
What complainant did after three days of work at this institution was to abandon her new employment contract due to the poor accommodations. We find the act of the abandonment as unreasonable given the circumstances in which this employment was secured as well as the duration of her actual service. It would not be unreasonable for her to complain to the Institution, local health or housing authorities and HBA Management and allow sometime for the latter to sort out her temporary living accommodations to the standards she expected. There was, therefore, no constructive dismissal by HBA Management but a mere abandonment of employment by a dissatisfied and expectant complainant. [4] cralaw
Go went to the Court of Appeals for relief In the now questioned decision, promulgated on 31 January 2000, the appellate court reversed and set aside the NLRC decision of 30 July 1993 and ordered the remand of the records to the Commission for the proper computation of the monetary award. The appellate court ruled:
Anent private respondent's contention that petitioner abandoned her work, this Court finds it otherwise. Allegedly, petitioner was told to wait for her temporary authority to work but instead, she quit her job and returned to the Philippines. We cannot blame her in not waiting for the authority to work. As a matter of fact, when she was deployed to the United States it means that all the necessary requirements were complied. If she lacked the proper authority to work, the same can not be attributed to her. Let it be stressed that due to limited resources, petitioner was compelled to accept temporary employment although the facilities and working conditions were poor. Under the circumstances, petitioner can not be expected to continue working and wait for her temporary working authorization. In this respect, this Court finds and so holds that there was constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal, as was held in People's Security, Inc. vs. NLRC (226 SCRA 146), exists when there is quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. We believe that it is unreasonable to expect petitioner to stay and keep working despite violations on her contractual rights. Thus, upholding the constitutional mandate of full protection to labor, We are constrained to reverse the decision of the NLRC.
Asian Placement promptly filed a motion for the reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging that the factual findings of the NLRC should be accorded respect if not finality. The motion was denied in the appellate court's resolution promulgated on 13 November 2000 on the ground that the conclusion of the NLRC was not supported by evidence of record. Thus:
x x x. As we declared in our Decision sought to be reconsidered, "we studied both the sworn statements submitted by petitioner and Liza Beredo and noticed that Liza Beredo failed to deny the material allegations contained in par. 6-11 of petitioner's complaint affidavit." [5] cralaw
Hence, the present recourse, anchored on the grounds that private respondent was not illegally dismissed but in fact abandoned her job and that the Court of Appeals expanded the coverage of the special civil action on certiorari when it made its own findings of fact.
Certainly, resort to judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction, and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal rendering them. [6] cralaw There is, however, grave abuse of discretion when the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC misappreciated the facts and rendered judgment on dubious factual and legal basis. [7] cralaw There is grave abuse of discretion when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. [8] cralaw In the case now before us, the Court of Appeals found that the conclusion arrived at by the NLRC was "not supported by evidence of record."
It bears stressing that when private respondent entered into an employment contract with HBA, it was specifically stated therein that she was to be deployed at Voorhees Pediatric Facility in New Jersey, USA, for a period of one (1) year, with salary of US$16.32 per hour. However, upon her arrival in the United States, she was informed that she could not be accommodated at Voorhees. Petitioner accepted the employment at Greenwood, albeit at a lower pay, upon Beredo's promise that she could later on be accommodated at Voorhees. However, it turned out that HBA and Voorhees already terminated their agreement and hence, Beredo came to see petitioner and asked her to sign a new employment contract with Greenwood. Petitioner refused to sign the new contract as this would substantially alter the contract she signed in the Philippines and because she found the working conditions at Greenwood substandard. Instead, she opted to quit working and return to the Philippines. Based on the foregoing, petitioner could not be said to have abandoned her employment since she could not be compelled to accept an employment different from that she was hired for.
Nevertheless, it could not be said that HBA acted in bad faith when it failed to comply with the terms of the original contract. There was no showing that when private respondent was deployed, HBA was aware that there would be a problem regarding its agreement with Voorhees and that it could no longer comply with the employment contract with private respondent. It was for this reason that it referred private respondent to Greenwood. Further, private respondent could have at least given HBA more time to renegotiate the terms of the contract with Greenwood to approximate the terms of the original contract. Even when she alleged that the accommodation in Greenwood was substandard, she failed to substantiate this allegation.
The stipulation in the original contract provides that private respondent was to receive a salary of US$16.00 per hour. It appearing that she was only paid US$12.00 per hour in Greenwood, private respondent is entitled to a salary differential of US$4.32 per hour or US$103.68 for the three days she worked in Greenwood. Additionally, petitioner is entitled to US$800.00 representing her transportation expenses in returning to the Philippines.
Under Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, an applicant for license to operate a private employment agency or a manning agency is required to submit an undertaking that it "(s)hall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract x x x ." In addition, Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 specifically mandates that the liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law of contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment shall be joint and several. [9] cralaw This provision is required to be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and a condition precedent for its approval. [10] cralaw Petitioner could not now disclaim any accountability that arose from HBA's liability to private respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. However, instead of remanding the case to the NLRC, petitioner is hereby ordered to pay private respondent the amount of US$103.68 as salary differential for the three days she worked in Greenwood Skilled and Healthcare Center, Inc. and US$600.00 representing her transportation expenses in returning to the Philippines.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, at 50-52.
[2] cralaw Rollo, at 65.
[3] cralaw Beredo.
[4] cralaw Rollo, at 68-71.
[5] cralaw Rollo, at 29.
[6] cralaw Quebec, Sr. v. NLRC, 301 SCRA 627 (1999).
[7] cralaw Arc-Men Food Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, 272 SCRA 366 (1997).
[8] cralaw See Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 279 SCRA 445 (1997).
[9] cralaw Section 10; See also Section 63 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995.
[10] cralaw Ibid.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
