THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 156381. October 14, 2005.]

JSS INDOCHINA CORPORATION , petitioner, vs . GERARDO R. FERRER,

MELITON A. ASOR, HILARIO Z. DAYRIT, AMADO E. VILLENA, JOEL C.
CALDAIRA, HENRY G. DELA ROCA, MARIANO C. TIBUYIN, EDGARDO
B. VIAJE, EMMANUEL M. NOCON, LAUDENCIO O. MENDOZA and
GERONIMO O. SALAZAR , respondents.

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ , J : p

We take this opportunity to stress the need for strict enforcement of the law and the
rules and regulations governing Filipino contract workers abroad. Many hapless citizens of
this country who have sought foreign employment to earn a few dollars to ensure for their
families a life worthy of human dignity and provide proper education and a decent future
for their children have found themselves enslaved by foreign masters, harassed or abused
and deprived of their employment for the slightest cause. No one should be made to
unjustly pro t from their suffering. Hence, recruiting agencies must not only faithfully
comply with Government-prescribed responsibilities; they must impose upon themselves
the duty, borne out of a social conscience, to help citizens of this country sent abroad to
work for foreign principals. They must keep in mind that this country is not exporting
slaves but human beings, and above all, fellow Filipinos seeking merely to improve their
lives. 1
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision 2 dated May 14, 2002 and Resolution 3
dated November 21, 2002 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51114,
entitled "JSS Indochina Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Gerardo R.
Ferrer, Meliton A. Asor, Hilario Z. Dayrit, Amado E. Villena, Joel C. Caldaira, Henry G. Dela
Roca, Mariano C. Tibuyin, Edgardo B. Viaje, Emmanuel M. Nocon, Laudencio O. Mendoza,
Geronimo O. Salazar and Noel B. Delos Reyes."
The instant controversy stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of
salaries, refund of placement fee, damages and attorney's fees led with the O ce of the
Labor Arbiter by the above-named respondents, including Noel delos Reyes, 4 against JSS
Indochina Corporation, petitioner, docketed as NLRC NCR OFW Case (L) 97-05-3715.
Respondents, in their complaint, alleged that petitioner hired them as construction
workers for its Taiwan-based principal/employer Formosa Plastics Corporation. Pursuant
to the parties' contracts of employment, each respondent would receive a monthly salary
of NT$15,360.00. Their employment covered a period of one (1) year or from May 1, 1997
to May 1, 1998. cdtai 2006

On May 1, 1997, respondents, along with other Filipino contract workers, were
deployed to Taiwan. But upon their arrival, only 20 workers, excluding respondents,
were employed as construction workers at Formosa Plastics Corporation .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Aggrieved, they sought assistance from Manila Economic and Cultural O ce (MECO)
o cials who directed them to sign separate a davits alleging that they were assigned,
not as construction workers for Formosa Plastics Corporation, but as cable tray/pipe tract
workers at Shin Kwan Enterprise Co., Ltd. On May 17, 1997, they were repatriated to the
Philippines.
Petitioner denied the allegations in the complaint, claiming that, assisted by MECO
o cials, respondents pre-terminated their respective contracts of employment as they
refused to work after being assigned as cable tray/pipe tract workers by Formosa
Plastics Corporation to 33 KV Worksite being administered by Shin Kwan Construction
Company Limited.
After the parties submitted their pleadings and position papers, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a Decision dated February 20, 1998, nding that respondents were forced to
resign since "they were left out from among those workers who were considered for
employment." The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner and its principal, Formosa Plastics
Corporation 5 to pay, jointly and severally, each respondent an amount representing their 3
months salary and to reimburse their placement fees, thus:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent JSS
Indochina Corporation and Formosa Plastics Corporation to jointly and severally
pay the herein complainants the total amount of NT$414,720.00 by way of their
salaries equivalent to three (3) months, and a total of P183,240.00 by way of
reimbursement of placement fees as alluded in the above computation.
The complaint of NOEL DELOS REYES is hereby dismissed for lack of
merit, including all other issues herein treated.

SO ORDERED." aHIDAE

Upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued its Resolution
dated August 28, 1998 affirming the Labor Arbiter's Decision.
Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in its
Resolution dated October 30, 1998.
On February 4, 1999, petitioner led with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the
termination of the respondents' services is illegal and in awarding to them unconscionable
amounts representing unpaid salary and refund of placement fee.
In a Decision dated May 14, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition,
holding that:
"A careful reading of the instant petition would disclose that it involves
disputed facts, which are improper in certiorari. Petitioner corporation banks on
the irreconcilability of the labor arbiter's nding that there was illegal dismissal,
as opposed to the NLRC's nding of pre-termination of contract. To the mind of
this Court, however, the fact remains that petitioner corporation was not able to
prove that private respondents' dismissal was for just, valid or authorized causes.
It was not able to prove before either the labor arbiter or the NLRC, its allegation
that Shin Kwan Enterprise Co., Ltd. is a sub-contractor of Formosa Plastics
Corporation, or that St. Pronto is the management comptroller of Formosa
Plastics Corporation. We are not bound, and cannot take judicial cognizance of
the statements in the Order of the POEA dated 01 December 1998, banked upon
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 by petitioner corporation. There must be an independent proof of the same, and it
behooves upon petitioner corporation to prove that both the labor arbiter and
NLRC's rulings were attended with grave abuse of discretion to warrant issuance
of the writ prayed for. Moreover, if Shin Kwan Enterprises Co., Ltd. is indeed a
legitimate sub-contractor of Formosa Plastics Corporation, this Court wonders
why there would be a need '. . . to nd ways how (private respondents) can be
absorbed by Shin Kwan and be given another job that would best suit their best
quali cations . . .' and why there was a need to 'persuade Shin Kwan to take them
(private respondents)'. Moreover, the Report dated 19 May 1997 to Mr. Armando
Fernandez about the complaint of fteen OFWs, private respondents, inter alia,
against JSS Indochina was not attached to the petition.
Under the fth paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise
known as the 'Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,' '(i)n case of
termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
de ned 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.'

Petitioner corporation, having failed to prove that private respondents'

dismissal was for just, valid or authorized causes, it must necessarily be
adjudged liable under the above Section 10 of RA 8042, in solidum with principal,
Formosa Plastics Corporation." ICcaST

On June 5, 2002, petitioner led a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the
Appellate Court in its Resolution dated November 21, 2002.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner's grievance is that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in a rming the
NLRC's Resolutions nding that respondents were illegally dismissed from work and are
entitled to an award representing their three (3) months salary and a refund of placement
fee.
The sole legal issue for our Resolution is whether respondents were illegally
dismissed from employment by petitioner.
There is no question that petitioner violated its contract with respondents .
As found by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Appellate Court, petitioner did not assign
them as construction workers for Formosa Plastics Corporation. Instead, they were
directed to work as cable tray/pipe tract workers at Shin Kwan Enterprise Co., Ltd.
The Labor Arbiter found that respondents' "decision to resign from their
employment were made by force of circumstances not attributable to their own fault," and
"it was not their fault that they were left out from among those workers who were
considered for employment by the foreign employer." Likewise, the NLRC held that
respondents' "decision to go home to the Philippines was justi ed in view of the evident
breach of contract" by petitioner, as "it clearly appeared that upon their arrival
at the jobsite, there was no employer on hand ." Clearly, both labor tribunals correctly
concluded, as a rmed by the Court of Appeals, that they were forced to resign and to pre-
terminate their employment contracts in view of petitioner's breach of their provisions.
Undoubtedly, the termination of respondents' services is without just or valid
cause .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 10 of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act, provides:
"SECTION 10. Money Claims. — . . .
xxx xxx xxx

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid

or authorized cause as de ned 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.

xxx xxx xxx."

Verily, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, respondents who were unjustly
dismissed from work are actually entitled to an amount representing their three (3)
months salary considering that their employment contract has a term of exactly one (1)
year; plus a full refund of their placement fee, with no ceiling , with interest at 12%
per annum.
I n Olarte vs. Nayona, 6 we ordered petitioner Olarte to pay respondent Nayona, an
illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, an amount corresponding to her 3 months
salary and to reimburse her placement fee of P23,000.00 , with legal interest of 12%
per annum.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
May 14, 2002 and Resolution dated November 21, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 51114 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Corona, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 100399, August 4, 1992, 212
SCRA 132, 140-141.
2. Penned by Justice Romeo A. Brawner (now Commissioner of the Commission on
Elections), and concurred in by Justice Mario L. Guariña III and Justice Danilo B. Pine,
Annex "H" of the Petition for Review, Rollo at 109-116.

3. Annex "J", id. at 140.

4. Noel delos Reyes was immediately repatriated by petitioner to the Philippines after being
diagnosed with fecal parasitic infection and failing the medical examination conducted
by the Taiwanese Health Authorities.
5. Section 10, RA 8042 provides for the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters and the NLRC over claims arising by virtue of any contract involving Filipino
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 workers for overseas deployment. It also provides for the joint and several liability of the
principal/employer, such as Formosa Plastics Corporation, and the
recruitment/placement agency, petitioner herein, thus:

"SECTION 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 the 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.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any
and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be
incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent
for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency,
as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be
awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be
jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims
and damages.
xxx xxx xxx."

6. G.R. No. 148407, November 12, 2003, 415 SCRA 720, 725.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com