Acuna Vs CA Labor Law Digest

Acuña vs CA (2006) G.R.
159832
MERCEDITA ACUÑA, MYRNA RAMONES, and JULIET MENDEZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JOIN
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and/or ELIZABETH ALAÑON,Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioners are Filipino overseas workers deployed by private respondent Join International Corporation (JIC), a
licensed recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D Pre-Color Plastic, Inc., (3D) in Taiwan, Republic of China,
under a uniformly-worded employment contract for a period of two years. Private respondent Elizabeth Alañon
is the president of Join International Corporation.
Sometime in September 1999, petitioners filed with private respondents applications for employment abroad.
After their papers were processed, petitioners claimed they signed a uniformly-worded employment contract
with private respondents which stipulated that they were to work as machine operators with a monthly salary of
NT$15,840.00, exclusive of overtime, for a period of two years.
On December 9, 1999, they left for Taiwan. Upon arriving at the job site, a factory owned by 3D, they were
made to sign another contract which stated that their salary was only NT$11,840.00. They were informed that
the dormitory which would serve as their living quarters was still under construction. They were requested to
temporarily bear with the inconvenience but were assured that their dormitory would be completed in a short
time. Petitioners alleged that they were brought to a "small room with a cement floor so dirty and smelling with
foul odor". Forty women were jampacked in the room and each person was given a pillow. Since the ladies'
comfort room was out of order, they had to ask permission to use the men's comfort room. Petitioners claim they
were made to work twelve hours a day, from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
On December 16, 1999, due to unbearable working conditions, they were constrained to inform management that
they were leaving. They booked a flight home, at their own expense. Before they left, they were made to sign a
written waiver. In addition, petitioners were not paid any salary for work rendered on December 11-15, 1999.
Immediately upon arrival in the Philippines, petitioners went to private respondents' office, narrated what
happened, and demanded the return of their placement fees and plane fare. Private respondents refused.
On December 28, 1999, private respondents offered a settlement. Petitioner Mendez received P15,080. The next
day, petitioners Acuña and Ramones went back and received P13,640 10 and P16,200, respectively. They claim
they signed a waiver, otherwise they would not be refunded.
On January 14, 2000, petitioners Acuña and Mendez invoking Republic Act No. 8042 filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and non-payment/underpayment of salaries or wages, overtime pay, refund of transportation
fare, payment of salaries/wages for 3 months, moral and exemplary damages, and refund of placement fee before
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Issue: Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed under Rep. Act No. 8042, thus entitling them to
benefits plus damages.
Held: No illegal dismissal. Constructive dismissal covers the involuntary resignation resorted to when
continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or
a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to an employee. Court found that petitioners did not deny that the accommodations were not as
homely as expected. Petitioners' admitted that they were told by the principal, upon their arrival, that the
dormitory was still under construction and were requested to bear with the temporary inconvenience and the
dormitory would soon be finished. Petitioners did not refute private respondents' assertion that they had
deployed approximately sixty other workers to their principal, and to the best of their knowledge, no other
worker assigned to the same principal has resigned, much less, filed a case for illegal dismissal. These cited
circumstances do not reflect malice by private respondents nor do they show the principal's intention to subject
petitioners to unhealthy accommodations. Under these facts, we cannot rule that there was constructive
dismissal.
Overtime pay is granted despite petitioners lack of proof that they actually rendered overtime work, since their
employment records were in the custody of the principal employer. It is a time-honored rule that in
controversies between a worker and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the
interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the worker's favor. private respondents are
solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of petitioners.
On the award of moral and exemplary damages, we hold that such award lacks legal basis. Moral and
exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an employee was attended by bad faith or
fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear
and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. Petitioners failed to prove bad faith, fraud or
ill motive on the part of private respondents. Moral damages cannot be awarded.
Without the award of moral damages, there can be no award of exemplary damages, nor attorney's fees.
Quitclaims are valid. Quitclaims executed by the employees are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public
policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights, considering the economic
disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial necessity. Nonetheless, the so-
called "economic difficulties and financial crises" allegedly confronting the employee is not an acceptable
ground to annul the compromise agreement unless it is accompanied by a gross disparity between the actual
claim and the amount of the settlement.
Records reveal that petitioners were not in any way deceived, coerced or intimidated into signing a quitclaim
waiver in the amounts of P13,640, P15,080 and P16,200 respectively. Nor was there a disparity between the
amount of the quitclaim and the amount actually due the petitioners. After conversion to Philippine pesos, the
amount of the quitclaim paid to petitioners was actually higher than the amount due them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of illegal recruitment complaint against
the respondents pursuant to Section 6(i) of The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 (Rep. Act No.
8042).

Acuna Vs CA Labor Law Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acuna Vs CA Labor Law Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acuna Vs CA Labor Law Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acuña vs CA (2006) G.R.

You might also like