ESALYN CHAVEZ V BONTO-PEREZ

G.R. No.
109808 March 1, 1995

ESALYN CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, HON. ROGELIO T. RAYALA, HON. DOMINGO H.
ZAPANTA, HON. JOSE N. SARMIENTO, CENTRUM PROMOTIONS PLACEMENT CORPORATION, JOSE A.
AZUCENA, JR., and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. respondents. PUNO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Chavez, an entertainment dancer, entered into a standard employment contract for
overseas Filipino artists and entertainers with Planning Japan Co., Ltd., through its Philippine representative, private
respondent Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation. The contract had a duration of 2-6 months, with a monthly
salary of US$1,5000 that was approved by the POEA. Subsequently, petitioner executed side agreement with her
Japanese employer through her local manager, Jaz Talents Promotion wherein she consented a deduction of her
contracted monthly salary to $750.
After the expiration of her contract, she came back to the Philippines and instituted the case at bench for
underpayment of wages with the POEA with a prayer for the payment of US$6,000.00, representing the unpaid
portion of her basic salary for 6 months against private respondent Centrum Promotions and Placement Corporation,
the Philippine representative of Planning Japan, Co., Inc., its insurer, Times Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., and Jaz
Talents Promotion. The complaint was dismissed by POEA Administrator, on the grounds that
 She is now considered in bad faith and hence, estopped from claiming as she consented and agreed to receive
a salary not in accordance with her contract of employment.
 Respondent agency had no knowledge nor participation in the said agreement such that it could not be faulted
for violation of the Standard Employment Contract regarding the stipulated salary.
 She is barred by the Doctrine of Laches
 Under the prevailing circumstances of this case, it is outside the regulatory powers of the Administration to rule
on the liability of respondent Jaz Talents Promotions, if any, (it) not being a licensed private agency but a
promotion which trains entertainers for abroad.
On appeal, the NLRC upheld the Decision. Hence, the present petition, alleging that public respondents
committed grave abuse of discretion in finding: that she is guilty of laches; that the side contract superseded,
nullified and invalidated the standard employment contract; and that Planning Japan Co., Ltd. and private
respondents are not solidarily liable to her claim.
ISSUE: WON the side contract entered into by the parties is valid.
RULING: The Court ruled in the negative.
The Side Contract is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. It cannot
supersede the standard employment contract (SEC) that was approved by the POEA because such Side Contract
was made without prior approval by the POEA, hence, null and void. Clearly, the basic salary of US$1,500
guaranteed to petitioner under the parties' standard employment contract is in accordance with
the minimum employment standards with respect to wages set by the POEA. Indeed, this side agreement is a scheme
all too frequently resorted to by unscrupulous employers against our helpless overseas workers who are compelled to
agree to satisfy their basic economic needs.
Moreover, the doctrine of laches or "stale demands"' cannot be applied to petitioner. Laches has been defined
as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length time to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned or declined to assert it. It is not concerned with mere lapse of time; the fact of delay, standing
alone, is insufficient to constitute laches. In the case at bench, petitioner filed her claim well within the three-year
prescriptive period for the filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code. Recovery therefore cannot
be barred by laches. Courts should never apply the doctrine of laches earlier than the expiration of time limited for
the commencement of actions at law.
Furthermore, private respondents Centrum and Times as well as Planning Japan Co., Ltd. — the agency's
foreign principal — are solidarily liable to petitioner for her unpaid wages. This is in accordance with stipulation 13.7 of
the parties' standard employment contract which provides that the former shall be jointly and severally responsible
for the proper implementation of the terms and conditions in this Contract. This solidary liability also arises from the
provisions of Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, thus — Before recruiting any worker, the
private employment agency shall submit to the Bureau a documents containing a provision, among others, Power of
the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreign based employer for any of the
violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED.

ESALYN CHAVEZ V BONTO-PEREZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESALYN CHAVEZ V BONTO-PEREZ

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ESALYN CHAVEZ V BONTO-PEREZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

109808 March 1, 1995

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED.

You might also like