Concern for OFWs

In termination cases involving Filipino workers recruited for overseas employment, the burden of proving just or authorized causes for termination lies with the foreign based employer/principal and the local based recruitment agency. Failure to do so renders them both solidarily liable. This is illustrated in this case of Lucy.

Upon payment of a placement fee in the amount of P18,000, Lucy was hired by Proxy Maid Services Center (Proxy), a Hongkong (HK) based company, through AIMS its local recruitment agency in the Philippines. Proxy as principal employer agreed that her salary was HK$3,670 a month for a period of two years. This was approved by the POEA. She was supposed to work in HK as domestic helper of Mr. See under an employment contract dated February 10, 2000. But before she could leave the Philippines See cancelled the contract sometime in March 2000. Nevertheless, upon advice of AIMS, Lucy proceeded to HK on assurance that she will be provided with an employment in HK. True enough, upon arrival at Proxy’s office, Lucy was fetched by her employer Mrs. Tan. However after only one month, the latter dismissed her for "difficulty in communication".

Lucy then applied for change of employer with the HK Immigration Department. But when it was granted, her prospective employer backed out. So she submitted a second application with a warning that the same will be her last chance to stay in HK. Fortunately said second application landed her a job in the household of Donna on May 20, 2000. But on June 30, 2000, she was dismissed by Donna without stating the reason for her termination. Neither did Proxy explain why she was dismissed. The following day Lucy agreed to take a three-day trial period with another employer, Ms. Lee. However before she could sign up her contract with Ms. Lee, the HK government denied her third request to change employer and advised her to submit a fresh application with her country of origin.

Following the denial of her work permit, Lucy was forced to return to the Philippines to apply for another change of employer so she could go back to HK and work for Ms. Lee. But AIMS informed her that Lee was no longer interested in hiring her. Lucy thus demanded the return of her placement fee but was denied. Hence she sued AIMS for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, return of placement fee and moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

AIMS however said that Lucy was not illegally dismissed. It said that the first employment contract with Mr. See, was actually implemented and not cancelled, but that after working only for 5 days, Lucy resigned. AIMS thus contended that it cannot be liable for the subsequent employments provided by Proxy as it was not privy to it. Was AIMS correct?

No. Even granting that Lucy truly resigned as domestic helper of Mr. See, the liability of AIMS was not extinguished. The contract of Lucy as approved by POEA shows that Proxy was her designated principal employer; the agreed salary was HK$3,670 a month; and the contract duration was for two years. Since AIMS was the local agency which recruited Lucy for Proxy, it is solidarily liable with the latter. To detach itself from liability of Proxy, AIMS must show by clear and convincing evidence that its contract is limited to Lucy’s employment with Mr. See. However, aside from its bare allegations, AIMS presented no proof to corroborate its claim. On the contrary, in transferring Lucy from one employer to another, Proxy did not demand a new placement fee from Lucy. This only shows that Proxy’s conduct was in accordance with the original contract executed with AIMS and not a new and separate agreement entered into in HK. This interpretation is in accord with the rule that all doubts in the construction of labor contracts should be resolved in favor of the working class. Verily, to absolve AIMS from liability based on unsubstantiated claim that it is not privy to the subsequent employment provided by Proxy to Lucy would undermine the avowed social justice policy of the State to be more sympathetic to labor. The joint and solidary liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him.

Thus Lucy is entitled to full reimbursement of the placement fees with interest at 12% per annum plus salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment contract or for three months for every year of her unexpired term, which ever is less. AIMS should therefore pay Lucy HK$11,010 plus P18,000 placement fee. Lucy however is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages. These damages cannot be based solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed the employee without just cause. The termination must also be attended with bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy and that social humiliation, wounded feelings and grave anxiety resulted there from (Asian International Manpower Services Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Lacerna, G.R. 169652, October 9, 2006).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]