Gutierrez v. Nawras Manpower Services
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ernesto P. Gutierrez, an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), was hired by respondent NAWRAS Manpower Services, Inc. (NAWRAS) to work for respondent Al-Adhamain Co. Ltd. (Al-Adhamain) in Saudi Arabia as a "driver vehicle road" for two years with a monthly salary of SR2,300.00, plus other benefits. Upon arrival, petitioner claimed he was placed on floating status, received his first salary late, and had to shoulder gasoline expenses for the service vehicle. On February 15, 2014, petitioner was informed of his transfer and subsequently told his contract would be terminated and he would be repatriated. He was asked to book his own flight back to the Philippines and was reimbursed only SR2,000.00 out of the SR3,100.00 he spent for airfare. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for underpaid overtime pay, unpaid salaries, termination pay, damages, and attorney's fees. Respondents averred valid dismissal due to petitioner's poor performance and claimed compliance with notice and hearing requirements. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioner illegally dismissed, ordering a refund of placement fee, salary for the unexpired portion of the contract (SR40,250.00), and refund of excess airfare (SR1,100.00). The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the illegal dismissal finding but modified the monetary awards, reducing the salary award to SR13,800.00, deleting the airfare reimbursement, and omitting attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner sought reinstatement of the LA's awards, including SR40,250.00 for salary, SR1,100.00 for excess airfare, and 10% attorney's fees, arguing that Section 7 of R.A. 10022, as applied by the CA, was declared unconstitutional in Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to salary for the unexpired portion of his contract. Whether petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for the excess airfare paid for his repatriation. Whether petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees. Whether petitioner is entitled to repayment of his last salary. Whether petitioner is entitled to 12% interest on the "refund" of his placement fee. Whether petitioner is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. Whether petitioner is entitled to legal interest on the judgment award.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is partly meritorious. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter's award of SR40,250.00 for salary for the unexpired portion of the contract, granted the SR1,100.00 reimbursement for excess airfare, and awarded 10% attorney's fees. The Court also affirmed the entitlement to the November 2013 salary but denied the claim for 12% interest on the placement fee refund and moral/exemplary damages. Legal interest of 6% per annum was imposed on the monetary awards.
Ratio Decidendi
On entitlement to salary for the unexpired portion of the contract: The Court held that the CA incorrectly reduced the award for petitioner's salary. Citing Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, the Court reiterated that the phrase "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" under Section 7 of R.A. 10022 was declared unconstitutional. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to "his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract," reinstating the LA's computation of SR40,250.00. On entitlement to reimbursement for excess airfare: The Court found that petitioner substantiated his claim for the SR1,100.00 excess airfare. While the CA noted the absence of proof of payment on the e-ticket, the NLRC pointed out the presentation of a ticket receipt and the respondents' failure to comment. The Court also noted the respondents' failure to present proof of payment for the ticket. Thus, the LA and NLRC's order for reimbursement was reinstated. On entitlement to attorney's fees: The Court ruled that petitioner is entitled to 10% attorney's fees based on Article 111(a) of the Labor Code, which allows for attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered in cases of unlawful withholding of wages. The Court clarified that in labor cases for recovery of wages, there need not be a showing of malice or bad faith, only unjustified withholding of lawful wages, which is undisputed here. On entitlement to repayment of last salary: The Court clarified that petitioner's November 2013 salary was improperly withheld by Al-Adhamain as a "placement fee." Since an illegally dismissed migrant worker is entitled to a full reimbursement of their placement fee, and the LA's directive to refund the placement fee was essentially for the repayment of this salary, the petitioner is entitled to this amount. On entitlement to 12% interest on the "refund" of placement fee: The Court found that the LA, NLRC, and CA incorrectly considered petitioner entitled to a "refund" of his placement fee. The Court clarified that petitioner's November 2013 salary was deducted for this purpose, but petitioner never actually paid a placement fee to the respondents. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to a 12% interest on a non-existent placement fee. On entitlement to moral and exemplary damages: The Court affirmed the findings of the LA and CA that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to prove his entitlement to moral and exemplary damages. As the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in petitions for review on certiorari, these factual findings were not disturbed. On entitlement to legal interest on the judgment award: The Court held that the monetary awards of SR40,250.00 (unexpired portion of contract) and SR1,100.00 (excess airfare) shall earn a legal interest of 6% per annum, computed from the time the complaint was filed until fully paid, in accordance with Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc. and Nacar v. Gallery Frames.
Main Doctrine
An illegally dismissed overseas Filipino worker is entitled to the full reimbursement of their placement fee and salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contract. Poor performance, to be a just cause for dismissal, must amount to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Attorney's fees are recoverable in actions for recovery of wages.