APRIL 11, 2018
G.R. No. 191310
PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES, Petitioners
vs
DESIREE T. MASAGCA, Respondent
FACTS:
A Model Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas Performing Artists (OPAS) To Korea (Employment Contract) was executed on February 3, 2003 between respondent and petitioner PTCPI. Respondent alleged that she was made to sign two Employment Contracts but she was not given the chance to read any of them despite her requests.
Petitioners countered that respondent signed only one Employment Contract, and that respondent read its contents before affixing her signature on the same. Respondent understood that her Employment Contract was only for six months. Respondent eventually completed the full term of her Employment Contract, which negated her claim that she was illegally dismissed.
A complaint was file before the Labor Arbiter whom dismissed it for lack of merit.
Respondent appealed the Labor Arbiter's Decision before the NLRC. In a Decision, the NLRC ruled in respondent's favor.
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners, however, the NLRC issued a Resolution reversing its previous Decision. According to the NLRC, respondent's appeal was dismissible for several fatal procedural defects.
The NLRC denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondent sought remedy from the Court of Appeals. The appellate court then held that respondent was dismissed from employment without just cause and without procedural due process.
ISSUE:
Whether Masagca was illegally dismissed.
RULING:
Yes, The Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure extends to Filipino overseas contract workers. The Court finds that respondent was illegally dismissed.
Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the employee. When in doubt, the case should be resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and the 1987 Constitution.
As previously discussed herein, SAENCO extended respondent's Employment Contract for another six months even after the latter's work visa already expired. Even though it is true that respondent could not legitimately continue to work in South Korea without a work visa, petitioners cannot invoke said reason alone to justify the premature termination of respondent's extended employment. Neither petitioners nor SAENCO can feign ignorance of the expiration of respondent's work visa at the same time as her original six-month employment period as they were the ones who facilitated and processed the requirements for respondent's employment in South Korea. Petitioners and SAENCO should also have been responsible for securing respondent's work visa for the extended period of her employment. Petitioners and SAENCO should not be allowed to escape liability for a wrong they themselves participated in or were responsible for.
Respondent could only be dismissed for just and authorized cause, and after affording her notice and hearing prior to her termination. SAENCO had no valid cause to terminate respondent's employment. Neither did SAENCO serve two written notices upon respondent informing her of her alleged club policy violations and of her dismissal from employment, nor afforded her a hearing to defend herself. The lack of valid cause, together with the failure of SAENCO to comply with the twin-notice and hearing requirements, underscored the illegality surrounding respondent's dismissal.
Luchi Singh Moldes, the President of PTCPI, FLYING BOOKING ang ginawa nya sa akin which is, SYA mismo ang nagViolated ng OFW Employment Contract ko. I signed a contract venue a Tourist Sheuing Tourist Hotel but from the very beginning, Me and my group (four members) are working only at Seven (7) Seamans Pub. She got my salary and sent me back home without money in my pocket and Luchi filed a case first against me in POEA but it was dismissed.
ReplyDeleteTHE LABOR CASE: I WORKED FOR NINE (9) MONTHS WITHOUT SALARY
ReplyDeletePanalo ako sa Court of Appeals, Ordered to pay my one year salary plus 10% Attorney's fees. Luchi Singh Moldes filed an appeal in Supreme Court and the Decision was, my six months salary is deleted and ordered to pay my three (3) months salary. How come to this happen??? I have a pictures with date together with group that we're working at Seven (7) Pub and not in Sheuing Tourist Hotel. How come that we got a salary from that venue? The Judges was overlooked the important details. I'm very disappointed to our justice system and very long time due process of litigation for Fifteen (15) years but all my hard work and patience just end up for nothing because of bias decision. Anyway, whatever happens, karma will hunt you one by one! It's a Golden Rule!!!
I worked in South Korea FOR THE FIRST TIME, and Me and my group (four members) was departed on September 03, 2006 and after three (3) days, we started working at Seven (7) Pub Seamans Club. Luchi Singh Moldes presented in the court my OFW Contract is February 03, 2003. I signed a OFW Contract was three (3) days before we departed in South Korea. She dragged me to all different government agency which is the following; POEA, DOLE, OP, RTC, DOJ, NLRC, COURT OF APPEALS, SUPREME COURT. NOW, the Criminal Case (OFW Violation for Two Counts) that i filed against Luchi Singh Moldes was on going in the Hall of Justice in Quezon City, Branch 87. I have had a photocopies of more than Sixty Five (65) persons, a POEA complaint in Adjudication Office that she collected money but they not dispatch to work abroad. TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL. NO ONE CAN ESCAPE AND HIDE THE TRUTH. NOBODY!!!
ReplyDeleteCORRECTION; SEPTEMBER 03, 2003
DeleteI worked in South Korea FOR THE FIRST TIME, and Me and my group (four members) was departed on September 03, 2003 and after three (3) days, we started working at Seven (7) Pub Seamans Club. Luchi Singh Moldes presented in the court my OFW Contract is February 03, 2003. I signed a OFW Contract was three (3) days before we departed in South Korea. She dragged me to all different government agency which is the following; POEA, DOLE, OP, RTC, DOJ, NLRC, COURT OF APPEALS, SUPREME COURT. NOW, the Criminal Case (OFW Violation for Two Counts) that i filed against Luchi Singh Moldes was on going in the Hall of Justice in Quezon City, Branch 87. I have had a photocopies of more than Sixty Five (65) persons, a POEA complaint in Adjudication Office that she collected money but they not dispatch to work abroad. TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL. NO ONE CAN ESCAPE AND HIDE THE TRUTH. NOBODY!!!
ReplyDelete