ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G.

IKDAL and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH-

KUWAIT Petitioners, vs. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, Respondent. G.R. No. 178551 October 11, 2010

FACTS:
Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its principal co-petitioner, Ministry of Public
Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical technologist under a two-year contract with a monthly
salary of US$1,[Link] a year, Respondent was terminated for not passing the probationary period
which was under the Memorandum of Agreement. Ministry denied respondent‘s request and she returned
to the Philippines shouldering her own fair.
Respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint against ATCI for
illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her
$3,600.00, her salary for the three months unexpired portion of the contract.
ATCI appealed Labor Arbiter‘s decision, however, NLRC affirmed the latter‘s decision and denied
petitioner ATCI‘s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court Appeals contending that
their principal being a foreign government agency is immune from suit, and as such, immunity extended
to them. Appellate Court affirmed NLRC‘s decision.
It noted that under the law, a private employment agency shall assume all responsibilities for the
implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas worker; hence, it can be sued jointly and
severally with the foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of
employment. Petitioner ‘s motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this present petition.
Issue: Whether petitioners be held liable considering that the contract specifically stipulates that the
respondent ‘s employment shall be governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations of Kuwait.
Ruling: The court denied the petition. According to RA 8042: “The obligations covenanted in the
recruitment agreement entered into by and between the local agent and its foreign principal are not
coterminous with the term of such agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the
agreement, the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do
not at all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the
employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. In international law, the
party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign
law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before
us.

POWERHOUSE STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. ROMELIA REY, GR No. 190203,

2016-11-07
Facts:
Powerhouse hired respondents Romelia Rey, Liza Cabad, Evangeline Nicmic, Eva Lameyra, Rosario
Abordaje, Lilybeth Magalang, Venia Buyag, Jaynalyn Nolledo, Iren Nicolas, Aileen Samalea, Susan
Ybañez, Cheryl Ann Oria, Ma. Liza Seraspi and Katherine Oracion (respondent employees) as
operators for its foreign principal, Catcher Technical Co. Ltd./Catcher Industrial Co. Ltd. (Catcher),
based in Taiwan, each with a monthly salary of NT$15,840.00 for the duration of two years
commencing upon their arrival at the jobsite. They were deployed on June 2, 2000. Sometime in
February 2001, Catcher informed respondent employees that they would be reducing their working
days due to low orders and financial difficulties. The respondent employees were repatriated to the
Philippines on March 11, 2001.
On March 22, 2001, respondent employees filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, refund of
placement fees, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, against Powerhouse and
Catcher before the Labor Arbiter[5] (LA) which were later consolidated upon their motion.
nitially, they refused to be repatriated but they eventually gave in because Catcher stopped providing
them food and they had to live by the donations/dole outs from sympathetic friends and the church.
O... n the other hand, Powerhouse maintained that respondent employees voluntarily gave up their
jobs following their rejection of Catcher's proposal to reduce their working days. It contended that
before their repatriation, each of the respondents accepted payments by way of settlement, with the
assistance of Labor Attache Romulo Salud.
The LA, in a Decision[13] dated September 27, 2002, ruled in favor of the respondents, finding the
respondent employees' dismissal and/or pretermination of their employment contracts illegal.
On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision[16] dated July 31, 2006, affirmed the LA's Decision with
modification. The NLRC absolved JEJ from liability, upon the NLRC's findings that it was not privy
to the respondents' deployment.[17] It also held Powerhouse jointly and severally liable with William
Go, Catcher, and Chen Wei to reimburse to respondents Magalang, Nicolas, Ybañez and Oria their
placement fee of P19,000.00 each and P17,000.00 each to respondents Rey, Cabad, Nicmic,
Lameyra, Abordaje, Buyag, Nolledo, Samalea, Seraspi and Oracion.
Issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IF WORKERS CHOOSE TO LEAVE
THEIR PLACE OF [Link] OR NOT MONETARY AWARDS IN LABOR CASES
MAY BE AWARDED BASED ON MERE ALLEGATIONS.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRANSFER OF ACCREDITATION TO ANOTHER RECRUITMENT
AND PLACEMENT AGENCY, AS WELL AS THE ASSUMPTION OF ANY LIABILITY AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THIS TRANSFER, RELIEVED THE ORIGINAL RECRUITMENT AND
PLACEMENT AGENCY FROM ANY LIABILITY.[
Ruling:
Respondent employees were illegally [Link] onus of proving that an employee was not
dismissed or, if dismissed, his dismissal was not illegal, fully rests on the employer, and the failure to
discharge the onus would mean that the dismissal was not justified and was illegal. The burden of
proving the allegations rests ufon the party alleging and the proof must be clear, positive, and
convincing.[50]Here, there is no reason to overturn the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the
NLRC and the CA, all of which have unanimously declared that respondent employees were made to
resign against their will after the foreign principal, Catcher, stopped providing them food for their
subsistence as early as March 2, 2001, when they were informed that they would be repatriated, until
they were repatriated on March 11, [Link] filing of complaints for illegal dismissal immediately
after repatriation belies the claim that respondent employees voluntarily chose to be separated and
repatriated. Voluntary repatriation, much like resignation, is inconsistent with the filing of the
complaints.
Respondent employees are entitled to the payment of monetary [Link] also agree that respondent
employees are entitled to money claims and full reimbursement of their respective placement fees.
However, the award of the three-month equivalent of respondent employees' salaries should be
increased to the amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment contract in accordance
with our rulings in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[52] and Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles.
Powerhouse is liable for the monetary [Link] likewise agree with the CA and the NLRC that JEJ
could not be held liable for the monetary claims of respondent employees on account of the alleged
transfer of accreditation to it.
The terms of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 clearly states the solidary liability of the principal and the
recruitment agency to the employees and this liability shall not be affected by any substitution,
amendment or modification for the entire duration of the employment contract, to wit:Sec. 10.
Monetary Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising
out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
[Link] liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the
contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all monetary claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as
the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation or partnership
for the aforesaid claims and [Link] liabilities shall continue during the entire period or
duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment or
modification made locally or in a foreign country of the said contract.