3Republic of tbe ti bilippines

~upreme (ourt
,iflffanila

THIRD DIVISION

MELBA ALCANTARA G.R. No. 264158

DENUSTA,
Petitioner,
Present:

- versus - CAGUIOA, J.,

Chairperson,
INTING,
MIGRANT WORKERS GAERLAN,
MANPOWER AGENCY, DIMAAMPAO, and
THERESITA M. CERALDE, SINGH,JJ
and K&G MANPOWER
SERVICES, LTD., Promulgated:
Respondents. January 31, 2024
~ s.\ ~(_,~ Q,:\\
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court assails the Resolutions dated June 14, 20222 and October 19, 2022 3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 171524, which dismissed the
Petition for Certiorari filed by Melba Alcantara Denusta (petitioner) for being
filed beyond the reglementary period.

The Antecedents

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of

salaries, damages, payment of wages for the unexpired portion of the contract,
Rollo, pp. 8- 33 .
2
CA rolfo, pp. I 90- 193 ; penned by Associate Justice Emily R. A!ifio-Geluz and concurred in by with
Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa, of the Thirteenth
Division , Court of Appeals, Manila.
id. at 219- 221.
 Decision '1
L, G.R. No. 264158

and attorney's fees against Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc. (Migrant),
a placement and recruitment agency, K&G Manpower Services, Ltd. (K&G),
Migrant's foreign principal, and Theresita M. Ceralde (Ceralde), in her capacity
as Migrant's president (collectively, respondents). 4

In the complaint, petitioner aven-ed that she was hired as a Kitchen Hand
for The Lunch Box Ltd. (Lunch Box) in Rarotonga, Cook Islands under a two-
year employment contract executed with Migrant and K&G. Based on her
contract, she would receive a weekly salary ofNZ$400.00 or NZ$1 ,600.00 per
month. On May 22, 2019, she an-i ved in the Cook Islands and started her
employment. She was repatriated to the Philippines on November 17, 2019. 5

During her employment, petitioner alleged that her employer, Charlene

Tairea (Tairea) committed several violations of her contract of employment.
She was paid less than the agreed rate and was not provided with
accommodation, transpmiation, or food allowances. She was considered a part-
time employee and was not paid her salary during holidays. Petitioner likewise
aven-ed that she was maltreated by her foreign employer's family members.
Due to her predicaments in the hands of her foreign employer, she claimed that
respondents were guilty of illegal dismissal. 6

Worse, when petitioner informed Migrant of her situation, Migrant did

not act on it. Furthennore, before she was permitted to return home,
respondents forced her to sign a Quitclaim, but she refused. Instead, she
executed a Letter of Dispute nan-ating her ordeal. 7

Petitioner, thus, prayed in her complaint that she be reimbursed for her
accommodation and transportation expenses while in the Cook Islands, as well
as for the amount she paid for the return ticket, agency fee, and work permit
fee .8 She likewise claimed that she was entitled to her salaries and benefits for
the unexpired portion of her contract, as well as her salary differentials in the
total amount of PHP 1,379,170.00 based on the prevailing conversion rate. 9

Respondents denied the aliegations in the complaint. They countered that

petitioner was not illegally dismissed and, therefore, not entitled to her
monetary claims. 10

4
Id. at 37.
Id. at 38.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8
Id. at 38- 39.
9
Id. at 39.
10 Id.
 Decision 3 G.R. No . 264158

Respondents claimed that petitioner was a "name-hire" worker and that

she was not an agency-recruited worker of Migrant. She was engaged but
through the refen-al of her friend, who sought the help of another friend in
securing her employment with Tairea. It was only Migrant who processed her
travel documents. 11

Furthermore, respondents contended that petitioner lied in her

application as she claimed that she could speak basic English and drive a
motorcycle, which were among the main conditions of her employment.
However, when asked to drive a motorcycle by her employer, she refused and
said that she did not know how to drive. Further, during her employment in the
Cook Islands, petitioner demonstrated an an-ogant attitude towards Tairea's
mother, Vaine Parau Tairea (Vaine). 12

After Tairea left with her daughter to New Zealand for the latter's surgery,
Vaine took over the management of the restaurant and it was this time when
petitioner's attitude changed. She no longer wanted to work until Tairea's return.
She falsely accused another employee of stealing, which disrupted the
workplace. 13

When Tairea returned from New Zealand, she asked petitioner to return
to work but the latter refused. Instead, petitioner asked that she be released from
her employment contract. She then requested to be repatriated because of her
disagreement with Vaine. Tairea was then constrained to release her from her
employment contract and repatriate her to the Philippines. 14

Respondents concluded that petitioner was not illegally dismissed as it

was petitioner who asked for her release from her employment and declined to
finish her two-year contract. Furthennore, petitioner is not entitled to her
money claims for failure to present sufficient evidence to support the same. 15

The Labor Arbiter Ruling

After the proceedings, Labor Arbiter (LA) Ronald Doctor issued a

Decision 16 dated January 27, 2021, granting petitioner's complaint for illegal
dismissal. The LA explained that per the text message between petitioner and
Tairea, the latter dismissed petitioner from service. Tairea, being the employer,

II Id
12
Id. at 39-40.
13
Id at 40.
14 Id.
15
Id. at 40-41.
16
Id. at 22- 33.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 264158

failed to show that such termination was valid. 17 Moreover, even before the
actual dismissal of petitioner, she was constructively dismissed as her employer
committed gross violations of the employment contract. Petitioner had shown
that she received a weekly salary less than that stipulated in the employment
contract as a result of her shortened working hours from eight hours a day to
six hours a day. She was also made to pay for her own accomm·odation, when
it was indicated in her employment contract that she would be provided a
suitable accommodation. Worse, petitioner was threatened by Vaine with a
knife which made her decide not to report for work until Tairea arrived from
New Zealand. The LA, thus, concluded that petitioner was illegally dismissed. 18
He then disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

declaring complainant to have been illegally dismissed. Accordingly,
respondent Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc. , K&G Manpower
Services Ltd., and Theresita M. Ceralde are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and
severally, complainant Melba A. Denusta, the Philippine Peso equivalent at
the time of actual payment in the amotmt of NZD9,423.70, representing her
salaries for the unexpired po1iion of her contract, salary differentials and
attorney' s fees.

Further, Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc., K&G Manpower

Services Ltd., and Theresita M. Ceralde are hereby ordered to pay
complainant the amount of PhPl0,000.00 as moral damages and
PhPl0,000.00 as exemplary damages.

All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The attached computation shall fom1 part of this Decision.

SO ORDERED. 19

Aggrieved, respondents appealed the LA ruling before the NLRC .

Petitioner, likewise, filed a Partial Appeal attributing serious errors on the part
of the LA in the computation of her monetary award and in not awarding other
money claims. 20

The NLRC Ruling

The NLRC, on July 16, 2021, granted respondents ' appeal. 21 It ruled that
petitioner was not illegally dismissed. Hence, she is not entitled to her supposed
salary for the unexpired portion ofher employment contract, as well as damages.

17
Id. at 30- 31.
18 Id. at 3 i.
19
Id. at 32- 33.
20
ld.at37.
21
Id at 36- 58.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 264158

The NLRC ratiocinated that petitioner's claim of illegal dismissal is

unsupp011ed by substantial evidence. In addition to her testimony, she referred
to her online conversation with Tairea. While based on the latest conversation,
she was indeed terminated by Tairea, her previous conversation with Tairea
shows that it was petitioner who wanted her employment tenninated. Her
previous conversation further shows that there were complaints against
petitioner regarding her work ethics, not only from Vaine but also from her co-
workers; and Vaine was very dissatisfied with petitioner's work and attitude. 22

Meanwhile, on petitioner' s partial appeal, NLRC ruled that she was

entitled to a recomputed monetary award of her salary differential based on her
monthly salary, but not to her other claims. 23 The fallo of the NLRC Decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, the respective Appeals filed by Melba Alcantara

Denusta and Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc. , K&G Manpower
Services Ltd., and Theresita M. Ceraldo are PARTIALLY GRANTED.

The Decision dated January 27, 2021 rendered by the Labor Arbiter
Ronaldo R. Doctor is hereby MODIFIED dismissing the complaint for
illegal dismissal for lack of merit. Consequently, the awards of salaries
equivalent to the unexpired portion of complainant's contract and moral and
exemplary damages are hereby deleted.

The awards of salary differentials and attorney ' s fees are hereby
sustained. Respondents Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc. , K&G
Manpower Services Ltd. , and Theresita M. Ceralde are hereby ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, complainant the total aggregate amount of One
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty New Zealand Dollars (NZDl ,650.00)
representing her salary differentials and attorney's fees.

All other disposition not inconsistent herein stays.

SO ORDERED .24

Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration. The same, however,

was denied for lack of merit per Resolution 25 dated October 15, 2021 .

Petitioner, thereafter, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.

22
Id at 49- 52.
23
Id. at 55- 56.
24
Id at 57--58 .
25
Id at 60-63.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 264158

The CA Ruling

In the assailed Resolution 26 promulgated on June 14, 2022, the CA

dismissed petitioners' Petition for Certiorari for being filed beyond the
reglementary period. Prior to the filing of the Petition for Certiorari, petitioner
filed a motion for extension of time praying for a 15-day extension from
December 21, 2021 or until January 5, 2022 within which to file her petition as
the current pandemic rendered her impossible to file the petition on time.
Petitioner then filed her Petition for Certiorari on January 5, 2022. 27

In denying the motion and dismissing the Petition for Certiorari, the
court explained that petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days
from the notice of judgment or from the order denying the motion for
reconsideration; and that the 60-day time frame was non-extendible. 28

A motion for reconsideration was, thereafter, filed. On October l 9, 2022,

however, it was denied for lack of merit. 29 Hence, the instant Petition for
Review on Certiorari.

Issues

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COVID19 PANDEMIC AND THE

SURGE OF CASES THAT OCCURRED IN DECEMBER 2021 IS AN
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR COMPELLING REASON TO
ALLOW THE PETITIONER AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 BEYOND THE SIXTY-
DAY PERIOD.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ACTED

WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED PETITIONER' S
COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. 30

26
Id at 190- 193.
27
Id at 190- 191.
28
Id at 192.
29
Id at 2 19- 22 1.
30
Id. at 242--243.
 Decisi011 7 G.R. No. 264158

The Court's Ruling

The instant petition is meritorious.

The CA erred in denying the motion for

extension oftime to file Petition/or Certiorari
and dismissing the same for being filed
beyond the reglementary period.

In the instant petition, petitioner begs this Cou11 to relax the procedures
and rule on the substantive issues raised in the petition. She claims that motions
for extension to file a petition for certiorari are allowed and that the extension
thereof is subject to the sound discretion of the court. Petitioner added that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the deadly surge of cases are exceptional
circumstances and compelling reasons to allow the extension of time to file a
petition for certiorari. 31

We are persuaded.

Under the Rules of Com1, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 shall be
filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. 32
With the issuance of A.IVL No. 00-2-03-SC,33 motions for extension of time to
file petitions for certiorari were allowed for compelling reasons only. The rules,
therefore, admit an exception and the filing of petitions for certiorari is now
extendible, albeit only for compelling reasons.

In the case of Fluor Daniel, lnc.-Philippines v. Fil-Estate Properties,

34
Inc., We enumerated several instances where the Court allowed an extension
for filing a petition for certiorari, thus:

... when the assailed decision was contradictory to the evidence

presented; in a motion for consolidation of several criminal cases, when the
relief sought would be more in keeping with law and equity, and to facilitate
a speedy trial, considering that there was substantial identity in the
infonnations filed and the witnesses to be presented; where paramount public
interest necessitated that the dispute involving the operation of a major power
plant be resolved on the merits; where the case involved the expropriation of
private property to build a major highway and no undue prejudice or delay
will be caused to either party in admitting the petition; and when the appellate
court had already granted an extension but later reversed itself. Furthe1more,

31
Id. at 243-245.
32
RULES OF COU RT, Rule 65 , Section 4.
33
Dated September L 2000.
34
866 Phil. 626 (2019) [Per J. Reyes, A., .Ir., Second Division].
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 264158

in Castells, et al. v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, the Court enumerated the

following instances when the period to file a petition for certiorari may be
extended:

(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a

litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the
defaulting paiiy by immediately paying within a reasonable
time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special
or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a
cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby; (9) fraud , accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
without appellant' s fault; (/ 0) peculiar legal and equitable
circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of
substantial justice and fair play; (11) importance of the issues
involved; and (13 ) exercise of sound discretion by the judge
guided by all the attendant circrnnstances. 35 (Citations and
underscoring omitted)

In this case, We find that there is a compelling or special reason that

warrants the allowance of an extension to file the Petition for Certiorari, that
is, the surge of COVID-19 infection and the lockdowns brought about by such
surge.

To recall, petitioner requested an extension of time to file a petition for

certiorari before the CA. She reasoned that "in view of the difficulties of the
present situation, such as the severe limitations on face to face meetings,
verification with the NLRC, and restrictions on movement imposed by the
authorities in order to combat the spread of this deadly disease, this petition
cannot be filed on time." 36 We take judicial notice that the COVID-1 9 pandemic
paralyzed not only the Philippines but the whole world. During the latter part
of 2021, there was a sharp increase in COVID-19 infections. Lockdowns and
restrictions were then placed by the government to prevent and mitigate
infections. During these lockdowns, offices, including gove1nment offices,
were closed or at least transactions therewith were restricted. This was the
situation during the period given by the rules for petitioner to file the petition
for certiorari with the CA.

Taking into account the attendant circumstances in this case, the CA

should have granted petitioner's ·Motion for Extension ofTime to File a Petition
for Certiorari. Instead of dismissing the petition due to technicalities, the CA
should have ruled on the merits of the case. ft is worth noting that petitioner

35
Id. at 635--636.
36
CArollo ,p.3.
 Decision 9 G.R. No . 264158

filed the Petition for Certiorari within the period of extension prayed for.

Petitioner was constructively dismissed from

her employment.

Petitioner ave1Ted that she was i1legally dismissed from her employment.
She explained that respondents and her foreign employer committed gross
violations of the contract, as she was paid less than the salary stated in the
POEA-approved employment contract; she was regarded as a part-time
employee and was not paid during holidays; she was maltreated by Vaine by
verbally abusing her and threatening her with a knife. Her ordeal in the hands
ofVaine, according to petitioner, is tantamount to illegal dismissal. 37

After a careful review of the records of the case, vis-a-vis the pertinent
jurisprudence, We are constrained to grant the instant petition and declare
petitioner constructively dismissed from her employment.

At the outset, the issue in this case involves a question of fact. It is settled
that We do not generally pass upon question of facts as We accord great weight
to the factual findings of labor officials. Notwithstanding, We are not precluded
from making Our own factual detennination when the factual findings of the
tribunals below are conflicting, as in this case. 38

Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work

because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other
benefits.39 It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by
an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could
foreclose any choice by him or her except to forego his or her continued
employment. 40 The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable
person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his
employment/position under the circumstances. It is a dismissal in disguise or
an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. 4 1

In this case, based on petitioner's narration of events, it is evident that

she suffered at the hands of her foreign employer. Records show that she had
experienced unbearable treatment from her foreign employer which compelled
her to give up her employment and ask that she be released from her contract.

37
Id at 248- 249.
38 Dela Fuente v. Gimenez, G.R. N o. 2144 i 9, November l 7, 2021 [Per J. Zaiam eda, Third Divi sion] .
39 Macali v. Baliwug Leehan Manoft. In c., G.R. No. 251731 , September 2, 2020 [Notice, Second Divi sion].
40
Lagamayo v. Cullinan Group, Inc., C.1 .R. No . 227718, November 11 , 202 l [Per J. Lopez, First Division].
41
Traveluka Philippines, Inc. v. Ceballos, J,:. G.R. No . 25469, February 14. 2022 [Per J. Perlas-B ernabe,
Second Division].
Decision 10 G.R. No. 264158

Indubitably, there exists illegal constructive dismissal.

It is established that respondents committed a breach of the employment

contract. Based on the POEA-approved employment contract, petitioner will
work for 40 hours per week and will receive a salary of NZ$400 per week. 42
She will likewise receive holiday pay. 43 Finally, she will be provided a suitable
accommodation during her employment. 44

In this case, however, petitioner established that she was made to work
for only six hours a day, notwithstanding her willingness to work the full eight
hours, and received NZ$300.00 per day. This is clearly less than that stipulated
in the employment contract. 45 Furthem1ore, Tairea failed to provide her
accommodation. As found by the LA, petitioner was made to pay her
accommodation despite the clear tenor of the employment contract that a
suitable accommodation would be provided by her employer. 46

It bears stressing that the foregoing breach of contract is a sufficient

ground for tennination of the contract by the employee, viz.:

... The Employee may also te1minate this contract without serving any notice
to the Employer for any of the following just causes: serious insult by the
Employer or his representative, inhumane and unbearable treatment accorded
the Employee by the Employer or his representative; commission of a
crime/offence by the Employer or his representative, and violation of the
terms and conditions of the employment contract by the Employer or his
representative. Employer shall pay the repatriation expenses back to the
Philippines. 47 (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, petitioner claimed that her life with her foreign employer
was like a life in hell. She narrated that she was verbally abused by Vaine and
was even threatened with a knife. To recall, petitioner claims that she was
verbally abused and insulted by Vaine. In one instance, while she was working,
Vaine got angry at her and she \Vas threatened, with a knife pointed at her, and
was ordered to leave, to wit:

Jka-4 ng Setyembre taong 2019 habang aka ay nagtatrabaho at

katulad ng madalas na nangyuyari ay mainii ang ulo ni Ginang Vaine.
Nariyang nag "rant" siya at nagumpisa na aka 'y pagmumurahin at
insultuhin. Naririnig ko ang mga salitang ''STUP1D ,,, "IDIOT ", ''FUCK
YOU" at marami pang iba. ]\llahinahon akong nagsalita at sinabi kay Ginang

42
CA ro/lo, p. 73.
43
Id. at 74.
44 Id.
45
Id at 99.
46
Id. at 3 l.
47
Id. at 96.
 Decision 1,
J .1 G.R. No. 264158

Vaine "Antie Parau please stop insulting me because I respect you as a

mother ofmy employer ". LALO PO SD:4NG NANGGALAJTJ O NAGALJT
LALO, JTINUTOK NIYA BIGLA SA AKJNG ANG HAWAK NJYANG
KUTSILYO Ako '.Y napaatras at nagulat sa ginawa niya, nakiusap aka sa
kanya atpaulit ulit na sinasabi na "Anzie please don 't do that to me ", PERO
PATULOY PO SJYA SA PAGTUYOK NG KUTSILYO SA AK/NG MUKHA.
Nanlilisik ang kanyang mata na senyales na siryoso siya, ng mag oras na yon
alam ko na hindi ito katulad ng normal na [galit} ni Ginang Vaine, wala
akong magawa kundi magmakaawa. Kasunod nito ay pinagtulakan na niya
ako palabas ng pintuan ng kunlina at sinabong "YOU GO HOME OR I KILL
YOU! .. . •,4g

Interestingly, in her affidavit, Vaine did not refute such nan-ation.

However, she tried to brush aside the incident as a mere misunderstanding and
explained that she was merely waving her hands at petitioner, while incidentally,
holding a knife at the same time. 49 Such explanation, however, fails to persuade.
As observed by the NLRC, Vaine threatened petitioner with a knife and told her,
"YOU GO HOME OR I KILL YOU." 50 This, therefore, belies Vaine's claim
that she had not threatened petitioner with a knife. Furthermore, to a lowly
employee in a foreign land, such is a clear act of maltreatment and abuse.

Moreover, while Tairea and Vaine executed affidavits 51 to support their

contention that petitioner's employment was problematic, We find the same
self-serving and utterly unsubstantiated. Their statements were uncorroborated
by statements of other employees who could have witnessed the alleged attitude
of petitioner during the latter's employment.

Even assuming that petitioner had committed wrongdoings or that there

were indeed complaints against petitioner on her work ethic, threatening her
with a knife and insulting her are beyond the scope oflegality. Otherwise stated,
petitioner's alleged attitude and/or work ethic during her employment cannot
justify the actions of her foreign employers who maltreated her and even
threatened her life.

The foregoing led petitioner to ask Tairea to release her from her
employment, less she would continue to suffer at the hands of Vaine. Needless
to state, the cessation of petitioner's employment was not of her own doing but
was brought about by unfavorable circumstances created by her foreign
employer. While We agree with the NLRC that it was petitioner who asked that
her employment with Tairea be terminated, We hold that her supplication with
Tairea was a result of an intolerable working environment brought about by
Tairea and Vaine. V/e conclude that if not for the breach of contract and the

48
Id. at 28.
49
Id. at 14 I.
50
Id. at 54.
51
id. at 121 --128; 137- 143.
 Decision G.R. No. 264158

maltreatment she suffered at the hands of her foreign employer, she could not
have asked her employer to release her from her contract. We, therefore, cannot
blame her for initiating the termination of her employment contract. Simply put,
her working environment had become so intolerable that she was impelled to
leave her job. This is the very essence of constructive dismissal.

Having been constructively dismissed, petitioner 1s entitled to the

unexpired portion of her employment contract.

The pertinent portion of Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042

(The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of1995), as amended by R.A.
No. 10022, reads:

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or

authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized
deductions from the migrant worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled to
the full reimbursement if his placement fee and the deductions made with
interest at twelve percent (12%) per ammm, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired tenn, whichever is less.

It is now settled that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired tenn, whichever is less" is unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause and substantive due process. 52 Accordingly, an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to his/her salaries for the unexpired portion of
her employment contract. 53

In this case, petitioner's employment contract provides that her

employment in the Cook Island is for two years or 24 months. It is undisputed,
however, that her employment with Tairea and Vaine lasted only for four
months - May 23, 2019 to September 5, 2019. Since, as above discussed,
petitioner was constructively dismissed from employment, she is entitled to the
unexpired portion of the contract, i.e., 20 months.

Under the same provision of R.A. No. 8042, as amended, in cases of

illegal dismissal, the worker shall likewise be entitled to the full reimbursement
of his/her placement fee. In this case, while petitioner failed to present receipt/s
pertaining to her payment of placement fee, petitioner was able to present a
02
Sameer Overseas Piacemeni Agenc_i; Inc. v. Cabiles, 740 Ph.ii. 403 , 429(2014) [Per J. Leonen, Er, Banc] .
53
Jacob v. First Step ,~l/anpower Int I Se1Tices. Inc., 876 Phil. 77 1, 80 I (2020) [Per J. Leon en, Third
Division].
 1 ·..,
Decision l .) G.R. No. 264158

document, wherein K&G adrnits that petitioner paid for her PHP 90,000.00
placement fee (PHP 65,000.00 as agency fee paid to Migrant, and PHP
25,500.00 payment for expenses in providing documents to Cook Islands).

During the proceedings with the LA, petitioner presented an

Acknowledgement Receipt54 which K&G gave petitioner for her to sign. In this
document, K&G would like petitioner to receive the amount of PHP 5,500.00
and sign the document as proof of receipt thereof corresponding to partial
reimbursement of the placement fee which petitioner paid to Migrant. There
was, therefore, an admission on the part of K&G that petitioner paid the total
amount of PHP 90,500.00 as placement fee. Petitioner, however, refused to sign
the document as she planned to seek full reimbursement upon her return to the
Philippines, 55 which she did upon her repatriation.

Petitioner, however, is not entitled to reimbursement for her alleged

transportation expenses, as well as expenses for her accommodation and
repatriation for her failure to substantiate such claims.

As to transportation expenses during her employment in the Cook

Islands, there is nothing in the employment contract granting the same in her
favor. In other words, there was no proof of her entitlement thereto. Anent her
expenses for accommodation and repatriation, there is nothing on record to
prove that she incurred the same. Wbile she presented a list of her expenses, 56
the same lacks any probative value. The list is merely handwritten, and she
made a mere enumeration of her expenses without any other document to
support the same, such as receipts.

Nonetheless, We agree with the LA and the NLRC that petitioner is

entitled to her salary differentials during the four months of her employment
with Tairea and Vaine. To recapitulate, petitioner's supposed weekly salary of
NZ$400.00 was reduced to NZ$300.00 as a result of her shortened working
hours, that is, from 8 hours to 6 hours per day. Despite her willingness to render
8 hours of work per day as contained in the employment contract, petitioner
was made to work for only 6 hours.

Anent the award of damages, We hold that petitioner 1s entitled to

damages and attorney's fees .

Moral damages are recoverable if the termination is attended with bad

faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals,

54
CA rollo, p. ! 00.
55 Id.
56
Id. at 162.
 Decision 14 G.R. No. 264158

good customs, or public policy and that social humiliation, wounded feelings,
or grave anxiety resulted therefrom. 57 Exemplary damages, on the other hand,
are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or
malevolent manner. 58

Vaine's conduct towards petitioner during the latter' s employment in the

Cook Islands is clearly abusive. Vaine ' s actions were nothing but oppressive.
To recall, she uttered insulting words at petitioner and even threatened her with
a knife. These left petitioner with no other recourse but to request her
termination from employment.

Worse, instead of giving petitioner protection, respondents seemingly

took advantage of her helpless condition by asking her to sign a Resignation
Letter, 59 Letter of Apology, 60 and Acknowledgment Receipt. 6 1 Petitioner was
asked by K&G to sign a Waiver and Quitclaim 62 as a prerequisite for her
repatriation. Petitioner, however, refused to execute these documents as she was
steadfast in her claim that she did nothing wrong, and signing the same would
be contrary to her claim. Instead, petitioner executed a Letter of Dispute 63
narrating her ordeal at the hands of her foreign employer. With the foregoing in
mind, an award of PHP 50,000.00 moral damages is, therefore, justified.
Additionally, to deter the commission of similar actuations, an award of PHP
25,000.00 exemplary damages is also warranted.

Moreover, We agree with the LA that petitioner is entitled to attorney 's

fees. This is pursuant to the settled rule that award of attorney's fees equivalent
to 10% of the total monetary award may be awarded to an employee in actions
for indemnity under the employer's liability laws. 64 Finally, in line with
prevailing jurisprudence, all monetary awards due to petitioner shall earn legal
interest at the rate of six percent p er annum from the finality of this Decision
until fully paid. 65

From all the foregoing, We are constrained to set aside the Resolution of
the CA dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. The
filing of petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari
is warranted as restrictions were imposed during the filing of the petition due

57
Ascent Skills Hum an Resources Services, Inc. v. Manuel. G.R. No. 249843 , October 6, 202 1 [Per J.
Zalameda, Third Division] .
58
Jacob v. First Step Manpower Int '!. Sen 1ices, Inc. , supra note 53 , at 797.
59
CA rollo, p. 101 .
60
Id. at 105.
61
Id. at 100.
62
Id. at 78.
63
Id. at 77.
64
Ascent Skills Human Resources Services. Inc. v. A1anuel, supra note 57.
65
Lara 's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 225433 , September 20, 2022
[Per Actin g C.J. Leanen , En Banc].

J
Decision 15 G.R. No. 264158

to the sharp increase in COVID-19 infections. This led to the difficulty in, if
not the impossibility of, timely filing of a certiorari petition before the CA.

Furthermore, petitioner's case is meritorious. As records show, petitioner

was constructively dismissed from her foreign employment. Respondents and
her foreign employer breached the employment contract by paying her a salary
less than that stipulated in the contract. She was likewise made to work for only
six hours a day, again in violation of the employment contract. Worse, she
suffered verbal abuse at the hands of her foreign employer. She was also
threatened by her employer with a knife. All these led to her release from the
contract and repatriation to the Philippines.

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant

petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated June 14, 2022,
and the October 19, 2022, in CA-G.R. SP No. 171524 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.

The January 27, 2021 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is

REINSTATED in so far as it ruled that petitioner Melba Alcantara Denusta
was illegally dismissed and that respondents Migrant Workers Manpower
Agency, Inc., K&G Manpower Services Ltd., and Theresita M. Ceralde are
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, her salary for the unexpired portion of her
contract, as well as for salary differentials, and attorney's fees, with
MODIFICATIONS that petitioner be entitled to an increased amount of moral
damages, and exemplary damages, as well as reimbursement of placement fee.
Accordingly, respondents are further ORDERED to pay petitioner Melba
Alcantara Denusta the following:

1. Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of PHP 50,000.00 and

PHP 25,000.00, respectively.

2. PHP 90,000.00, as reimbursement for the placement fee which

petitioner paid to Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc.

An interest of six percent (6%) per annum of the total monetary awards
shall be imposed, computed from the time the complaint was filed until its full
satisfaction.

The Labor Arbiter is ORDERED to compute the total monetary benefits

awarded and due the petitioner in accordance with this Resolution.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 264158

SO ORDE'.RED.

~
SAlVIUEu'.;illRLAN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

NS. CAGUIOA

HEN

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case \Vas assigned to the \\Titer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

INS. CAGUIOA

Chairperson, Third Division

Decision 17 G.R. No. 264158

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section ] \ Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division

Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.