ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES VS. CA

Ynares, Santiago. J.

FACTS: Lacerna show that Proxy Maid Services Centre (Proxy), a Hong Kong based recruitment agency hired her through AIMS, a recruitment entity in the Philippines. On February 10, 2000, she signed an employment contract to work as a domestic helper of Low See Ting who later cancelled the contract sometime in March 2000. Nevertheless, Lacerna heeded AIMS’s advice to proceed to Hong Kong on the assurance that she will be provided with an employment abroad. Upon arrival at Proxy’s office on April 1, 2000, Lacerna was fetched by her employer, Tan Kmin Shwe Lin Charmain (Charmain). However, the latter dismissed her in a Notification dated May 2, 2000 citing as reason the “difficult[y] in communication.”[4] On May 20, 2000, Proxy transferred Lacerna to Tam Ching-yee, Donna (Donna). On June 30, 2000 she was dismissed by Donna without stating the reason for her termination. Neither did Proxy explain why she was dismissed. On July 1, 2000, Lacerna agreed to take a three-day trial period with another employer, Daisy Lee. However, before she could sign her contract with the latter, the Hong Kong government denied her request for change of employer and advised her to submit a fresh application with her country of origin. Following the denial of her work permit, Lacerna returned to the Philippines on July 13, 2000 but was informed by AIMS that Daisy Lee is no longer interested in hiring her. Lacerna demanded the return of her placement fee but was denied, hence, she filed the instant illegal dismissal case.

ISSUE: Was Lacerna illegally dismissed? If yes, may AIMS be held liable for the monetary claims of Lacerna.

HELD: On both issues, the Court rules in the affirmative. The illegal dismissal of Lacerna entitles her to the full reimbursement of placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment contract or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. There is no dispute that the last employer of Lacerna was Donna and not Daisy Lee because the Hong Kong government directed her repatriation before she could sign her contract with the latter. In dismissing her, Donna gave no reason for her termination. Neither did Proxy explain the ground for her dismissal. And where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination, the law considers the matter, a case of illegal dismissal.[9] In termination cases involving Filipino workers recruited for overseas employment, the burden of proving just or authorized cause for termination rests with the foreign based employer/principal and the local based entity which recruited the worker both being solidarily liable for liabilities arising from the illegal dismissal of the worker. In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly declared Lacerna’s termination illegal since no reason was given to justify her termination. AIMS argued that it cannot be held liable for the monetary claims of Lacerna because its contract was limited only to Lacerna’s employment with Low See Ting. When she resigned as domestic helper of the latter, the contract was allegedly extinguished making AIMS no longer privy to the subsequent employment contract entered into by Proxy and Lacerna. However, the records of the Immigration Department of Hong Kong belie the contention of AIMS that Lacerna was employed by Low See Ting. Moreover, even granting that Lacerna truly resigned as domestic helper of Low See Ting, the liability of AIMS was not extinguished. The contract of Lacerna as approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) reveals that Proxy was her designated principal employer; the agreed salary was HK$3,670.00 a month; and the contract duration was for two years.[12] Since AIMS was the local agency which recruited Lacerna for Proxy, it is solidarily liable with the latter for liabilities arising from her illegal dismissal. To detach itself from the liability of Proxy, AIMS must show by clear and convincing evidence that its contract is limited to Lacerna’s employment by Low See Ting. However, aside from its bare allegation, AIMS presented no proof to corroborate its claim. On the contrary, it appears that in transferring Lacerna from one employer to another, Proxy did not demand a new placement fee from Lacerna. This only shows that Proxy’s conduct was in accordance with the original contract executed with AIMS and not on an entirely new and separate agreement entered into in Hong Kong. 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. The Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the sympathetic concern of the State for the workers conformably to the social justice policy.[13] Verily, to absolve AIMS from liability based on its unsubstantiated claim that it is not privy to the subsequent employment provided by Proxy for Lacerna would be to undermine the avowed policy of the State. PETITION PARTLY GRANTED.