THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 188774. April 17, 2017.]
JOSELITO C. DE LEON, complainant, vs. MBC HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORP. and/or NIDA SARMIENTO, INTERNATIONAL PLANT SERVICES [IPS], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 17, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 188774 (Joselito C. De Leon vs. MBC Human Resources Development Corp. and/or Nida Sarmiento, International Plant Services [IPS]). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated February 26, 2009 and Resolution 3 dated July 8, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 104734.
Joselito C. De Leon (De Leon), Venus B. Geli, and Prudencio D. Evangelista (complainants) were among the applicants of respondent MBC Human Resources Development Corporation (MBC), a local manning agency, selected by MBC's foreign principal International Plant Services (IPS) for its project in the United States of America (USA). The complainants' employment papers were processed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency on May 16, 2006 for the position of boilermaker; the stipulated monthly salary was US$2,600.00 and the contract was for nine months. 4 De Leon allegedly incurred the following expenses: (1) P14,670,00 as placement fee; (2) P4,500.00 as medical expenses; and (3) P105,000.00 as transportation and incidental expenses from November 2006 until May 2007. De Leon further averred that it was MBC that facilitated the release of his E-2 US visa. 5
On May 23, 2007, the complainants departed for the USA. They were however denied entry into the USA because they were carrying the wrong type of US visa. Thus, the complainants were sent back to the Philippines on May 25, 2007; the US visas in their passport were stamped with "REVOKED-SEA, APPLICATION WITHDRAWN." 6
The complainants then filed their respective complaints 7 with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against MBC, IPS, and MBC's President Nida Sarmiento (collectively, the respondents). They claimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees; they also sought actual damages equivalent to the stipulated salary for nine months. De Leon further prayed that the respondents be directed to refund his placement fee, medical expenses, and transportation and incidental expenses. 8
On the other hand, the respondents alleged that the complainants' failure to enter their worksite was not their fault and that they had no control over the same since it was a result of a governmental policy. They claimed that they have already refunded the placement fee paid by the complainants. The respondents further averred that De Leon's claim for his medical expenses is without basis since the same was paid to Arguelles Medical Clinic and not to them. 9 CAIHTE
On November 29, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA), after due proceedings, rendered a Decision, 10 the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Complainants entitled to payment of their 9-month salaries in the amount of US$23,400.00 EACH and, in accordance therewith, directing herein Respondents to jointly and severally pay the same or its peso equivalent at the time of the payment.
Respondents are likewise directed to pay Complainant [Geli] [her] placement fee in the amount of P14,678.00 and, likewise, to reimburse Complainant De Leon for his medical expenses in the amount of P4,500.00.
SO ORDERED.11
The LA ruled that the respondents have breached their obligation under the employment contract, which thus entitles the complainants to the payment of the stipulated salary for nine months; 12 that it was incumbent upon the respondents to keep abreast with the visa requirements of their workers bound for employment abroad. 13 Further, the LA ruled that De Leon is entitled to reimbursement of his medical expenses since he only incurred the same because it was required by the employment contract. 14
However, on appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision 15 dated March 31, 2008, reversed and set aside the LA's Decision dated November 29, 2007 and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondents' appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the [LA] is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.16
The NLRC ruled that no employer-employee relationship was created between the parties since the complainants were not able to render work for IPS; 17 that MBC did not knowingly breach its obligation to secure overseas employment for the complainants and that the denial of the complainants' entry to the USA was unforeseen and beyond the control of the respondents. 18 The complainants sought a reconsideration 19 of the Decision dated March 31, 2008, but it was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution 20 dated May 30, 2008. aScITE
De Leon then filed a Petition for Certiorari21 with the CA alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that he is not entitled to his stipulated salary for nine months and to his claims for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 22 On February 26, 2009, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, 23 which declared:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the private respondents are hereby ordered to pay petitioner De Leon the amount of P15,000.00 as nominal damages and P150.00 as reimbursement for his medical fees.
SO ORDERED.24
The CA affirmed the NLRC's denial of De Leon's claim for actual damages. 25 Nevertheless, the CA held that De Leon is entitled to nominal damages in the amount of P15,000.00 since he was unable to render work without his fault. The CA also found that De Leon is entitled to reimbursement for his medical expenses although the amount is limited to P150.00 since he was able to present one official receipt from Arguelles Medical Clinic in the said amount. 26 Further, the CA ruled that De Leon is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees for lack of factual basis therefor. 27
Essentially, the issue presented for the Court's resolution is whether De Leon is entitled to actual damages equivalent to the stipulated salary for nine months, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
The award of actual damages is only for such pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant as he has duly proved. 28 Unfortunately, De Leon failed to adduce evidence to satisfactorily prove the amount of actual damages he supposedly incurred. Parties to overseas employment contracts are allowed to stipulate terms and conditions as long as the same do not run counter to the minimum requirements under the rules. 29 Section 5.2 of the overseas employment contract 30 between the parties herein states that the employee, i.e., De Leon, agreed to a no work — no pay policy, which means that De Leon is not entitled to any salary if he does not render any work service for IPS. 31 It is not disputed that De Leon was not able to render work for IPS as he was not allowed to enter the USA. DETACa
Further, notwithstanding that the overseas employment contract in this case is silent as to when De Leon's employment commenced, the employer-employee relationship between the parties would have commenced as soon as De Leon is made to work by IPS. At that time, De Leon's right to compensation would have commenced. Clearly, there being no employer-employee relationship as yet between the parties, De Leon's claim for actual damages has no factual basis.
Nonetheless, it cannot be gainsaid that De Leon suffered injury when he was barred from entering the USA for possessing the wrong type of US visa. Although the respondents made no guaranty in the overseas employment contract that De Leon would be admitted entry into the USA, it however behooves MBC, as a local manning agency, to keep itself updated as regards the visa requirements of employees that it deploys abroad for employment. To stress, it was MBC that processed De Leon's E-2 US visa. Accordingly, the CA correctly awarded nominal damages in favor of De Leon pursuant to Article 2222 32 of the Civil Code. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court taking into account the relevant circumstances. 33 Thus, the Court deems it proper to increase the amount of nominal damages awarded by the CA from P15,000.00 to P30,000.00.
Anent De Leon's claim for moral and exemplary damages, the Court agrees with the CA that the award of such damages is not justified by the factual milieu of this case. For moral and exemplary damages to be awarded, the party must prove bad faith. Otherwise, the presumption of good faith must be upheld. 34 De Leon failed to adduce any evidence or even allege any circumstance, which would justify the conclusion that the respondents acted in bad faith in dealing with him. Hence, the Court cannot award moral and exemplary damages. In this regard, the award of attorney's fees is likewise unwarranted; 35 De Leon has not shown his entitlement thereto pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated February 26, 2009 and Resolution dated July 8, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104734 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of nominal damages awarded in favor of petitioner Joselito C. De Leon is increased to P30,000.00." HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok and Romeo F. Barza concurring; id. at 153-164.
3.Id. at 171-172.
4.Id. at 130.
5.Id. at 10.
6.Id. at 130.
7.Id. at 39-40.
8.Id. at 50-51.
9.Id. at 131.
10. Rendered by LA Thomas T. Que, Jr.; id. at 98-110.
11.Id. at 109.
12.Id. at 107.
13.Id. at 108.
14.Id. at 109.
15. Rendered by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III, with Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo concurring; id. at 128-139.
16.Id. at 139.
17.Id. at 134.
18.Id. at 136.
19.Id. at 140-141.
20.Id. at 144-145.
21.Id. at 24-38.
22.Id. at 28-29.
23.Id. at 153-164.
24.Id. at 164.
25.Id. at 161-162.
26.Id. at 162.
27.Id. at 163.
28. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 2199.
29. 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based Overseas Workers, Part V, Rule 1, Section 3.
30.Rollo, pp. 56-60.
31.Id. at 57.
32. ART. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.
33.See Corporal, Sr. v. NLRC, 395 Phil. 890 (2000).
34.King v. Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc., 530 Phil. 537, 542 (2006).
35.See Audion Electric Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 367 Phil. 620, 635 (1999).