Placewell International Services Corp. v. Aquino

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212574. May 14, 2021.]

PLACEWELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION AND AIDA ESCUETA, complainant,vs. MERLINDA S. AQUINO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 212574*(Placewell International Services Corporation and Aida Escueta v. Merlinda S. Aquino).

Licensed recruitment agencies are liable for the unauthorized alteration, substitution or modification by the foreign employer of employment contracts previously approved by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Their liability extends until such time that the Filipino overseas worker returns to the country. If, after repatriation, the migrant worker voluntarily returns to the same employer without the knowledge and participation of the recruitment agency, the latter shall not be accountable for any abuses the foreign employer may commit against the worker.

The Case

This resolves the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the September 30, 2013 Decision 1 and May 13, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 124623. The CA reversed the January 31, 2012 Decision 3 and February 29, 2012 Resolution 4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and held petitioners liable for the payment of salary differential and attorney's fees in favor of respondent.

Antecedents

On March 8, 2005, Placewell International Services Corporation (Placewell) deployed Merlinda S. Aquino (Merlinda) to work as a janitress for Annasban Contracting Group (Annasban), a placement agency in Saudi Arabia, with a monthly salary of 900 Saudi Riyals (SAR). Merlinda allegedly paid processing fees in the total amount of Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (P27,800.00), but Placewell did not issue the corresponding receipts 5 and failed to furnish her with a copy of her employment contract. 6

Merlinda claimed that instead of being a janitress, she worked as a caregiver at a children's hospital in Asir, Saudi Arabia, and was required to work daily for twelve (12) hours in a span of fifteen (15) months without any rest day. She received only SAR300 as salary during the first four (4) months, which was later raised to SAR665 in the succeeding eleven (11) months. Subsequently, Annasban transferred her to Al Fatayat Jail as a cleaner, where she worked for twelve (12) months with a monthly pay of SAR500 monthly for a 10-hour daily work shift, six (6) days a week. After the jail was shut down, she was transferred to the Inaths Markas Tahil Rehabilitation Center for Children in Riyadh. Merlinda received a monthly salary of SAR665 for taking care of three (3) bedridden children for twelve (12) months, without any rest day. Due to the low salary and physically taxing work, she requested the agency manager of Annasban to allow her to return to the Philippines. Merlinda claimed to have stopped working for one month in order to convince the manager to grant her request, but to no avail. Instead, Annasban promised better working conditions and reassigned her to a private hospital of the Nascom Company where she was on duty for eight (8) hours daily. Merlinda averred that she was paid a monthly salary of SAR700 for a 6-day workweek for twelve (12) months. 7

When Merlinda reiterated her request to return to the Philippines, Annasban allegedly required her to sign a re-entry agreement and promised her a salary increase of SAR100 if she returned, and payment of her salary differentials. She returned to the Philippines on April 28, 2009, and was summoned back to Saudi Arabia on July 10, 2009. Hoping that she could collect the underpaid salaries promised to her, she went back to Saudi Arabia but did not receive the promised amounts. She was thus constrained to resume her employment with the Nascom Hospital up to March 2010. 8

Merlinda also claimed to have been raped by the agency manager, whom she only knew as "Sir Walid," on January 26, 2010. Traumatized by the incident, Merlinda was unable to report for work and just stayed at her living quarters. Another agency officer, a certain "Sir Ahmed," inquired why she had not reported. Upon learning of her predicament, he instructed her to submit a report to Sulayman, a superior officer working in Annasban. She submitted her report to Sulayman and, consequently, resumed her duties at the hospital. 9

After Sulayman had read Merlinda's report, he summoned her to his office to investigate and made her call Walid, purportedly to set him up. She obliged, but Sulayman later sided with Walid. The following day, Sulayman summoned her again and took her mobile phone, ATM card, bag and other belongings. She also alleged to have been incarcerated in a small room at the agency office for one month. She tried to contact the Philippine Embassy at Riyadh for assistance but a certain Mr. Burayag declined. Merlinda was later terminated after Sulayman learned about her attempt to seek help from the embassy. Fearing something worse could happen to her, Merlinda called her husband for help. A militant migrant organization interceded on her behalf and assisted in repatriating her. She was able to return to the Philippines on June 13, 2010. 10

On July 19, 2010, she filed a complaint for underpayment/non-payment of salary/wages and vacation leave pay, and refund of money and property withheld, against Placewell, its President Aida H. Escueta (Escueta), and Annasban. 11 Merlinda maintained that she is entitled to the following amounts: SAR16,205.00 as salary differentials, SAR16,361.28 as unpaid overtime; SAR7,020.94 as premium pay for work on rest days, and SAR3,544.94 as unpaid overtime work during rest days. 12

Placewell and Escueta denied liability and maintained that Merlinda left her jobsite in Saudi Arabia in July 2009 as a worker-on-leave or "balik-manggagawa," and that they were not parties to the contract between Merlinda and Annasban. They contended that as a "worker-on-leave," Merlinda processed her own documents at the POEA without the participation of any licensed local recruitment agency. She had also personally and directly paid the required fees to the POEA. Hence, any established monetary liability should be the sole and exclusive responsibility of Annasban. 13

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

In her May 30, 2011 Decision, Labor Arbiter (LA) Veneranda C. Guerrero dismissed Merlinda's complaint, ratiocinating as follows:

It should be stated that the joint and several liability of a recruitment agency with the foreign employer, for the employment-related claims of an overseas Filipino worker, applies only where the recruitment agency participated in the deployment and facilitated the processing of the worker's employment documents, and covers only those claims accruing for the duration of the contract. Absent proof that the complainant's contract that was executed with the facilitation of respondent recruitment agency, contained an automatic renewal clause, the liability of the latter is limited to the claims under the first contract. Complainant's subsequent engagement by the foreign principal, and her return to the jobsite as a balik manggagawa, having caused the processing of her documents on her own, directly with the POEA, relieves the respondent agency from any claims that may have accrued under the renewed contracts.

Article 291 of the Labor Code stipulates a three-year prescriptive period from the accrual of the cause of action, within which to file employment-related money claims. In this case, complainant's purported cause of action against her employer accrued in 2005-2007 when she was allegedly not paid her salaries. Hence, more than three (3) years had lapsed from the time her cause of action accrued. Even if the cause of action accrued at the end of her 2-year contract, the claims would still be time-barred as the complaint was filed only in July 2010.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for being time-barred and for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 14

Respondent, feeling aggrieved by the ruling, appealed to the NLRC. 15

NLRC Ruling

The NLRC Sixth Division rendered a Decision 16 on January 31, 2012, affirming the decision of the LA. The Commission held that Merlinda's money claims for March 2005 had prescribed in March 2008, while those in 2006 expired in 2009; and her claims in 2007 had prescribed in 2010. It also noted Merlinda's admission that her contract with Placewell was only for a period of two (2) years, hence, Placewell may only be liable for the duration of the March 2005 to February 2007 contract. Accordingly, her cause of action had prescribed in February 2010. 17

As regards the claim for contract substitution, and nonpayment of salaries, the NLRC held that these had been unsubstantiated. It also rejected Merlinda's insistence that Placewell be held solidarily liable with Annasban, in the absence of any evidence proving that Placewell participated in the extension of Merlinda's contract. 18

Merlinda filed a Motion for Reconsideration 19 which was denied by the NLRC in its February 29, 2012 Resolution. 20 She then appealed to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. 21

CA Ruling

In the now assailed decision, the CA reversed the NLRC and decreed in the following manner:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated January 31, 2012 and Resolution dated February 29, 2012 of public respondent NLRC, in NLRC-LAC Case No. 07-000643-11 (OFW) [NLRC Case No. NCR 07-09865-10] are REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered, ordering private respondents Placewell International Corp., and/or Annasban Contracting Group to jointly and severally pay petitioner Merlinda S. Aquino her salary differentials for the period from July 31, 2007 to April 30, 2009, and July 10, 2009 to April, 2010; and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the final judgment award.

All other claims are DENIED for lack of evidence.

Further, the case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the foregoing monetary awards due to petitioner.

SO ORDERED. 22

The CA noted that based on the records, Placewell failed to submit in evidence the POEA-approved employment contract from which the presence or absence of the "automatic renewal clause" can be ascertained. Placewell's failure to submit the contract rendered doubtful the basis of the LA's decision that Placewell's liability is limited only to the first contract. Moreover, absolving Placewell on the ground that it was not privy to the subsequent contract between Merlinda and Annasban undermined the State's avowed policy to protect labor and social justice. 23

The appellate court also disagreed with the NLRC ruling that Merlinda had failed to prove her claims for underpayment of salaries and contract substitution. The NLRC failed to consider that the burden of proof rests on the employer to prove payment since the documents to prove the same are in the custody and control of the employer. Since Placewell failed to show any proof of payment of correct amount of salary, Merlinda's claims must prevail. 24

Placewell filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration 25 which the CA denied in its Resolution dated May 13, 2014. 26

Issues

Placewell filed the present appeal based on the following grounds:

I

[T]HE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO SALARY DIFFERENTIALS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 31, 2007 TO APRIL 30, 2009 AND FROM JULY 10, 2009 TO APRIL 2010 DESPITE PETITIONER'S PLACEWELL AND/OR ESCUETA ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT DURING SAID PERIOD;

II

[T]HE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AWARDING PRIVATE RESPONDENT SALARY DIFFERENTIALS FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 31, 2007 TO APRIL 30, 2009 BECAUSE SUCH MONEY CLAIMS HAVE ALREADY PRESCRIBED. 27

Placewell denies liability and claims that it was not privy to Merlinda's employment from July 10, 2009 until June 14, 2010. As a "worker on leave," Merlinda processed her own documents with the POEA without Placewell's assistance. It also maintains that it should not be faulted for not submitting a copy of the contract since it was not privy thereto and it did not have custody of the same. Since Placewell's liability is only for the period of March 2005 until February 2007, Merlinda's money claims had already prescribed when she filed her complaint in July 2010. 28

On the other hand, Merlinda contends that Placewell remains as the POEA-licensed agency that deployed her for overseas employment; 29 that she is entitled to attorney's fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code and Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code; and that the petition should be dismissed for failure to present a Secretary Certificate/Board Resolution authorizing Eleanor Escueta to sign the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping. 30

Did the CA commit reversible error in holding Placewell solidarily liable for Merlinda's monetary claims?

The Court's Ruling

The petition is partially meritorious.

The Court, as a rule, is bound by the factual findings of the CA, but has the discretion to re-examine the evidence in a case when a basic conflict exists between the CA's findings of fact and those of the NLRC. 31 In this case, We deem it proper to apply the exception owing to the contravening conclusions made by the CA and the NLRC. More specifically, We will review the facts pertaining to Merlinda's contract and her claim of being underpaid by her foreign employer in order to determine Placewell's liability, as well as the reckoning period for Merlinda's monetary claims.

Merlinda's initial employment

Placewell maintains that it deployed Merlinda based on a two-year POEA contract on March 8, 2005, and that it was not privy to the contract renewal between Merlinda and Annasban. As such, its liability should only extend until March 2007 when the said contract expired.

There is partial merit in Placewell's contentions.

Both parties admit that Merlinda had been initially deployed based on a two-year contract starting on March 8, 2005. Based on Merlinda's account, she had been transferred from one work to another, and assigned to work in different jobs, while receiving a lower salary than the stipulated SAR900. Placewell did not refute these claims but, instead, claimed that Merlinda and Annasban entered into another contract after March 2007, and a third contract in July 2009. Placewell claims to have not participated in the execution of the second and third contracts. 32

In view of the above claims, the following matters should be specifically addressed: (1) Merlinda's claim of subsequent transfers and work assignment for a lower salary, and (2) Placewell's insistence that Merlinda and Annasban entered into two (2) contracts after March 2007 without its participation.

The Court holds that with regard to Merlinda's subsequent work transfers, low salary, and different job assignments, Placewell should be held accountable. Evidently, these circumstances manifested a substitution, alteration or modification of the contract previously approved by the POEA.

Section 6 (i) of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Worker's Act of 1995), as amended, expressly prohibits the substitution or alteration of contracts that the DOLE had previously approved, thus:

SEC. 6. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

xxx xxx xxx

(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;

xxx xxx xxx (emphases supplied)

Placewell manifested in the present petition that Merlinda was contracted and deployed to its "then accredited principal Annasban Contracting Group of Company, as janitress/housekeeper for a monthly salary of 900SR and for a contract duration of two (2) years." 33 However, it failed to refute Merlinda's claims that upon arriving in Saudi Arabia, she was made to work in a children's hospital as a caregiver with an initial salary of SAR300. Clearly, the terms of the contract, particularly her job assignment and salary, had been altered without any authority coming from the POEA as soon as Merlinda commenced work in Saudi Arabia.

The recent case of Corpuz, Jr. v. Gerwil Crewing Phils., Inc., 34 underscored the responsibility of recruitment agencies to ensure that the POEA-approved contracts shall not be altered, modified or substituted without prior authority, thus:

Verily, R.A. No. 8042 did not limit the responsibility of recruitment agencies to the recruitment and deployment of Filipino workers to foreign countries. As DOLE-accredited agencies, they have entered into a covenant with the State to promote the safety and welfare of Filipino workers. They have in fact, undertaken to ensure that the "contracts of employment are in accordance with the standard employment contract and other applicable laws, regulations and collective bargaining agreements." This responsibility exists during the lifetime of the employment contract and shall continue despite substitution, amendment or modification of the agreement.

xxx xxx xxx

Evidently, the salient terms of the Contract of Employment were altered or changed without the approval of the DOLE through the POEA. [Gerwil Crewing] cannot feign ignorance of the same, considering that such was done well within the stipulated period of the POEA-approved contract. As a licensed recruitment agency, [Gerwil Crewing] had full knowledge of the requirement of prior review and approval by the POEA in the event of any alterations or changes to the Contract. Only after gaining this approval shall the amendments, modifications or alterations be deemed an integral part of the POEA Standard Employment Contract.

In here, [Gerwil Crewing] had been complacent with the fact that it was able to deploy petitioner abroad without ensuring his status and his whereabouts despite the non-accreditation of the foreign principal Echo Cargo. [Gerwil Crewing] seemed to have delighted in its own inaction, misguidedly secured in its flawed notion that once deployed, it no longer has any responsibility to petitioner. This nonchalant attitude cannot be countenanced. [Gerwil Crewing's] seeming indifference cannot be ascribed as a simple case of negligence as it possessed full knowledge of its responsibilities as a licensed recruitment agency.

Needless to state that [Gerwil Crewing's] omission resulted in the change of petitioner's foreign employer on board a different vessel, and service in a totally different capacity which working conditions may have led to his medical repatriation. Indubitably, the substitution or alteration of the POEA-approved contract had relegated petitioner to the unfavorable situation which R.A. No. 8042 particularly seeks to avoid. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, [Gerwil Crewing's] inaction or omission was against existing law and public policy as it perpetrated the illegal and pernicious practice of substituting the POEA approved contract to the detriment of the Filipino worker. Having knowingly reneged on its obligation to ensure the welfare of petitioner while deployed abroad, and in allowing the substitution of a previously approved POEA contract, [Gerwil Crewing] should be held liable. (citations omitted)

Similarly, Placewell had been complacent with its duty of deploying Merlinda without ensuring that Annasban would respect the terms of her POEA-approved contract. Placewell cannot feign innocence and escape liability from the contract alteration considering that it is vested with the obligation to ensure Merlinda's welfare once deployed.

As regards Placewell's claim that Merlinda and Annasban executed two (2) subsequent contracts after March 2007, the Court finds the same to be partially correct.

The assertion that Merlinda and Annasban entered into a second contract in 2007 had not been substantiated by Placewell. As such, We revert to the previous finding that the original POEA-approved contract had been altered, substituted, and modified to the extent that the same was extended until April 28, 2009, when Merlinda returned to the country. To reiterate, Placewell has the responsibility to ensure that the original contract shall not be altered after Merlinda's deployment. Its negligence and carelessness in discharging such responsibility led to Merlinda's extended stay in Saudi Arabia under unfavorable conditions. For this reason, Placewell is solidarily liable for Merlinda's claims from March 8, 2005 until April 28, 2009.

However, Placewell should be absolved from any liability for whatever cause of action Merlinda may have against Annasban for the duration of her new contract starting July 2009. Placewell had been right in asserting that it could not be held liable for the duration of the said contract.

We note that Merlinda had consistently averred in her Position Paper 35 and in the Petition for Certiorari 36 she had filed before the CA, that she had been "summoned back to Saudi Arabia" and returned there in the hope that she would receive her salary differentials and other unpaid benefits. 37 Merlinda did not state that Placewell had a hand in her return to Saudi Arabia. She even manifested before the POEA that she had not gone to Placewell's office from the time she came back to the country on April 28, 2009, until she returned to Saudi Arabia in July of the same year. She also declared that Annasban instructed her "to pick up her return ticket at an agency named Global." 38 Clearly, Placewell had no participation and control in the execution of the July 2009 contract.

Moreover, a simple perusal of the OFW Information Sheet that Merlinda had accomplished, would reveal that she did not name Placewell as her local agent. Instead, she declared in the space provided for "local agent" that she was a "worker-on-leave." If Placewell had indeed been instrumental in the execution of the new contract between her and Annasban, Merlinda would have declared Placewell to be her local agent. In Morales v. Skills International Company, 39 the Court did not allow the migrant worker to lay the blame on the recruitment agency when he resorted to the Balik Manggagawa program to facilitate his deployment abroad. We hold that the same ruling should apply in the present case, owing to the absence of any evidence showing that Placewell had specifically instructed Merlinda to indicate "worker-on-leave" in the OFW Information Sheet.

While the Court commiserates with the plight of Merlinda for having fallen prey to the economic, psychological, and sexual abuses committed against her by Annasban and its agents, We cannot hold Placewell accountable therefor. In Sunace v. National Labor Relations Commission, 40 We discharged the agency from any liability in the absence of proof that it had knowledge of the foreign principal's direct negotiation with the worker for another contract. Here, Merlinda failed to show proof of Placewell's participation in the execution of the July 2009 contract with Annasban. Hence, Merlinda's claim for damages based on the said contract had neither factual nor legal basis.

Merlinda's monetary claims

Placewell argues that Merlinda's monetary claims had already prescribed because its liability extended only until March 2007. This contention is erroneous in view of our ruling that Merlinda's first contract had been altered and extended until April 28, 2009.

Article 291 of the Labor Code provides that all money claims accruing from employer-employee relationship shall prescribe within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued. Evidently, the three-year period had not yet lapsed when she filed her complaint on July 19, 2010.

Merlinda claims that Annasban owes her the following amounts: 41

I. Salary differentials

 

Period	Place of Work	Standard Salary	Actual Salary received	Salary Differential
March to June 2005	Hospital in Abha	900 riyals	300	600 x 4 months = 2,400
July 2005 to May 2006	Hospital in Abha	900 riyals	665	235 x 11 mos. = 2,585
June 2006 to May 2007	Al Fatayat Jail for Women	900	550	350 x 12 mos. = 4,200
June 2007 to May 2008	Inaths Markas Tahil Rehab	900	665	235 x 12 mos. = 2,820
June 2008 to April 2009	Nascom Hospital	900	700	200 x 11 mos. = 2,200
July 10, 2009 to April 2010	Nascom Hospital	900	700	200 x 10 mos. = 2,000
TOTAL				16,205 riyals

 

II. Overtime pay for additional four hours work rendered for 39 months

Salary 900.00 SR/26 = 34.62 daily wage/8 hours = 4.37 SR hourly rate x 4 hours = 17.48 SR x 6 days = 104.88 x 4 weeks = 419.52 SR x 39 months = 16,361.28 SR

III. Premium pay for work rendered during rest days and holidays

A. Work during rest days

 39 months x 4 rest days = 156 days x 34.62 daily wage = 5,400.72 + .3 (1,620.00) = 7,020.94 SR

B. Overtime pay for work during rest days

 4.37/hour x 4 hours = 17.48 x 156 days 2,726.88 + .3(818.06) = 3,544.94 SR

The Court notes that despite these claims made by Merlinda, Placewell did not offer any proof that she was correctly paid by Annasban. It is a basic rule in labor cases that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer. 42 Hence, in the absence of contrary evidence showing payment, Merlinda shall be entitled to her financial claims.

However, Merlinda's monetary claims should be adjusted in view of Our finding that Placewell is liable only for the period of her employment from March 8, 2005 until April 28, 2009.

Placewell is liable to pay for

Sec. 10 of R.A. No. 8042 allows a migrant worker to claim moral and exemplary damages in connection with the employment contract or as provided by law. Placewell's liability herein may be traced from its indifference in ensuring that the terms of the POEA contract were respected by Annasban. If Placewell had only been vigilant in its duty as a recruitment agency, it would have ascertained during the first few months after Merlinda's deployment, that Annasban had violated the terms of the POEA contract, and had placed Merlinda under unfavorable working conditions.

The Court notes that this is not the first time that Placewell has been involved in contract alteration involving a migrant worker. In Placewell International Services Corporation v. Camote, 43 this Court found the foreign principal to have altered the employment contract of the migrant worker. However, no damages were imposed by the Court against Placewell.

It appears that despite the finding of contract alteration in its earlier case, Placewell had not put up any safeguard to ensure that its foreign principals would continue to respect contracts that had been approved by the POEA. We find this indifference by Placewell as an arrogant disregard of its responsibility to ensure the welfare and safety of its deployed migrant workers. To deter Placewell from being nonchalant with such responsibility and to serve as an example for the public good, We hold Placewell liable to pay the amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of Merlinda.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The September 30, 2013 Decision and May 13, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124623 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners Placewell International Services Corporation and/or Annasban Contracting Group are hereby ORDERED to jointly and severally pay Merlinda S. Aquino her salary differentials, overtime pay, and premium pay for work rendered on rest days from March 8, 2005 to April 28, 2009; exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00; attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the final judgment award; and costs of suit. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this judgment until fully satisfied.

All other claims are DENIED for lack of evidence.

Further, the case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the foregoing monetary awards due to petitioner.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Part of the Supreme Court Decongestion Program.

1.Rollo, pp. 12-22; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.

2.Id. at 23 to 25-A.

3. CA rollo, pp. 100-106; penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog with Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, concurring.

4.Id. at 115-117.

5.Id. at 32-33.

6.Id. at 37.

7.Id. at 33-34.

8.Id. at 34.

9.Id. at 34-35.

10.Id. at 35.

11.Id. at 27-28.

12.Rollo, p. 14.

13. CA rollo, pp. 58-61.

14.Id. at 80-81.

15.See Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal; id. at 82-98.

16.Id. at 100-106.

17.Id. at 104.

18.Id. at 105-106.

19.Id. at 107-113.

20.Id. at 115-117.

21.Id. at 3-26.

22.Rollo, pp. 20-21.

23.Id. at 18-19.

24.Id. at 20.

25. CA rollo, pp. 186-195.

26.Rollo, pp. 23-25-A.

27.Id. at 7.

28.Id. at 7-8.

29.Id. at 139.

30.Id. at 139- 142.

31.Jones International Manpower Services, Inc. v. Agcaoili-Barit, 669 Phil. 448, 458 (2011).

32.Rollo, p. 4.

33.Id.

34. G.R. No. 205725, January 18, 2021.

35.Rollo, pp. 38-61.

36. CA rollo, pp. 3-26.

37.Rollo, p. 43.

38.Id. at 35.

39. 531 Phil. 579 (2006).

40. 515 Phil. 779 (2006).

41.Rollo, pp. 46-48.

42.Smart Communications, Inc. v. Astorga, 566 Phil. 422, 441 (2008).

43. 525 Phil. 817 (2006).