2cuartocruz V Active Works Inc

FACTS employment contract, or 3 months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less
On June 4 2007, Petitioner Cuartocruz entered into a Contract of
Employment with Cheng Chi Ho, a Hong Kong national, where Cuartocruz RULING
shall work as the latter’s domestic helper for 2 years. Her job included
doing household chores and baby-sitting among others, for a monthly We grant the petition. Under Philippine law, workers are entitled to
salary of HK$3,400 and other benefits. Respondent Active Works Inc. is substantive and procedural due process before the termination of their
Cuartocruz’s agency. On August 11 2007, Cuartocruz received a letter from employment. They may not be removed from employment without a valid
her employer, stating that she is required to improve her attentiveness in or just cause as determined by law, and without going through the proper
performing her work within 1 month and if not, such letter would serve as procedure. The purpose of these two-pronged qualifications is to protect
written notice of termination of her employment effective September 11 the working class from the employer's arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
2007. She apologized for lying that she is single when in fact she is a single of its right to dismiss. In this case, respondents failed to prove by
mother, and asked for a chance to improve so she can continue her work. substantial evidence that there was just or authorized cause for the
Nevertheless, on August 16 2007, her employer informed the Immigration termination of petitioner's employment.
Department of Hong Kong that he is terminating the contract with
The grounds cited for the termination of petitioner's employment contract
Cuartocruz for disobeying orders. She was eventually repatriated. Active
are considered just causes under Article 282 of the Labor Code, but only if
Works allegedly offered her P15K as settlement fee, but she refused
respondents were able to prove them. The burden of proving that there is
believing she is entitled to a higher amount. Cuartocruz filed a complaint
just cause for termination is on the employer, who must affirmatively show
before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, payment of unpaid salaries,
rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.
and damages. She claimed that none of the allegations against her were
Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would
true.
necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. Here, no evidence was
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled against Cuartocruz, saying that her presented to substantiate the employer's accusations. There was no
termination was valid and legal due since she disobeyed orders, and lied showing of particular instances when petitioner supposedly disobeyed her
with regards to her civil status. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA employer. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for
decision, and saying that Cuartocruz was illegally dismissed. They held that the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of
there was insufficient proof of Cuartocruz’s alleged poor performance. illegal dismissal.
Further, due process was denied to her in her termination. Her dishonesty
Petitioner was likewise not afforded procedural due process. Procedural
pertaining to her civil status is trivial that it does not warrant the penalty of
due process requires the employer to give the concerned employee at
dismissal. On appeal, the CA affirmed the NLRC decision.
least two notices before terminating his employment. The first is the notice
ISSUE: WON Petitioner Cuartocruz was illegally dismissed and is entitled to which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which
the award of salaries equivalent to the unexpired portion of her his dismissal is being sought along with the opportunity for the employee
to air his side, while the second is the subsequent notice of the employer's
decision to dismiss him. In this case, the August 11 2007 warning letter In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
would have very well served as the first notice that satisfies the above authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled
requirement. However, while the warning letter states that it will serve as to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve
notice of termination effective September 11 2007 in case petitioner failed percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
to improve her work performance, petitioner's employment was employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the
terminated much earlier and without further advice. Worse, the grounds unexpired term, whichever is less.
stated in the August 16 2007 termination letter were markedly different
from the ground stated in the warning letter. The termination letter The proviso "for three months for every year of the unexpired term [ of the
expressed concerns that petitioner claimed she had never been confronted employment contract], whichever is less" has been declared
with. She was left in the dark as regards the real reason for the termination unconstitutional by this Court for violating the equal protection clause and
of her employment, and was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify her substantive due process. The subject clause singles out one classification of
shortcomings or explain her side. OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage. Moreover, there is no
compelling state interest that the subject clause may possibly serve. Thus,
Equally repulsive is the fact that petitioner's employer did not furnish her a following Serrano, we rule that petitioner is entitled to her monthly salary
copy of the August 16 2007 termination letter, which was submitted to the of HK$3,400.00, or its Philippine peso equivalent, for the entire unexpired
Immigration Department of Wanchai, Hong Kong. Petitioner alleged that portion of her employment contract. We reverse the CA's award of
she learned of the termination of her employment the following day, and placement fee for being unsubstantiated. PETITION GRANTED CA DECISION
that she was able to get a copy of the termination letter only with the help AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
of Helpers for Domestic Helpers, an organization of Filipino helpers in Hong
Kong. The provisions in the employment contract and the employer's
conduct are patently inconsistent with the right of security of tenure
guaranteed to local or overseas Filipino workers under the Constitution
and the Labor Code. Security of tenure guarantees workers substantive
and procedural due process before they are dismissed from work. It is a
right which cannot be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and
nebulous basis.
Finally, as regards the issue of how much salary petitioner is entitled based
on the unexpired portion of her contract, the NLRC awarded petitioner six-
months' salary while the CA reduced this amount to three months,
pursuant to Section 10, RA 8042, which provides:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. - xxxx

2cuartocruz V Active Works Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2cuartocruz V Active Works Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2cuartocruz V Active Works Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS employment contract, or 3 months for every year of the unexpired term,

Sec. 10. Money Claims. - xxxx

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.