12.
While waiting for the 3 month period to expire, Malinao was offered a
GBMLT v Malinao (2015)
Petitioners: GBLMT Manpower services
Respondents: Victoria Malinao
Doctrine: The intention of the requirement (only cash or surety bond) is fulfilled when
the employer is able to deposit with the NLRC an amount that is equivalent to the
monetary award adjudged by the labor arbiter in the employee's favor, and that shall
subsist until the final resolution of the appeal.
FACTS:
1. Malinao applied as teacher for deployment abroad. She went through
the application and was interviewed by the president of an Ethiopian
University.
a. Was endorsed as an accounting lecturer.
2. Malinao paid for the fees equivalent to one month salary and signed a
Contract of Employment covering 2 academic years, approved by
POEA.
3. Upon her arrival in Ethiopia, she was told that her credentials would
have to be reevaluated. She was presented a new contract for signing.
a. Doubtful to sign at first, but signed anyway seeing as it is a copy of
the original contract.
4. She was assigned to Alemaya Univ but decided to discontinue because
she said that auditing, not accounting, was her specialization.
a. Another lecturer took over and she had no teaching load.
5. Malinaos rank was demoted from lecturer to assistant pursuant to a
memorandum issued by the school (included also a request to sign a
new contract reflecting change of rank and salary)
6. Malinao refused and instead went to the Ministry of education to protest
the reranking.
7. In a meeting, she was shouted at by the VP but subsequently
apologized saying that she thought Malinao was the leader of a protest.
8. Another instructor has replaced Malinao because of a students petition
with the signatures of such. Malinao checked the memo and saw that
some students were not from her class.
9. There was also an issue about the qualification of respondent not
having a graduate degree
a. Malinao answered that she was a CPA and a law graduate, and
this, in the PH, is of a level higher than a masters degree.
10. VP issued the notice of termination, indicating the two instances where
the Dept of Accounting had to replace Malinao.
a. The letter indicated that as per Article X sub article 2 of the contract,
the employer is obliged to give employee three months advanced
notice as regards contract termination. In the meantime employee
is expected to continue work.
b. Also that Malinao kept of insulting the school and the students.
11. Malinao answered saying that she cannot be terminated based on mere
allegations. She said that the 3 mos prior notice is for termination
without cause.
post at the Internal Audit dept (IAD) and accepted the job. However, she
signified in a letter her change of mind and rejected the post.
13. She was then repatriated and signed a quitclaim and release in favor of
employer with 900 USD as consideration.
14. Malinao filed a case in the Labor Arbiter against Petitioner and Alemaya
University for the unexpired portion of her contract.
Labor Arbiter: Malinao unduly repatriated in breach of employment contract and
should not be dismissed just because she did not have a masters degree. In the end
however, LA found that Malinao was constructively dismissed. The amount of the
quitclaim was also unreasonable. Also entitled to moral damages for the verbal
abuse:
NLRC: Appeal by Petitioner. In her Motion to Dismiss Appeal, respondent indicated
that when petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal on 20 April 2007, it issued a
check as payment for the appeal bond. The check was presented for payment only on
23 April 2007. Considering that it takes three days for checks to clear - and that
checks only produce the effect of payment when they have been cashed - the
appeal bond was posted beyond the 10-day reglementary period. Hence,
according to respondent, petitioner's appeal was not perfected, and the labor arbiter's
ruling had attained finality.
NLRC ruled that the quitclaim was valid and that the termination of
employment was because Malinao rejected the new offer by
President Kassa in the IAD. Her employment did not terminate but
was to be continued by the new offer, in a different capacity. Thus,
she was not constructively dismissed.
CA: Reinstated the LA decision. 900 USD unconscionable and her educational
attainment must not be taken against her. Quitclaim signed by force of necessity.
Offer in the IAD in the purview of a new contract. As for the bond, CA ruled that
since the check was encashed only after the allowed period, the appeal was
filed out of time. According to the CA, the rules provide that only a cash or
surety bond may be considered as appeal bond, and noncompliance with the
rule was fatal to petitioner's cause.
ISSUES: WON Malinao was illegally dismissed.
WON the Quitclaim and Release was valid
WON the appeal was filed on time
RULING + RATIO:
Appeal filed on time
Posting of bond is required for the perfection of an appeal as required by 228 of the
Labor Code. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by
a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount
equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
In several cases, the word only is construed as an appeal being perfected only by a
cash or surety bond, hence exclusive. The rationale being that the workers are
assured of the receipt of money judgment in their favor if ever they will win and so
that employers could not use an appeal to delay proceedings. the intention of the
requirement is fulfilled when the employer is able to deposit with the NLRC an amount
that is equivalent to the monetary award adjudged by the labor arbiter in the
employee's favor, and that shall subsist until the final resolution of the appeal.
In this case, there is no question that the NLRC accepted the appeal bond posted by
petitioner through a current-dated check as evidenced by a receipt. Malinao also did
not dispute the sufficiency of the bond or the petitioners statement that the bond is
still in effect.
Nevertheless, we have had occasion to rule that the appeal bond requirement for
judgments involving monetary awards may be relaxed in meritorious cases as in
instances when a liberal interpretation would serve the desired objective of
resolving controversies on the merits. We do not see why the same liberality - if at
all needed - cannot be applied to this case in particular, in which it is clear that
respondent's allegations of illegal dismissal and money claims are unfounded.
Respondent legally dismissed
A plain reading of RA 8042 states that the salaries for the unexpired portion only
applies to those illegally dismissed overseas workers or dismissed without just cause.
Malinao was dismissed pursuant to Article X of the contract which states:
This contract may be terminated by either party, at any time and for no cause
by giving three months notice to the other party. It is well to note that the right to
terminate the Contract of Employment at will was also available to respondent, who
exercised that right when she signified her change of mind and rejected the job at the
Internal Audit Department. This detail was appreciated even by the labor arbiter who
found that respondent had quit her job.
Such contract has the force of law between the parties as long as its stipulations are
not contrary to law, morals, public order etc. Such stipulatiosn are valid as long as
exercised in good faith. The issue of the masters degree is one of misunderstanding.
Quitclaim and Release is Valid
where a person executing a waiver has done voluntarily with full understanding of its
terms, coupled with the payment of consideration, it should be upheld. Malinao admits
that indeed she had full understanding of the terms and conditions. The issue here is
the 900 USD To reiterate, the entitlement to the salaries for the unexpired portion of
the employment contract obtains only for illegally dismissed employees. In view of our
finding that respondent was not illegally dismissed, she is not entitled to such
salaries.
As aptly observed by the NLRC, respondent is a learned professional and a teacher
no less. Anyone would be hard put to trick her into agreeing to something like signing
a waiver. In this case, no proof was presented to show that petitioner had defrauded
or deceived her into signing the document. Absent that proof, we are bound to uphold
the Quitclaim and Release as valid and binding.
Wherefore, CA decision reversed and set aside.