Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
POSITION PAPER
COMPLAINANTS, through counsel, unto the Honorable Office most
respectfully submits this Position Paper and in support thereof, avers as follows:
THE PARTIES
This a complaint for illegal dismissal arising from the breach of contracts
committed by the respondents to the complainants.
Complainant thus left the country on August 20, 2013 and arrived in Kuwait
the following day. He was required to surrender his Contract of Employment by the
respondent upon his arrival.
(Complainant’s passport bearing his date of departure and arrival in the Philippines is
attached herein as ANNEX “A-1” to form an integral part hereof).
Complainant thus left the country on August 20, 2013 and arrived in Kuwait
the following day. He was required to surrender his Contract of Employment by the
respondent upon his arrival.
(Complainant’s passport bearing his date of departure and arrival in the Philippines is
attached herein as ANNEX “B-1” to form an integral part hereof).
2
Complainant signed a Contract of Employment with respondent FARLAND on
August 20, 2013 for deployment with respondent HOT ENGINEERING in Kuwait;
Complainant thus left the country on August 20, 2013 and arrived in Kuwait
the following day. He was required to surrender his Contract of Employment by the
respondent upon his arrival.
(Complainant’s passport bearing his date of departure and arrival in the Philippines is
attached herein as ANNEX “C-1” to form an integral part hereof).
Complainant thus left the country on August 20, 2013 and arrived in Kuwait
the following day. He was required to surrender his Contract of Employment by the
respondent upon his arrival.
(Complainant’s passport bearing his date of departure and arrival in the Philippines is
attached herein as ANNEX “D-1” to form an integral part hereof).
3
ISSUE/S
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
Respondents’ unjustified breach of contract should hold them liable for the
complainants’ salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contracts;
“In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among and between the
OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the foreign employer/principal are governed by
the employment contract. A contract freely entered into is considered law between
the parties; and hence, should be respected.” (EDI-STAFFBUILDERS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 145587, October 26, 2007)
Unless for just cause and with due process, such pre-termination constitute
illegal dismissal which is proscribed under the same code:
“The requisite for a valid dismissal are (a) The employee must
be afforded due process, i.e ., he must be given an opportunity to be
heard and to defend himself and (b) the dismissal must be for valid
causes as provided in Article of the Labor Code” (Arboled vs NLRC
303 SCRA 38);
4
(see ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION vs. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, October 11,
2010.)
Furthermore, following the ruling laid down by the Supreme Court in the
recent case of SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. vs. NATHANIEL DOZA (G.R. No.
175558, February 8, 2012), complainants are entitled to the ENTIRE UNEXPIRED
PORTION of his employment contract. Thus:
Finally, in the pursuit of justice, the complainants were forced to secure the
services of counsel, thereby incurring legal fees in the process. Accordingly, the
respondents should likewise be ordered to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to ten
percent of the amount of wages recovered as provided for in Art. 111 of the Labor
Code.
Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee
was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a
monetary award by way of attorney’s fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor
Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7,
Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney’s fees is proper, and there
need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it
withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not
paid accordingly. (Kaisahan vs. Manila Water Company, G.R. NO. 174179,
November 16, 2011)
In closing, the Supreme Court emphasized that “our overseas workers belong
to a DISADVANTAGED CLASS. Most of them come from the poorest sector of our
5
society. Their profile shows they live in suffocating slums, trapped in an environment
of crimes. Hardly literate and in ill health, their only hope lies in jobs they find with
difficulty in our country. Their unfortunate circumstance makes them easy prey to
avaricious employers. They will climb mountains, cross the seas, endure slave
treatment in foreign lands just to survive. Out of despondence, they will work under
sub-human conditions and accept salaries below the minimum. THE LEAST WE
CAN DO IS TO PROTECT THEM WITH OUR LAWS. (Olarte v. Nayona, 461 Phil.
429, 2003, emphasis ours).
PRAYER
Copy Furnished: