1. ACUÑA v.
CA (Vi)
May 5, 2006|Quisumbing, J. | Dispute Settlement
PETITIONER: MERCEDITA ACUÑA, MYRNA RAMONES, and
JULIET MENDEZ
RESPONDENTS: HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JOIN
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and/or ELIZABETH ALAÑON
SUMMARY: Acuna, Ramones and Mendez are Filipino overseas
workers deployed by Join International Corp. (JOIN), a licensed
recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D Pre-Color Plastic, Inc., (3D) in
Taiwan. Upon arriving at the job site, a factory owned by 3D, they were
made to sign another contract which stated that their salary was only
NT$11,840.00. They were informed that the dormitory which would serve
as their living quarters was still under construction. They were requested
to temporarily bear with the inconvenience but were assured that their
dormitory would be completed in a short time. They were brought to a
“small room with a cement floor so dirty and smelling with foul odor”. 40
women were in the room and each was given a pillow. Since the ladies'
comfort room was out of order, they had to ask permission to use the
men's comfort room. They were made to work twelve hours a day, from
8pm – 8am. Due to unbearable working conditions, they left. They booked
a flight home, at their own expense. Upon arrival in the Philippines,
Acuna et al. went to JOIN’s office and demanded the return of their
placement fees and plane fare. JOIN offered a settlement and they
accepted it and signed a quitclaim waiver. Afterwards, they filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment/underpayment of salaries
or wages, overtime pay, refund of transportation fare, payment of
salaries/wages for 3 months, moral and exemplary damages, and refund of
placement fee before the NLRC. Issue: Whether they were illegally
dismissed – NO. They admitted to resigning voluntarily without force or
coercion. It was found that: (1) Acuna, et. al. did not deny that the
accommodations were not as homely as expected but they were already
told upon arrival, that the dormitory was still under construction and were
requested to bear with the temporary inconvenience and the dormitory
would soon be finished; (2) aside from them, no other worker assigned to
3D resigned or filed a case for illegal dismissal. Because of these, there
was no malice by JOIN nor was there intent to subject Acuna, et. al. to the
unhealthy working conditions. Therefore, there was no constructive
dismissal.
DOCTRINE:. SC previously held that constructive dismissal covers the
involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment
becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an
employee. But, if there was no malice, fraud, or bad faith, like in this case,
and they voluntarily resigned, there was no constructive dismissal.
FACTS:
1. Acuna, Ramones and Mendez are Filipino overseas workers
deployed by Join International Corp. (JOIN), a licensed
recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D Pre-Color Plastic, Inc.,
(3D) in Taiwan, under a uniformly-worded employment contract
for a period of 2 years. Elizabeth Alañon is the president of Join
International Corporation.
2. Sometime in September 1999, Acuna et al. filed with JOIN
applications for employment abroad. They submitted their
passports, NBI clearances, medical clearances and other
requirements and each paid a placement fee of P14,850, evidenced
by official receipts.
3. After their papers were processed, Acuna et al. claimed they signed
a uniformly-worded employment contract with JOIN which
stipulated that they would work as machine operators with a
monthly salary of NT$15,840.00, exclusive of overtime, for 2
years.
4. On December 9, 1999, with 18 other contract workers they left for
Taiwan. Upon arriving at the job site, a factory owned by 3D, they
were made to sign another contract which stated that their salary
was only NT$11,840.00. They were informed that the dormitory
which would serve as their living quarters was still under
construction. They were requested to temporarily bear with the
inconvenience but were assured that their dormitory would be
completed in a short time.
5. They were brought to a “small room with a cement floor so dirty
and smelling with foul odor”. 40 women were in the room and
each was given a pillow. Since the ladies' comfort room was out of
order, they had to ask permission to use the men's comfort room.
They were made to work twelve hours a day, from 8pm – 8am.
6. Due to unbearable working conditions, they left. They booked a
flight home, at their own expense. Before they left, they were made
to sign a written waiver. They were also not paid any salary for
work rendered on December 11-15, 1999.
7. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Acuna et al. went to JOIN’s office
and demanded the return of their placement fees and plane fare.
JOIN refused.
8. JOIN offered a settlement. Mendez received P15,080. Acuña and
Ramones received P13,640 and P16,200, respectively. They claim
they signed a waiver, otherwise they would not be refunded.
9. Acuña and Mendez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-
payment/underpayment of salaries or wages, overtime pay, refund
of transportation fare, payment of salaries/wages for 3 months,
moral and exemplary damages, and refund of placement fee before
the NLRC. Petitioner Ramones filed her complaint 6 days after.
10. Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of Acuna et al. declaring that they
did not resign voluntarily. JOIN was ordered to pay them. JOIN
appealed to the NLRC
11. NLRC: Ruled that the inclusion of Alañon as respondent in this
case had no basis since JOIN has a separate legal personality. It
partially granted the appeal and ordered that the amounts of
P15,080, P13,640 and P16,200 received under the quitclaim by
Mendez, Acuña and Ramones be deducted from the award. They
were awarded attorney's fees, no moral and exemplary damages
and placement fees. JOIN’s motion for partial reconsideration was
denied.
12. CA ruled for JOIN and set aside the resolutions.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Acuna, et. al. were illegally dismissed – YES
RATIO:
1. Acuna et. al. admitted that they resigned voluntarily and without
force, coercion, intimidation, or pressure.
2. LA: They were not coerced into giving up their jobs, but the
deplorable, oppressive and sub-human working conditions drove
petitioners to resign. In effect, they did not voluntarily resign.
3. NLRC: Ruled that there was constructive dismissal since working
under said conditions was unbearable.
4. SC previously held that constructive dismissal covers the
involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer
becomes unbearable to an employee.
5. In this case, the CA found that: (1) Acuna, et. al. did not deny that
the accommodations were not as homely as expected but they were
already told upon arrival, that the dormitory was still under
construction and were requested to bear with the temporary
inconvenience and the dormitory would soon be finished; (2) aside
from them, no other worker assigned to 3D resigned or filed a case
for illegal dismissal. Because of these, there was no malice by
JOIN nor was there intent to subject Acuna, et. al. to the unhealthy
working conditions. Therefore, there was no constructive
dismissal.
Overtime Pay
6. JOIN claimed that they were not entitled to overtime pay because
they did not give proof that they actually rendered OT work. On
the other hand, Acuna et. al. said that they can’t show documentary
proof because their employment records were all with 3D.
Therefore, it should be enough that they alleged it with
particularity.
7. SC held that Acuna, et al. are entitled to overtime pay. The claim
of overseas workers against foreign employers could not be
subjected to same rules of evidence and procedure of those with
local employers. Normally, the SC requires presentation of
payrolls, daily time records and similar documents before allowing
claims for overtime pay, but in this case, that would be requiring
 the near-impossible. It is JOIN who could have obtained records to
rebut the claim for OT pay.
8. It is a rule that when there is doubt in a controversy between a
worker and an employer, it should be resolved in favor of the
worker. It is also the State’s policy to give maximum aid and
protection to labor. Hence, JOIN is solidarily liable with 3D
(Taiwan company) for the OT pay claims of Acuna, et. al.
9. Moral and exemplary damages – SC said not entitled. Moral and
exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an
employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act
oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy. The person claiming moral
damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and
convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. In
this case, they failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill motive, so they
cannot be awarded moral damages. Since there cannot be moral
damages, there cannot be exemplary damages or attorney’s fees
either. The records show that they were not deceived into signing
the quitclaim waiver.