ARLENE A. CUARTOCRUZ, petitioner, v. ACTIVE WORKS, INC., AND MA. ISABEL E.

HERMOSA, BRANCH MANAGER, respondents.

Nature of the Case: Complaint for Illegal Dismissal

Facts: Arlene A. Cuartocruz (petitioner) and Cheng Chi Ho, a Hong Kong national, entered into a
contract of employment whereby petitioner shall work as the latter's domestic helper for a period
of two (2) years. Petitioner was tasked to do household chores and baby-sitting, among others, for
a monthly salary of HK$3,400.00 and other emoluments and benefits provided under the contract.
Respondent Active Works, Inc. (AWI), a Philippine corporation engaged in the recruitment of
domestic helpers in Hong Kong, is petitioner's agency, and respondent Ma. Isabel Hermosa is its
Branch Manager.

On August 11, 2007, petitioner received a warning letter from her employer, stating that she will
be terminated unless she improve her attentiveness in performing her work within one month.
However, in a letter dated August 16, 2007, Cheng Chi Ho informed the Immigration Department
of Wangchai, Hong Kong that he is terminating the contract with petitioner effective immediately
for the following reasons: "disobey order (sic), unmatch the contract which she submit
before (sic), [and] refuse to care my baby (sic)."

Petitioner filed a case against her employer before the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication
Board, but it was eventually dismissed and petitioner was repatriated at the instance of
AWI. Petitioner alleged that while in Manila, AWI offered her P15, 000.00 as a settlement fee but
she declined it, believing that she is entitled to a higher amount.

Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal, payment of
unpaid salaries and salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract of
employment, reimbursement of placement fee and other fees incident to petitioner's deployment
to Hong Kong, and moral and exemplary damages. Petitioner denied committing the acts imputed
to her by Cheng Chi Ho, and claimed that those were baseless and fabricated. Further, at no time
was her attention called with respect to those acts that she allegedly committed.

On June 16, 2008, the Executive LA (ELA) rendered a Decision finding the termination of
petitioner's employment contract without notice as valid and legal. The ELA held that petitioner
failed to improve her performance and attitude despite warning by the employer. She also
misrepresented herself to be single, but later on admitted that she was separated with a child. As
to money claims, the ELA held that petitioner is not entitled to salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of her contract since she was dismissed for cause. However, she is entitled to
be paid salaries for the six days that she has rendered service to her employer, which shall be
offset to the expenses incurred on her repatriation.

NLRC reversed the ELA Decision and ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. It held
that there is insufficient proof of petitioner's alleged poor work performance. The warning letter
that petitioner received from her employer did not even specify what work needs improvement.
Petitioner was not given notice of specific violations that she allegedly committed and a chance to
explain her side. She was also denied due process when the warning letter gave her one month to
improve her work performance, but she was dismissed five days after. With respect to petitioner's
alleged dishonesty in concealing her civil status, jurisprudence has settled that this is a form of
dishonesty so trivial that it will not warrant the penalty of dismissal.
Consequently, the NLRC found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and awarded her full
reimbursement of her placement fee of P45,000.00 with 12% interest per annum pursuant to RA
8042, reimbursement of P2,500.00 medical examination fee, and unpaid salaries equivalent to
three months for every year of the unexpired portion of the contract, or a total period of six
months.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.  Hence, they filed a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 26, 2012, the CA rendered its
Decision affirming with modification the NLRC Resolution.

Issue: Whether the nature of the liability of the recruitment agency and the principal employer to
the reimbursement of the placement fee and unpaid salaries of the illegally dismissed employee is
solidary.

Held: YES. Respondents cannot escape liability from petitioner's money claims. Section 10 of
RA 8042 provides:

The liability of the employer and the recruitment or placement agency are jointly liable
for money claims arising from the employment relationship or any contract involving
overseas Filipino workers. If the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be
jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims
and damages.

In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their foreign
principals, RA 8042 precisely affords OFWs with recourse and assures them of immediate and
sufficient payment of what is due them.

Fallo:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The April 26, 2012 Decision and July 30, 2013
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03292
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is entitled to: 1) unpaid salaries for 14 days
in the amount of HK$ 1,586.67; 2) salaries for the entire unexpired portion of her employment
contract consisting of one year, 11 months and 16 days at the rate of HK$3,400.00 per month;
and 3) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. These amounts shall then
earn 6% interest per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.

The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the exact amounts due to
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.