Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
MANILA

SEVENTEENTH DIVISION

*****

ALMA TACDA MANUEL, CA-G.R. SP No. 157847

Petitioner,

- versus -

ASCENT SKILLS HUMAN Members:

RESOURCES SERVICES,
INC., SILVER CONTRACT YBAÑEZ, E.A., Chairperson,
MANPOWER OFFICE, QUIJANO-PADILLA, M.L.C., and
PRISCILLA K. VALENCIA, FIEL-MACARAIG, G.C., JJ.:
LESLIE SANTOS
VALENCIA, JOYCE
MENDOZA ZULUETA, Promulgated:
MOHAMMAD ALI ABANG
DATUCALI, NOEL DELA
CERNA EDROZO, The Board
of Directors of Ascent Skills
Human Resources Services, APRIL 15, 2019
Inc., and the NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
Respondents.
XXX----------------------------------------------------------------------------------xxx

DECISION

QUIJANO-PADILLA, J. :

The execution by the workers of a resignation letter and a quitclaim

cannot preclude them from instituting the instant case. Quitclaims by
laborers are frowned upon for being contrary to public policy and are held
to be ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the workers' rights.
The reason for such rule is obvious: the employer and the employee do not
stand on the same footing. It is more of a contract of adhesion than of
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 2 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

choice. The same is especially true in this case where the overseas workers,
feeling helpless and destitute in a foreign land, were compelled by dire
necessity and financial need to sign the same.

Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari are the June 7, 2018

Decision1 and July 24, 2018 Resolution2 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-L)02-
000142-18 [NLRC NCR CASE NO. 08-11803-17] reversing and
setting aside the December 19, 2017 Decision3 of the Labor Arbiter.
The case before the Labor Arbiter was for constructive dismissal,
sexual harassment, discrimination, maltreatment, trafficking and
damages, with the latter ruling in favor of petitioner Alma Tacda
Manuel.

The sole issue submitted in this case is whether petitioner was

constructively dismissed. The Court now harks back to an incident
that may have a bearing on the case now before it.

Petitioner applied for deployment to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as

a domestic helper.4 On the day of her departure, she saw her plane
ticket indicating that she was going to Abha, Saudi Arabia instead of
Riyadh. Upon arrival at the residence of her employer, she was able
to rest for 30 minutes and started working from 3:00 in the afternoon
until 3:00 in the morning of the following day. She slept for two (2)
hours only as she has to tend to three (3) children who are going to
school. Thereafter, she had to look after a one year and a half (1 ½)
old baby.5

On her third day, petitioner was ordered by her male

employer to massage his foot. She refused and explained that she
does not know how to massage inasmuch as the same was not part
of her contract. Her employer insisted and since the latter's wife was
inside the room, she agreed. When the wife went out after a while,
her male employer started touching her breasts and instructed her
to touch his private part. She ran out of the room and cried in the
kitchen.6 When the male employer left the house, petitioner told his

1
Rollo, pp. 39-54.
2
Id. at pp. 33-37.
3
Id. at pp. 56-65.
4
See Contract, Id. at pp. 86-88.
5
Id. at pp. 41 and 57.
6
Ibid..
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 3 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

wife about the incident. The latter confronted her husband and since
then, whenever petitioner would massage her male employer, she
would do it in the living room. At times, still, he would still touch
her breasts. Petitioner would notice him peeping into the common
women's room where she used to sleep.7

Petitioner decided to return to her recruitment agency and

was brought to respondent Silver Contract Manpower Office
(Silver) in Riyadh. She was told by its owner that he will look for
another employer for her. The agency succeeded in finding a new
employment for petitioner but since her new assignment will be in
Abha, Saudi Arabia, petitioner refused.8 While in Riyadh,
respondents introduced her to a man who was supposed to bring
her to her new employer. However, petitioner found out that she
was sold to United Project Company (UPC). In the meantime, she
was imprisoned in a room with a fellow applicant she met at
Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc., (Ascent). They were
given spoiled food but they were able to hide a mobile phone which
paved the way for her to ask for help from her family in the
Philippines. Petitioner alleged that two (2) months have passed and
she was simply given false hopes of a new employer. Before her
repatriation, Silver forced her to write a letter9 where she stated that
she has no claims against private respondents. Upon her arrival, she
immediately instituted the subject complaint.10

According to private respondents, petitioner was hired as a

household helper by the foreign employer Rawad Aied Al-Ghani.
Her employment contract had a duration of two (2) years and her
monthly salary was US$400.00. In 2007, petitioner started to work at
her employer's residence. During the first two (2) weeks of her
employment, she started to complain about how big the house she
had to clean everyday. After a month, she refused to work for
unknown reasons prompting her employer to send her back to
Silver. While at the office of Silver, it was explained that if petitioner
quits her job, she will have to refund the accrued cost of recruitment
for her replacement. Despite such explanation, petitioner refused to

7
Ibid.
8
Id. at pp. 42 and 58.
9
Id. at p. 125.
10
Id. at p. 42. See Complaint, Id. at pp. 179-180.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 4 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

go back to her employer and stayed instead at the accommodation

provided by Silver.11

Considering that petitioner was not able to complete her

employment contract, she was required by Silver to make a
voluntary statement regarding her refusal to continue working. She
was paid one (1) month salary and, on July 10, 2017, was repatriated
to the Philippines.12

RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER

In ruling for the petitioner, the Labor Arbiter in a Decision

dated December 19, 2017 noted that the former was able to narrate
with certainty and in a detailed manner the unbearable working
condition that she experienced in the hands of her foreign employer;
her request to be transferred to another employer; her ordeal in
staying at the agency without adequate provisions for food and
water as well as the failure of private respondents to offer her new
employment.13 The Labor Arbiter adjudged:14

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered as follows:

1) Declaring complainant to have been constructively

dismissed from employment.
2) Ordering respondents to solidarily pay complainant's
wages representing the unexpired portion of her contract in
the amount of SR31,455.00 or in its Philippine Peso
equivalent at the time of payment; moral and exemplary
damages in the amounts of P10,000.00 and 10% attorney's
fees.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

So Ordered.

11
Id. at pp. 42-43.
12
Id. at p. 43.
13
See Note 3 at p. 61.
14
Id. at pp. 64-65.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 5 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

RULING OF THE NRLC

On appeal, the NLRC ruled otherwise and held that petitioner

failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim of constructive
dismissal. Accordingly, the fact that petitioner was able to narrate
with certainty and in a detailed manner her working conditions
abroad do not amount to substantial evidence. Her assertion that
she was constructively dismissed without offering evidence, is not
sufficient to discharge such burden. In fact, her affidavit alone does
not shift the burden of proof.15 It thus decreed in this wise:16

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's

partial appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, while
respondents' appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
Decision dated 19 December 2017 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered declaring that
complainant was not constructively dismissed. Accordingly,
the monetary awards granted to her are hereby DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration17 of the said Decision

but the same was denied for lack of merit. The NLRC explained:18

In the instant case, complainant failed to justify the

delay in the submission of her additional evidence. No
explanation was offered by the complainant why the
additional evidence was only submitted at the time of filing
the present Motion for Reconsideration.

At any rate, after examining the allegations in the

affidavit, We found nothing therein that would prove
complainant's assertion of dismissal from employment. As
can be noted from the affidavit of Ms. Love Presbitero, she
was not personally present during the times that
complainant was allegedly harassed by the latter's
employer. Neither was she physically present when
complainant decided to sever her employment with her

15
See Note 1 at pp. 46-47.
16
Id. at p. 49.
17
Id. at pp. 68-85.
18
See Note 2 at p. 35.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 6 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

employer. Worse, the same affidavit states that when she

met the complainant, she was helped by the latter, and even
lent her a cellular phone. These statements of affiant
Presbiterio only subjected her affidavit to possible
suspicion.

ISSUE

Was petitioner constructively dismissed?

RULING OF THE COURT

The petition has merit.

In filing this labor complaint, petitioner maintained that she

was constructively dismissed, citing several circumstances making
her continued employment unendurable and unacceptable. She
enumerated in detail her concerns such as (1) she was deployed in
Abha not in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; (2) the sexual advances of the
male employer unto her including the touching of her breasts and
forcing her to touch his private part; (3) her transfer to another
employment agency, United Project; (4) she was locked along with
another applicant in a room and were not given water to drink or
decent food to eat. To the Court's mind, these circumstances
attributable to private respondents are easily rebuttable.
Interestingly, though, neither Ascent Skills Human Resources
Services nor Silver refute these.

Assuming that it was petitioner who refused to be transferred

to UPC, her work in Abha, Saudi Arabia, to begin with, was not
shown to have been processed through the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA). It can be recalled that petitioner was
originally deployed to work in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia but was
surprised to see her plane ticket indicating that she was going to
Abha. Such fact, again, was not denied by private respondents and
was corroborated by her own employment contract with Silver. 19
Article 18 of the Labor Code provides that no employer may hire a
Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the boards
and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Section 4 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas
19
Id. at pp. 179-180.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 7 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

Filipino Act of 1995, as amended, further declares that the State shall
only allow the deployment of overseas workers in countries where
the rights of Filipino migrant workers are protected. The POEA,
through the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
reviews and checks whether the countries have existing labor and
social laws protecting the rights of workers, including migrant
workers. Unless processed through the POEA, the State shall have
no effective means of assessing the suitability of the foreign laws to
our migrant workers.20

Petitioner's assignment as domestic helper in Abha, Saudi

Arabia instead of Riyadh as stated in her contract with Silver, was a
breach of the original contract approved by the government. Hence,
petitioner's refusal to accept another work from UPC was proper
under the circumstances. The Court cannot tolerate this practice as it
will open floodgates to even more abuses of our overseas workers in
the hands of their foreign employers and recruiters. If We allow this,
recruitment agencies could easily escape their mandated solidary
liability for breaches of the POEA- approved contract by colluding
with their foreign counterparts in substituting the approved contract
with another upon the worker's arrival in the country of
employment. Such outcome is certainly contrary to the State's policy
of extending protection and support to our overseas workers. To
reiterate, the Migrant Workers Act explicitly prohibits the
substitution or alteration, to the prejudice of the workers, of the
employment contracts approved and verified by the government
through its appropriate agency, from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the
expiration of the same without the approval of the DOLE.

Lastly, while it is shown that petitioner executed a waiver in

favor of her employer, as shown by an undated letter,21 the same
cannot preclude her from filing the suit.

Generally, the employee's waiver or quitclaim cannot prevent

the employee from demanding benefits to which he or she is
entitled to, and from filing an illegal dismissal case. This is because
waiver or quitclaim is looked upon with disfavor, and is frowned
upon for being contrary to public policy. Unless it can be established
20
See Industrial Personnel and Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, G.R. No. 205703, March 7, 2016.
21
Id. at p. 125.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 8 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

that the person executing the waiver voluntarily did so, with full
understanding of its contents, and with reasonable and credible
consideration, the same is not a valid and binding undertaking.
Moreover, the burden to prove that the waiver or quitclaim was
voluntarily executed is with the employer.22

In this case, private respondents failed to successfully

discharge this burden. Neither Ascent Skills Human Resources
Services nor Silver show that petitioner indeed voluntarily waived
her claims against the employer. In fact, even if petitioner signed a
quitclaim, it does not necessarily follow that she freely and
voluntarily agreed to waive all her claims against her employer
considering the lack of any reasonable consideration stipulated or
indicated in the letter. Verily, this quitclaim, under the semblance of
a final settlement, cannot absolve private respondents from liability
arising from the employment contract of petitioner.

Lastly, We rebuke private respondents' unscrupulous and

despicable act of deploying petitioner to Abha instead of Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, assigning her to another agency which is UPC and
making her sign a quitclaim/waiver just to evade payment of their
legal obligation to her. The execution of said letter appears to be
suspicious because of the desperate and helpless situation of
petitioner. This is precisely the reason why such documents are
commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy. They are
ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the worker's rights as
highlighted by the fact that the employer and the employee do not
stand on the same footing. Contracts of such nature, as We have
seen here, usually take the form of contracts of adherence, not of
choice.

As to the award of damages, the Court finds the award of

Php10,000.00 as moral damages and Php10,000.00 as exemplary
damages as proper and reasonable. With regard to the award of
attorney's fees, the Court recognizes that "in actions for recovery of
wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur
expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's

22
Dagasdas v. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation, G.R. No. 205727, January 18, 2017
citing Universal Staffing Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 581 Phil. 199, 209-210
(2008).
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 9 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

fees is legally and morally justifiable." Due to her illegal dismissal,

petitioner was forced to litigate.

In the dispositive portion of its decision, the Labor Arbiter

failed to award legal interest in the monetary awards. In view of the
ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,23 the legal interest is hereby fixed at
6% per annum.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The June 7, 2018

Decision and July 24, 2018 Resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-L)02-000142-18
[NLRC NCR CASE NO. 08-11803-17] are REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE. The December 19, 2017 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is
hereby REINSTATED. In addition, legal interest shall be computed
at the rate of 6% per annum of the total monetary award from date of
finality of this decision until full satisfaction thereof.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MA. LUISA C. QUIJANO-PADILLA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

ELIHU A. YBAÑEZ GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG
Associate Justice Associate Justice

23
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157847 Page 10 of 10
Decision
x -----------------------------x

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ELIHU A. YBAÑEZ
Chairperson, Seventeenth Division