Chavez is a dancer who was contracted by Centrum Placement & Promotions

Corporation to perform in Japan for 6 months. The contract was for $1.5k a month,
which was approved by POEA. After the approval of said contract, Chavez entered
into a side contract reducing her salary with her Japanese employer through her local
manager-agency (Jaz Talents Promotion). The salary was reduced to $500 and $750
was to go to Jaz Talents. In February 1991 (two years after the expiration of her
contract), Chavez sued Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents for underpayment of
wages
before
the
POEA.
The POEA ruled against her. POEA stated that the side agreement entered into by
Chavez with her Japanese employer superseded the Standard Employment Contract;
that POEA had no knowledge of such side agreement being entered into; that Chavez
is barred by laches for sleeping on her right for two years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Chavez is entitled to relief.
HELD: Yes. The SC ruled that the managerial commission agreement executed by
Chavez to authorize her Japanese Employer to deduct her salary is void because it is
against our existing laws, morals and public policy. It cannot supersede the standard
employment contract approved by the POEA with the following stipulation appended
thereto:
It is understood that the terms and conditions stated in this
Employment Contract are in conformance with the Standard
Employment Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the POEA under
Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. Any alterations or
changes made in any part of this contract without prior approval by
the POEA shall be null and void;
The side agreement which reduced Chavezs basic wage is null and void for violating
the POEAs minimum employment standards, and for not having been approved by
the POEA. Here, both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents are solidarily liable.
Laches does not apply in the case at bar. In this case, Chavez filed her claim well
within the three-year prescriptive period for the filing of money claims set forth in
Article 291 of the Labor Code. For this reason, laches is not applicable.