SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner,vs.JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014

TOPIC: Section 10 of RA 8042 vis-a-vis Section 7 of RA 10022

FACTS:

Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency.

Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a one-year employment contract for a monthly
salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26,
1997. She alleged that in her employment contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year. In
Taiwan, she was asked to work as a cutter.

Sameer claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without
prior notice, that she was terminated and that she should immediately report to their office to get her
salary and passport. She was asked to prepare for immediate repatriation. Joy claims that she was told
that from June 26 to July 14, 1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, Wacoal
deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.

On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC against petitioner
and Wacoal. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed LAs decision. CA affirmed the ruling of the
National Labor Relations Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three
months worth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorneys fees

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to the unexpired portion of her salary due to illegal dismissal.

HELD:

YES. The Court held that the award of the three-month equivalent of respondents salary should
be increased to the amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment contract.

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled
that the clause or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.

A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
passed at all.

The Court said that they are aware that the clause or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less was reinstated