PABLO, Warly G.

| Labor Law | LLB-2B1

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC. (AIMS)

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ANICETA LACERNA

FACTS:

Aniceta Lacerna was hired by Proxy Maid Services Centre (hereinafter

referred to as Proxy) thru petitioner AIMS, a recruitment entity in the Philippines.
She signed an employment contract as a domestic helper of Low See Ting, who
cancelled the same sometime in March 2000; subsequent to the cancellation of the
contract, Lacerna, with the assurance of a new employer from AIMS, proceeded to
Hongkong fetched by Tan Kmin Shwe Lin Charmain, her new employer but on May
2, 2000, she was dismissed by Charmain on the ground of “difficulty in
communication”. On May 20, 2000, she was transferred by Proxy to Tam Ching-
yee, Donna, who later on dismissed her without stating the reason. Proxy neither
gave her an explanation. On July 1, 2000, she agreed to take a three-day trial
period with another employer, Daisy Lee but before she could sign her contract she
was denied of her request for change of employer by the Hongkong government
and was advised instead to submit a fresh application with her country of domicile.
Upon her return to the Philippines, she was informed by AIMS that Daisy Lee
was no longer interested in hiring her; and that upon knowing this, she demanded
the return of her placement fee but was denied; Hence, this instant case of illegal
dismissal.
Petitioner AIMS alleged that Lacerna resigned after working for 5 days as a
domestic worker for Low See Ting, as evidenced by her resignation letter; That
Proxy paid her wages and return ticket to the Philippines, but respondent refused
to be repatriated.
Respondent argued that her first employer was Chairman, and not Low See
Ting, as she never got the chance to work for the latter. She also contends that the
signature on the resignation and on the receipt of payment was not hers, nor was
the handwriting.
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner AIMS, stating that Lacerna was not
illegally dismissed as shown by her resignation letter. However, this decision was
later on reversed by the Court of Appeals due to the lack of just or authorized
cause to justify Lacerna’s dismissal. The court also ruled that AIMS is solidarily
liable with Proxy, as provided by Sec. 10 of RA 8042, stating that the liability of the
principal employer and the recruitment agency shall not be affected by any
substitution, amendment or modification of the contract of employment.

ISSUE:
PABLO, Warly G. | Labor Law | LLB-2B1

Whether or not Lacerna was illegally dismissed? If yes, may AIMS be held liable for
the monetary claims of Lacerna?

HELD:
Yes. (1) There is no dispute that the last employer of Lacerna was Donna and
not Daisy Lee because the Hong Kong government directed her repatriation before
she could sign her contract with the latter. In dismissing her, Donna gave no reason
for her termination. Neither did Proxy explain the ground for her dismissal. And
where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination, the
law considers the matter, a case of illegal dismissal.
In termination cases involving Filipino workers recruited for overseas
employment, the burden of proving just or authorized cause for termination rests
with the foreign based employer/principal and the local based entity which
recruited the worker both being solidarily liable for liabilities arising from the illegal
dismissal of the worker. In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly declared
Lacerna s termination illegal since no reason was given to justify her termination.
The employment contract signed by Lacerna, as approved by the POEA, reveals
that Proxy was her designated principal employer. Since AIMS was the local agency
responsible for the recruitment of domestic helpers, such as Lacerna, for Proxy, it is
solidarily liable with the latter for liabilities arising from her illegal dismissal. To
absolve AIMS from liability would run in contravention to the avowed policy of the
state to protect the labor sector. The Court says that “the joint and solidary
liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign
employers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient
payment of what is due him.”

(2) As for the monetary claims, the Supreme Court cited Section 10 of R.A. No.
8042, which provides that: The liability of the principal/employer and the
recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be
joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas
employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance
bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all money claims for damages that may be awarded to the workers.
If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and
directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily
liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the
full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per
PABLO, Warly G. | Labor Law | LLB-2B1

annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or
for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
Hence, Lacerna is entitled to the full reimbursement of her placement fee
with interest rate 12% per annum, plus salaries for the unexpired portion of her
employment contract, or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less.