PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC.

, AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES, 

vs
DESIREE T. MASAGCA,

G.R. No. 191310

Facts:

Respondent auditioned for a singing contest at ABC-Channel 5 in Novaliches, Quezon

City when a talent manager approached her to discuss her show business potential.
Enticed by thoughts of a future in the entertainment industry, respondent went to the
office of petitioner PTCPI, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of training
and development of actors, singers, dancers, and musicians in the movie and
entertainment industry. Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas Performing Artists to
Korea (Employment Contract) was executed. Wherein it states this contract shall be
enforced for the period of six months, Extendible by another six months by mutual
agreement of the parties.The contract shall commence upon the Talent's departure
from The Philippines and shall remain in force as Stipulated in the duration, unless
sooner terminated by the mutual consent of the parties or due to circumstances beyond
their control. Booking of Talent Shall be effected within three (3) days upon arrival in
Korea. NAME OF PERFORMANCE VENUE, Siheung Tourist Hotel Night Club.
COMPENSATION: The Talent shall receive a monthly compensation of a Minimum of
U.S.D. $600, based on The categories of the ARB, skill and experience of the Talent,
and of the Performance Venue) which shall accrue beginning on the day of the Talent's
Departure from the Philippines and shall be paid every end of the month directly To The
Talent. Hours of work: Maximum of Five (5) hours per day, Rest day: One (1) day a
week, Overtime Rate: (100) percent of regular rate or the prevailing rate in Korea as
Required by the Labor Standard Act. Under its termination clause it states that

Desiree Masagca’s Contention:

Respondent alleged that she was made to sign two Employment Contracts but she was
not given the chance to read any of them despite her requests. Respondent had to rely
on petitioner Moldes' representations that: (a) her visa was valid for one year with an
option to renew; (b) SAENCO would be her employer; (c) she would be singing in a
group with four other Filipinas at Seaman's Seven Pub at 82-8 Okkyo-Dong, Jung-Gu,
Ulsan, South Korea; (d) her Employment Contract had a minimum term of one year,
which was extendible for two years; and (e) she would be paid a monthly salary of
US$400.00, less US$100.00 as monthly commission of petitioners

Petitioner Moldes also made respondent sign several spurious loan documents by
threatening the latter that she would not be deployed if she refused to do so.
Respondent worked at Seaman's Seven Pub in Ulsan, South Korea - not at Siheung
Tourist Hotel Night Club in Siheung, South Korea as stated in her Employment Contract
without receiving any salary from SAENCO. Respondent subsisted on the 20%
commission that she received for every lady's drink the customers purchased for her.
Worse, respondent had to remit half of her commission to petitioner Moldes for the
payment of the fictitious loan.

When respondent failed to remit any amount to petitioner Moldes in May 2004,
petitioner Moldes demanded that respondent pay the balance of the loan supposedly
amounting to US$10,600.00. To dispute the loan, respondent engaged the legal
services of Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar, which managed to obtain copies of respondent's
Employment Contract and Overseas Filipino Worker Information Sheet. It was only then
when respondent discovered that her employment was just for six months and that her
monthly compensation was US$600.00, not just US$400.00.

Respondent further narrated that on 2004, petitioner Moldes went to South Korea and
paid the salaries of all the performers, except respondent MASAGCA, also Park (one of
the petitioner) turned respondent over to the South Korean immigration authorities for
deportation on the ground of overstaying in South Korea with an expired visa. It was
only at that moment when respondent found out that petitioner Moldes did not renew
her visa. Respondent filed the complaint against petitioners and SAENCO praying that a
decision be rendered declaring them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay
her unpaid salaries for one year, inclusive of her salaries for the unexpired portion of
her Employment Contract, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's
fees

Petitioners' Allegations

Petitioners countered that respondent signed only one Employment Contract, and that
respondent read its contents before affixing her signature on the same. Petitioners
additionally contended that respondent, on her own, extended her Employment
Contract with SAENCO, and so petitioners' liability should not extend beyond the
original six-month term of the Employment Contract because the extension was made
without their participation or consent. Petitioner additionally stated that the respondent
violated terms and conditions of Club Policies by engaging in immoral acts and that
respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on account of her illegal or immoral
activities. Petitioners also insisted that respondent's salaries were paid in full as
evidenced by the nine cash vouchers. Petitioners submitted as well the Sworn
Statement dated November 9, 2004 of Baltazar D. Fuentes (Baltazar), respondent's
husband, to prove that respondent obtained a loan from petitioner PTCPI.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The labor arbiter dismissed, the respondent’s complaint on the basis of the following:

The facts of the case and the documentary evidence submitted by both parties would
show that herein (respondent] was not illegally dismissed because this Office has noted
that the POEA approved contract declares that the duration of [respondent's]
employment was for six (6) months only. The fact that the duration of [respondent's]
employment was for six (6) months only is substantiated by the documentary evidence
submitted by both parties. Common evidence submitted by the parties would prove that
[respondent's] employment was for six (6) months only. There is likewise no evidence
on record which would show that the POEA approved such an extension. Following the
above ruling, the [respondent] is likewise not entitled to the payment of the unexpired
portion of the employment contract.

The focal point of controversy is whether or not [respondent] was paid her salaries

It becomes clear therefore that [respondent] miserably failed to destroy the evidentiary
value of the vouchers presented by the [petitioners). This Office will not dare to declare
as void or incompetent the vouchers signed by the [respondent) in the absence of any
evidence showing any irregularity so much so that this Office did not fail to notice the
inconsistencies in the respondent's] position paper.

[Respondent's] claim for the payment of overtime pay likewise lacks merit. There was
no showing that [respondent] actually rendered overtime work. Mere allegation is not
sufficient to establish [respondent's] entitlement to overtime pay.

Ruling of the NLRC

NLRC initially ruled in favor of the respondent however it reversed its decision upon the
filing of Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners according to NLRC respondent's
appeal was dismissible for several fatal procedural defects

Section 4, requisites for Perfection of Appeal. - a) The appeal shall be: 1) filed within
the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by the appellant
himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in
the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the
arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date
the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly
typewritten or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the
required appeal fee, ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this
Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other
parties
The above-quoted Rules explicitly provides for the requisites for perfecting an appeal,
which [respondent] miserably failed to comply. [Respondent's] Memorandum of Appeal
contains no averments as to the date [respondent) or her counsel received the Decision
of the Labor Arbiter. The appeal is unverified. No certificate of non-forum shopping was
attached to the appeal. The NLRC set technicalities aside and still proceeded to resolve
the case on the merits, ultimately finding that respondent failed to present evidence to
prove she had been illegally dismissed. We cannot subscribe to [respondent's]
contention that she was illegally dismissed from her employment. Records show that
the Model Employment Contract presented as evidence by both [respondent] and
[petitioners and SAENCO] would prove that [respondent's] employment was for a
period of six (6) months only. Aside from [respondent's] allegation that (petitioners and
SAENCO] misrepresented to her that her contract is for a period of one (1) year, there
is no other evidence on record which will corroborate and strengthen such allegation.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision, took a liberal approach by excusing the technical
lapses of respondent's appeal before the NLRC for the sake of substantial justice:

The appellate court then held that respondent was dismissed from employment without
just cause and without procedural due process, and that petitioners and SAENCO were
solidarily liable to pay respondent her unpaid salaries for one year and attorney's fees:

Time and again, it has been ruled that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the
dismissal rests with the employer. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon
the employer to show that the dismissal was for just and valid cause. Failure to do so
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal.

the Supreme Court held that where termination cases involve a Filipino worker recruited
and deployed for overseas employment, the burden to show the validity of the dismissal
naturally devolves upon both the foreign-based employer and the employment agency
or recruitment entity which recruited the worker, for the latter is not only the agent of
the former, but is also solidarily liable with its foreign principal for any claims or
liabilities arising from the dismissal of the worker

Issue: whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed?

RATIO DECIDENDI:
Yes, it is undisputed that when respondent was dismissed from employment and
repatriated to the Philippines in June 2004, her original six-month Employment Contract
with SAENCO had already expired.

It is undisputed that when respondent was dismissed from employment and repatriated
to the Philippines in June 2004, her original six-month Employment Contract with
SAENCO had already expired.

Although respondent's employment with SAENCO was good for six months only (i.e.,
September 6, 2003 to March 5, 2004) as stated in the Employment Contract, the Court
is convinced that it was extended under the same terms and conditions for another six
months (i.e., March 6, 2004 to September 5, 2004). Respondent and petitioners
submitted evidence establishing that respondent continued to work for SAENCO in
Ulsan, South Korea even after the original six-month period under respondent's
Employment Contract expired on March 5, 2004. Ideally, the extension of respondent's
employment should have also been reduced into writing and submitted/reported to the
appropriate Philippine labor authorities. Nonetheless, even in the absence of a written
contract evidencing the six-month extension of respondent's employment, the same is
practically admitted by petitioners, subject only to the defense that there is no proof of
their knowledge of or participation in said extension and so they cannot be held liable
for the events that transpired between respondent and SAENCO during the extension
period. Petitioners presented nine vouchers to prove that respondent received her
salaries from SAENCO for nine months.

The Court finds that respondent was illegally dismissed.

Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal,
which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of
dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the
termination of employment was valid. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and
conclusions of the employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the
employee. When in doubt, the case should be resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the
social justice policy of our labor laws and the 1987 Constitution

The Liabilities of Petitioners and SAENCO

From its findings herein that (1) respondent's Employment Contract had been extended
for another six months, ending on September 5, 2004; and (2) respondent was illegally
dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines in June 2004, the Court next proceeds to
rule on the liabilities of petitioners and SAENCO to respondent.
Respondent's monetary claims against petitioners and SAENCO is governed by Section
10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as The Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995, which provides:

Section 10. Money Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the
Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days
after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee
relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages

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 monetary claims or 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.

The Court finds that respondent had been paid her salaries for the nine months she
worked in Ulsan, South Korea, so she is no longer entitled to an award of the same.

It is a settled rule of evidence that the one who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the
burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove
nonpayment.50

In the case at bar, petitioners submitted nine cash vouchers with respondent's
signature. That the nine cash vouchers did not bear the name of SAENCO and its Tax
Identification Number is insignificant as there is no legal basis for requiring such. The
vouchers clearly state that these were "salary full payment" for the months of October
5, 2003 to June 5, 2004 for US$600.00 to respondent and each of the vouchers was
signed received by respondent. After carefully examining respondent's signatures on
the nine cash vouchers, and even comparing them to respondent's signatures on all the
pages of her Employment Contract, the Court observes that respondent's signatures on
all documents appear to be consistently the same. The consistency and similarity of
respondent's signatures on all the documents supports the genuineness of said
signatures. At this point, the burden of evidence has shifted to respondent to negate
payment of her salaries.

FALLO:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review
on Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated November 27,
2009 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. For the illegal
dismissal of respondent Desiree T. Masagca, petitioners Princess Talent Center
Production, Inc. and Luchi Singh Moldes, together with Saem Entertainment Company,
Ltd., are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay respondent the following: (a)
US$1,800.00, representing respondent's salaries for the unexpired portion of her
extended Employment Contract, subject to legal interest of 12% per annum from June
2004 to June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 to the date that this
Decision becomes final and executory; (b) reimbursement of respondent's placement
fees with 12% interest per annum from June 2004 to the date that this Decision
becomes final and executory; and (c) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total
monetary award. The order for payment of respondent's salaries from September 2003
to May 2004 is DELETED. All the monetary awards herein to respondent shall earn
legal interest of 6% per annum from the date that this Decision becomes final and
executory until full satisfaction thereof.