GROUP 10

Dogcio, Ritzy Limmong, Roma

Pawid, Terence Valencia, Patricia

DOMESTIC WORKERS ACT

Who are covered by the Batas Kasambahay?

- The Batas Kasambahay applies to all domestic workers employed and working within
the Philippines (Sec. 3)
- Whether live in or live out arrangement (Rule I, Sec. 2, IRR)

Who are considered domestic workers?

- Those who are engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship (Sec. 4[d]).
- Domestic work refers to work performed in or for a household or households
(Sec. 4[c]).
- Household refers to the immediate members of the family or the occupants of the
house that are directly provided services by the domestic worker (Sec. 4[f]).
- The domestic worker should be hired specifically to perform household work

Who are excluded as domestic workers?

Under RA 10361 and its IRR, the following are not considered domestic workers:

1. Service providers;
2. Family drivers;
3. Children under foster family arrangements; and
4. Any other person who performs work occasionally or sporadically and not on an
occupational basis

How may a domestic worker be hired?

- A domestic worker may be hired directly or through a licensed private employment

agency (Rule II, Sec. 1, IRR).

- The private employment agency is solidarily liable with the employer for all the
wages and other benefits due a domestic worker.
What are the responsibilities of the Private Employment Agencies (PEAs)?

- Ensure that domestic workers are not charged or levied any recruitment or placement
fees;
- Ensure that the employment agreement between the domestic worker and the employer
stipulates the terms and conditions of employment and all the benefits prescribed by this
Act;
- Provide a pre-employment orientation briefing to the domestic worker and the employer
about their rights and responsibilities in accordance with this Act;
- Keep copies of employment contracts and agreements pertaining to recruited domestic
workers which shall be made available during inspections or whenever required by the
DOLE or local government officials;
- Assist domestic workers with respect to complaints or grievances against their
employers; and
- Cooperate with government agencies in rescue operations involving abused or exploited
domestic workers.

May children be employed as domestic workers?

- Yes, provided that they shall not be less than 15 years old and shall not be subjected to
the following:
- Work beyond 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week
- Work between 10pm and 6am
- Work which is hazardous or likely to be harmful to the health, safety or morals of
children (Rule VI, Sec. 2, IRR)

Where should an employer register his or her domestic worker?

- The employer is required to register their domestic workers in the barangay where the
employer’s residence is located (Sec. 17).

May a domestic worker start rendering service without an employment contract?

- No, an employment contract must be executed by and between the domestic worker and
the employer before the commencement of the service in a language or dialect
understood by both the domestic worker and the employer (Sec. 11).

What must be included in an employment contract for domestic work?

- Under Sec. 11, the contract for domestic work should contain the following stipulations:

1. Duties and responsibilities of the domestic worker

2. Period of employment
3. Compensation
 4. Authorized deductions
5. Hours of work and proportionate additional payment
6. Rest days and allowable leaves
7. Board, lodging and medical attention
8. Agreements on deployment expenses, if any
9. Loan agreement
10. Termination of employment
11. Any other lawful condition agreed upon by both parties

Working conditions of domestic workers

- The employer has the responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of the domestic
worker with due consideration of the peculiar nature of domestic work (Sec. 19).
- The employer shall provide basic necessities that include at least three adequate meals
a day and humane sleeping arrangements that ensure safety (Sec. 6[1]).
- The employer shall provide appropriate rest and assistance in case of illness or injuries
sustained during service (Sec. 6[2]). However the assistance excludes hospitalization
(Cuajao v Chua Lo Tan).
- A domestic worker is entitled to a total daily rest period of 8 hours per day (Sec. 20).
- A domestic worker is entitled to at least 24 consecutive hours of rest per week. The
agreement on the schedule of the weekly rest day of the domestic worker must be in
writing.
- The worker and employer may agree on the following:
a. Offsetting a day of absence with a particular rest day
b. Waiving a particular rest day in return for an equivalent daily rate of pay
c. Accumulating rest days not exceeding 5 days
d. Other similar arrangements
- Domestic workers who have rendered at least one year of service are entitled to an
annual service incentive leave of five days with pay (Sec. 29).
- Payment of wages must be made in cash to the domestic worker at least once a month
(Sec. 25[1]).
- The domestic worker is entitled to 13th month pay (Sec. 25[2]).
- The following are the minimum wages of a domestic worker:
- P2,500.00/month in NCR (P,5000.00 as of January 2, 2020)
- P2,000.00/month in chartered cities and 1st class municipalities (Depends on the
region, e.g. CAR, P4,000.00 of January, 2020).
- P1,500.00/month in other municipalities (CAR: P3,000.00)
- If the domestic worker is assigned to work in a commercial, industrial or agricultural
enterprise, he/she must be paid the applicable minimum wage (Sec. 22).
- Domestic workers who have rendered at least one month of service shall be covered by
SSS, PhilHealth, and PAG-IBIG. If the wage is less than P,5000.00, the employer
shoulders the premium contributions. If it is P5,000.00 or above, the domestic worker
and employer shoulder their respective premium contributions (Sec. 30). If
May the employer withdraw or withhold the provision of basic necessity as punishment
or disciplinary action to the domestic worker?

- No. At no instance shall the employer withdraw or hold in abeyance the provision of the
basic necessities as punishment or disciplinary action to the domestic worker (Sec. 6[3]).

May the unused service incentive leaves be carried over to the following year or
converted to cash?

- No. That any unused portion of said annual leave shall not be cumulative or carried over
to the succeeding years. Unused leaves shall not be convertible to cash (Sec. 29).

May an employer make deductions not mandated by law from the wage of the domestic
worker?

- As a general rule, no.

- Except if the domestic worker allows the deduction in writing
- The employer, unless allowed by the domestic worker through a written consent, shall
make no deductions from the wages other than that which is mandated by law (Sec. 25)

What are the rights of a domestic worker under RA 10361?

1. Right to humane treatment

- The employer or any member of the household shall not subject a domestic
worker to any kind of abuse nor inflict any form of physical violence or
harassment or any act tending to degrade the dignity of a domestic worker (Sec.
5).

- The employer shall provide for the basic necessities of the domestic worker to
include at least three adequate meals a day and humane sleeping arrangements
that ensure safety (Sec. 6)

2. Right to privacy

- The employer shall guarantee respect for the privacy of the domestic worker at
all times. This privacy extends to all forms of communication and personal effects
(Sec. 7).

3. Right of access to outside communication

- The employer shall grant the domestic worker access to outside communication
during free time and even during work time in case of emergency (Sec. 8).
 4. Right to education and training

- The employer shall afford the domestic worker the opportunity to finish basic
education and may allow access to alternative learning systems and, as far as
practicable, higher education or technical and vocational training. The employer
shall adjust the work schedule of the domestic worker to allow such access to
education or training without hampering the services required by the employer
(Sec. 9).

What are the obligations of a domestic worker?

1. Render satisfactory service at all times (Sec. 7)

2. Observe the terms and conditions of the employment contract (Sec. 34[e])
3. Refrain from publicly disclosing any communication or information pertaining to the
employer or members of the household during and after employment (Sec. 10)
- All communication and information pertaining to the employer or members of the
household is privileged and confidential, hence, inadmissible in evidence except
when the suit involves the employer or any member of the household in a crime
against persons, property, personal liberty and security, and chastity.

What are the criminal offenses under the Domestic Workers Act?

1. Employing a domestic worker who is below 15 years old (Sec. 16).

- It shall be unlawful to employ any person below 15 years of age as a domestic

worker.
- Employment of working children (over 15, below 18) shall be subject to the
provisions of RA 7610, Sec. 10(a), Sec. 12-A(2), Sec. 12-D(4), and Sec. 13.

2. Charging by the original employer any amount from the household where the service of
his domestic worker was temporarily performed (Sec. 23).

- The domestic worker and employer may mutually agree for the worker to
temporarily perform a task outside the employer’s household for the benefit of
another household.
- The employer bears any liability incurred by the domestic worker on account of
their mutual agreement.

3. Requiring the domestic worker to make deposits to answer for losses or damage to
tools, materials, furniture and equipment in the household (Sec. 14).

- Employer or his/her agent

4. Placing the domestic worker under debt bondage (Sec. 15)

 - Debt bondage refers to the rendering of service by the domestic worker as
security or payment for a debt where the length and nature of service is not
clearly defined or when the value of the service is not reasonably applied in the
payment of the debt (Sec. 4[a]).

5. Interfering with the freedom of the domestic worker to dispose of his wages, or forcing,
compelling or obliging the domestic worker to purchase merchandise, commodities or
other properties form the employer or from any other person, or otherwise make use of
any store or services of such employer or any other person (Sec. 27).

6. Withholding the wages of the domestic worker or inducing the domestic worker to give
up any part of his wages by force, intimidation, stealth, threat or by any other means
whatsoever.

- Directly or indirectly withholding wages

What is the penalty for criminal offenses under RA 10361?

- Criminal offenses under RA 10361 shall be punishable with a fine of not less than
P10,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00 (Sec. 40).
- Under Rule XII, Sec. 2 of the IRR:
- 10,000 first offense
- 20,000 second offense
- 30,000 third offense
- 40,000 fourth and succeeding offenses and for violations against working
children

May the domestic worker or employer terminate the contract before the expiration of the
term?
- As a general rule, no.

- Neither the domestic worker nor the employer may terminate the contract before the
expiration of term. However, the domestic worker may terminate the employment
relationship at any time before the expiration of the contract for any of the following
causes:

- Verbal or emotional abuse of the domestic worker by the employer or any

member of the household
- Inhuman treatment including physical abuse of the domestic worker by the
employer or any member of the household
- Commission of a crime or offense against the domestic worker by the employer
or any member of the household
 - Violation by the employer of the terms and conditions of the employment contract
and other standards set forth under RA 10361
- Any disease prejudicial to the health of the domestic worker, the employer, or
member/s of the household
- Other causes analogous to the forgoing

- Also, the employer may terminate the services of the domestic worker at any time before
the expiration of the contract, for any of the following causes:

- Misconduct or willful disobedience by the domestic worker of the lawful order of

the employer in connection with the kasambahay’s work
- Gross or habitual neglect or inefficiency by the domestic worker in the
performance of duties
- Fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed by the employer on the domestic
worker
- Commission of a crime or offense by the domestic worker against the person of
the employer or any immediate member of the employer’s family
- Violation by the domestic worker of the terms and conditions of the employment
contract and other standards set forth under RA 10361
- Any disease prejudicial to the health of the domestic worker, the employer, or
member/s of the household
- Other causes analogous to the foregoing

What are the rights of a domestic worker if he/she is unjustly dismissed?

- The domestic worker shall be paid the compensation already earned plus the equivalent
of 15 days work by way of indemnity (Sec. 32).

What are the rights of an employer if the domestic worker leaves without justifiable
reason?

- The employer has no obligation to pay any unpaid salary due not exceeding the
equivalent 15 days work. Also, if the domestic worker left within 6 months from his/her
employment, the employer may recover from the domestic worker costs incurred related
to the deployment expenses, if any (Sec. 32).

How may the working relationship be terminated if the duration of the domestic service is
not determined by stipulation or by the nature of the service?

- The employer or the domestic worker may give notice to end the working relationship
five days before the intended termination of the service (Sec. 32[2]).
May the employer and domestic worker agree to pre-terminate the contract of
employment?

- Yes, the domestic worker and the employer may mutually agree upon written notice to
pre-terminate the contract of employment to end the employment relationship (Sec.
32[3]).

May a domestic worker file a separate civil or criminal case against his/her employer who
committed any of the unlawful acts under RA 10361?

Yes because the penalty under Sec. 40, RA 10361 is without prejudice to the filing of
appropriate civil or criminal action by the aggrieved party.

Who has jurisdiction over disputes between the domestic worker and his/her employer?

- The DOLE Field/Provincial/Regional Office.

- All labor-related disputes shall be elevated to the DOLE Regional Office having
jurisdiction over the workplace without prejudice to the filing of a civil or criminal action in
appropriate cases.
- The DOLE Regional Office shall exhaust all conciliation and mediation efforts before
rendering a decision.
- Ordinary crimes by either party shall be filed with the regular courts (Sec. 37).
Case: Celia R. Atienza (Petitioner) vs. Noel Sacramento Saluta (Respondent)
GR No. 233413 17 June 2019

Facts:
Respondent: Noel Saluta alleged that he was hired as a company driver by CRV Corporation in
May 2012. He said he was to drive for Atienza, one of the company’s top officials and receive a
P9,000 monthly salary.

On Dec 11, 2014, he got into an vehicular accident which he admitted he was responsible for.
He had to pay P15,000 for the damages. It was paid for by the company, but will be deducted
from his monthly salary. On the said occasion, the authorities confiscated his driver’s license
and issued him a Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP).

On December 23, 2014, he told Atienza that he needed to be absent for that day since he had
to claim his driver’s license since his TOP had already expired. He said however that Atienza
did not agree as she had appointments lined up that day. It was illegal for him to drive without a
license so he decided to go the following day. Thus, on December 24, 2014, he failed to report
for work, but he first requested another company driver to drive for Atienza. When Atienza
learned that he was not around, she called him and threatened to terminate him.

Upon his return to the company that same day, the General Manager confirmed his termination.
He requested for his last salary as it was Christmas Eve, but was refused on the ground that he
has yet to reimburse the P15,000.

On April 7, 2015, he filed a complaint against CRV Corporation and Atienza for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for work on holidays and rest
day, illegal deduction, and issuance of a certificate of employment.

Petitioner: Atienza contended that Saluta was not dismissed from work, but rather abandoned
his job when he refused to report for work, and took a leave of absence without permission. She
also added that Saluta was hired as her personal/family driver, and that his salary was only
coursed through the General Manager.

The Labor Arbiter partly dismissed the complaint. He held that Saluta was not able to prove his
employment in the company, thus his prayers cannot be granted under the Labor Code and
instead governed by Articles 1689, 1697 and 1699 of the Civil Code. However, as for the issue
of illegal deduction, the P15,000 cannot be charged against Saluta as it had not been proven
that he was the one responsible for the accident. His request to be issued an employment
certificate must also be granted as he was entitled thereto pursuant to Article 1699 of the Civil
Code. His complaint for illegal dismissal was also dismissed for lack of evidence, but rather
have left his employment without justifiable reason. For such reason, he was deemed to have
forfeited the salary due him and unpaid pursuant to Article 1697 of the Civil Code.
NLRC reversed the decision and held that it is Atienza who has the burden of proof to show
their employee-employer relationship, not Saluta. The respective allegations of the parties show
that respondent was an employee of CRV Corporation, as Saluta was to report to and receive
salaries from the General Manager. Both parties failed to provide substantial evidence to
support their claims. Based on the fact that the salary was not released to Saluta and that there
was no clear intention for Saluta to sever his employee-employer relationship to the company, it
was inferred that he was indeed dismissed from work. But NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter
that the P15,000 should not be deducted from respondent's salary absent any showing that he
was responsible for the accident.

CA was not convinced that Atienza hired Saluta in her personal capacity for her failure to
present respondent's employment contract. As a top official, Atienza could have easily produced
evidence that Saluta was indeed not employed by the company. They also held that Atienza
also failed to prove that Saluta was terminated for just cause and with due process, rather, they
found that the reason for the failure of Saluta to report to work was reasonable. They were also
not convinced that Saluta abandoned his job as there was no evidence of clear intention to
sever his employment.

Issue:
1. Whether the respondent is the personal/family driver of the petitioner
2. Whether the respondent was dismissed from employment
3. Whether the respondent abandoned his work
4. Whether the Civil Code or Kasambahay Law shall govern the rights of family drivers
5. Whether the petitioner shall pay for wage differentials, holiday pay. 13th month pay, and
service incentive leave pay

Ruling:
1. Yes, since the respondent failed to prove that he was an employee of the CRV
Corporation.

Under our law, the onus probandi rests on the employer for illegal dismissal to prove that
the termination of an employee was with a valid cause, but before that, an
employer-employee relationship must first be proven by the employee for the complaint
to prosper. It is axiomatic that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law
should establish his or her right. The following are elements of an employer-employee
relationship:
● The selection and engagement of the employee
● Payment of wages
● Power of dismissal
● Power of control employee’s conduct

Here, the respondent failed to present his employment contract, company identification
card, company pay slip or any other document that will show that his services
were engaged by the CRV Corporation.
 Unfortunately, the respondent failed to hurdle the required burden of proof as would give
the ground for the Court to agree with him.

2. No, the respondent's claim of dismissal from work is insufficient to establish such fact.

In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination
was for a valid or authorized cause. However, there are cases wherein the facts and the
evidence do not establish prima facie that the employee was dismissed from
employment. Before the employer is obliged to prove that the dismissal was legal, the
employee must first establish by substantial evidence of fact, the dismissal from his
service. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or
illegality thereof. Bare and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute substantial
evidence and have no probative value.

It must be emphasized that the allegation of the respondent that he was verbally
terminated from his work is not sufficient as he failed to present competent evidence that
he is prevented from going to work. The General Manager did not corroborate the
claimed termination. The evidence presented to show the employee's termination from
employment must be clear, positive, and convincing. Absent any showing of an overt or
positive act proving that the petitioner had dismissed the respondent, the latter's claim of
illegal dismissal cannot be sustained.

3. No, the respondent did not abandon his work.

Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed

from certain equivocal acts. In Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. vs. Fuentes,
the 2 factors should be present in abandonment:
a. The failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason
b. Clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship (more determinative
factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the
employee has no more intention to work)

The burden of proof in this case is upon the employer who has the duty to observe due
process. Aside from Saluta’s absence, Atienza failed to present any conduct to show
Saluta’s desire to end his employment. Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to
report for work is not tantamount to abandonment of work.

An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have
abandoned his work. The filing of such a complaint is proof enough of his desire to
return to work, thus, negating any suggestion of abandonment.

4. The Civil Code shall govern the rights of Saluta as driver.

 Article 141, Chapter III, Book III on Employment of Househelpers of the Labor Code
mentioned family drivers in the coverage of domestic or household service. However,
Section 44 of Republic Act No. 10361 or Kasambahay Law repealed the given
provisions in the Labor Code and enumerated those workers included in the law, which
made no mention of family drivers. Following the maxim, expressio unius est exclusio
alterius, drivers are not covered under this law. Due to this, there is a need to revert back
to the Civil Code provisions for the rule for family drivers.

Following Article 1697 CC, the driver shall be paid the compensation he had already
earned plus that for 15 days by way of indemnity if he was unjustly dismissed. However,
if he left his employment without justifiable reason, he shall forfeit any salary due him
and unpaid for not exceeding 15 days. Given that there is neither dismissal nor
abandonment in this case, none of the party is entitled to claim any indemnity from the
other. Each party must bear his own loss.

Saluta’s act of not reporting to work due to miscommunication cannot justify payment of
any form of remuneration.

5. No, the petitioner is not liable for wage differentials, etc.

Saluta’s wage is reasonable and in accordance with Article 1689 CC, therefore there
were no wage differentials to be paid for. Holiday pay, 13th month pay, and incentive
leave pay should also not be paid for following Article 82, 94 and 95 of the Labor Code
which states that persons in the personal service of another, such as family drivers, are
exempted from the coverage of such benefits.

The reversal of the judgment rendered by the appellate court will not insure to the benefit
of CRV Corporation.

A reversal of a judgment on appeal is binding on the parties to the suit, but shall not
benefit the parties against whom the judgment was rendered in the court a quo, but who
did not join in the appeal, unless their rights and liabilities and those of the parties
appealing are so interwoven and dependent as to be inseparable, in which case a
reversal as to one operates as a reversal as to all.

CRY Corporation will not be harmed had the petitioner been held liable to pay the
respondent his unpaid wages. Conversely, petitioner did not suffer any monetary injury
when CRY Corporation was made liable to pay the respondent his unpaid wages.

Even if the petitioner is allegedly one of CRY Corporation's top officials, such
hypothetical fact does not translate, or even imply that. Moreover, no evidence was
offered by both parties that the petitioner was equipped with a board resolution that she
will be financially injured by an adverse money-claim judgment against the latter, or, at
least, authorized by corporate by-laws49 to represent CRY Corporation in the instant
suit. Therefore, the petitioner's appeal cannot benefit CRV Corporation.