Salvador, Joshua Philippe S.

2C

Philippine Employ Services and Resources Inc.

v
Paramio
(GR No. 144786 April 15, 2004)

Topic: Illegal Dismissal (Valid dismissal of an employee)

Facts:
The respondents Paramio, Navarra, Sarmiento, Guillermo, Bautista and Curameng applied for
employment in Taiwan with the Philippine Employ Services and Resources Inc., a domestic
corporation engaged in the recruitment and deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers. Each of
them paid a placement fee of Php 19,000 and executed a one-year contract employment with
the employer Taiwan Kuan Yuan Fiber. They were deployed but when they arrived in Taiwan,
they discovered that their quarters had no beddings, pillows, and blankets. There was also a
mandatory imposition of overtime work exceeding 10 hours without just overtime compensation
and there were irregular deductions on their salaries for littering violation of only one employee.
They raised their concerns to the manager of the PSRI but the latter did not act in favor of them.
The PSRI told them that they should forget about their complaints and. They then went to the
OWWA but again, their concerns were denied. Navarra was then repatriated without being
informed of the cause and was escorted by the police to the airport. The rest of the respondents
decided to go home but they were required to pay the employer to pay NT$30,000 for them to
be allowed to go home. The respondents failed to pay. They were then given the option to be
imprisoned or sign an agreement that would deduct 30,000 to their salaries and another 10,000
for a bond. Respondent Paramio got ill because the employer failed to provide breakfast and
dinner the night before he was ordered to go to work. He injured his thumb when he was tasked
to carry a 30kg container when he slipped because of his current condition. The employer then
told him to return to the Philippines, but the Taiwanese Labor Department intervened and told
the employer that they do not have the power to send Paramio home because the accident
happened in the workplace. When Paramio reported back to work, he was given the hardest job
and was tasked to carry 200m of maong. The employer also deducted his salary. The
respondents were not able to bear the conditions of their work and they decided to go back to
the Philippines. The employer agreed to send them back home, provided, that they write letters
of resignation. They all went back home but they all paid for their own plane tickets.
When they returned to the Philippines, they filed complaints with the NLRC for illegal dismissal,
refund of placement fees and plane fares and litigation expenses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed
RULING:
Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed. The court ruled that the respondent’s dismissal
was not based on just, valid, and legal grounds. Preliminarily, it bears stressing that the
respondents who filed the complaints for illegal dismissal against the petitioner were OFWs
whose employment contracts were approved by the POEA and were entered into and perfected
here in the Philippines. As such, the rule lex loci contractus or the law of the place where the
contract is made governs, therefore the Labor Code shall govern. In order to effect a valid
dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there be just and valid cause as provided in
Article 282 and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself. Dismissal may also be based on any of the authorized causes provided for in Articles
283 and 284 of the Labor Code. The petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to
overcome the evidence of the respondents as contained in their respective affidavits. Contrary
to the petitioner's claim, the said affidavits are not hearsay evidence. The respondents were the
victims of the abuses of their employer; as such, they had personal knowledge of the contents
of their affidavits. Moreover, when there is a doubt between the evidence presented by the
employer and the employee, such doubt should be resolved in favor of labor.