PERT CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Vinuya

9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 680
G.R. No. 197528. September 5, 2012.*
PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., petitioner, vs.

ARMANDO A. VINUYA, LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S.
LUMANTA, JR., ROBELITO S. ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R.
ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY O. ENJAMBRE and
NOEL T. LADEA, respondents.
Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Words and Phrases; Article 38 of the

Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042, defined “illegal recruitment” to
include the following act: To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the
worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of
Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the
parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without
the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment.—Clearly, the
agency and Modern Metal committed a prohibited practice and engaged in
illegal recruitment under the law. Article 34 of the Labor Code provides:
Art. 34. Prohibited Practices. It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity,
licensee, or holder of authority: x x x x (i) To substitute or alter employment
contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time
of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of
expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor[.]
Further, Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042, defined
“illegal recruitment” to include the following act: (i) To substitute or alter to
the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by
the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the
same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment[.]
Same; Termination of Employment; Constructive Dismissal; A
constructive dismissal or discharge is a quitting because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer
involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.—With their original
contracts substituted and their oppressive working
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
285
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 285

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea75b9a1ab7347aea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. vs. Vinuya
and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved, the respondents’ decision

to resign is not surprising. They were compelled by the dismal state of their
employment to give up their jobs; effectively, they were constructively
dismissed. A constructive dismissal or discharge is “a quitting because
continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as,
an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.”
Statutory Construction; Retroactivity of Laws; Laws shall have no
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.—Laws shall have no
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. By its very nature, the
amendment introduced by R.A. 10022—restoring a provision of R.A. 8042
declared unconstitutional—cannot be given retroactive effect, not only
because there is no express declaration of retroactivity in the law, but
because retroactive application will result in an impairment of a right that
had accrued to the respondents by virtue of the Serrano ruling—entitlement
to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Manicad, Ong, Dela Cruz & Fallarme for petitioner.
Leaño, Leaño & Leaño III Law Office for respondents.
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1 assailing
the decision2 dated May 9, 2011 and the resolution3
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 27-64; filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id., at pp. 107-121; penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a
member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Estela M. Perlas-
Bernabe (now also a member of this Court) and Elihu A. Ybañez.
3 Id., at pp. 138-139.
286
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

dated June 23, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP

No. 114353.
The Antecedents
On March 5, 2008, respondents Armando A. Vinuya, Louie M.
Ordovez, Arsenio S. Lumanta, Jr., Robelito S. Anipan, Virgilio R.
Alcantara, Marino M. Era, Sandy O. Enjambre and Noel T. Ladea
(respondents) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
petitioner Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. (agency), and its

President Romeo P. Nacino.
The respondents alleged that the agency deployed them between
March 29, 2007 and May 12, 2007 to work as aluminum
fabricator/installer for the agency’s principal, Modern Metal
Solution LLC/MMS Modern Metal Solution LLC (Modern Metal) in
Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
The respondents’ employment contracts,4 which were approved
by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA),
provided for a two-year employment, nine hours a day, salary of
1,350 AED with overtime pay, food allowance, free and suitable
housing (four to a room), free transportation, free laundry, and free
medical and dental services. They each paid a P15,000.00
processing fee.5
On April 2, 2007, Modern Metal gave the respondents, except
Era, appointment letters6 with terms different from those in the
employment contracts which they signed at the agency’s office in
the Philippines. Under the letters of appointment, their employment
was increased to three years at 1,000 to 1,200 AED and food
allowance of 200 AED.
The respondents claimed that they were shocked to find out what
their working and living conditions were in Dubai.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 316-322.
5 Id., at pp. 323-326.
6 Id., at pp. 327-333.
287
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 287

They were required to work from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., with a
break of only one hour to one and a half hours. When they rendered
overtime work, they were most of the time either underpaid or not
paid at all. Their housing accommodations were cramped and were
shared with 27 other occupants. The lodging house was in Sharjah,
which was far from their jobsite in Dubai, leaving them only three to
four hours of sleep a day because of the long hours of travel to and
from their place of work; there was no potable water and the air was
polluted.
When the respondents received their first salaries (at the rates
provided in their appointment letters and with deductions for
placement fees) and because of their difficult living and working
conditions, they called up the agency and complained about their
predicament. The agency assured them that their concerns would be

promptly addressed, but nothing happened.
On May 5, 2007, Modern Metal required the respondents to sign
new employment contracts,7 except for Era who was made to sign
later. The contracts reflected the terms of their appointment letters.
Burdened by all the expenses and financial obligations they incurred
for their deployment, they were left with no choice but to sign the
contracts. They raised the matter with the agency, which again took
no action.
On August 5, 2007, despondent over their unbearable living and
working conditions and by the agency’s inaction, the respondents
expressed to Modern Metal their desire to resign. Out of fear, as they
put it, that Modern Metal would not give them their salaries and
release papers, the respondents, except Era, cited personal/family
problems for their
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 334, 336-339.
288

resignation.8 Era mentioned the real reason—“because I dont (sic)

want the company policy”9—for his resignation.
It took the agency several weeks to repatriate the respondents to
the Philippines. They all returned to Manila in September 2007.
Except for Ordovez and Enjambre, all the respondents shouldered
their own airfare.
For its part, the agency countered that the respondents were not
illegally dismissed; they voluntarily resigned from their employment
to seek a better paying job. It claimed that the respondents, while
still working for Modern Metal, applied with another company
which offered them a higher pay. Unfortunately, their supposed
employment failed to materialize and they had to go home because
they had already resigned from Modern Metal.
The agency further alleged that the respondents even voluntarily
signed affidavits of quitclaim and release after they resigned. It thus
argued that their claim for benefits, under Section 10 of Republic
Act No. (R.A.) 8042, damages and attorney’s fees is unfounded.
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
On April 30, 2008, Labor Arbiter Ligerio V. Ancheta rendered a
decision10 dismissing the complaint, finding that the respondents
voluntarily resigned from their jobs. He also found that four of them
—Alcantara, Era, Anipan and Lumanta—even executed a
compromise agreement (with quitclaim and release) before the

POEA. He considered the POEA recourse a case of forum shopping.
The respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). They argued that the labor arbiter committed
serious errors in (1) admitting in evidence the
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 269, 278, 282 and 296.
9 Id., at p. 286.
10 Id., at pp. 141-154.
289
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 289

quitclaims and releases they executed in Dubai, which were mere

photocopies of the originals and which failed to explain the
circumstances behind their execution; (2) failing to consider that the
compromise agreements they signed before the POEA covered only
the refund of their airfare and not all their money claims; and (3)
ruling that they violated the rule on non-forum shopping.
On May 12, 2009, the NLRC granted the appeal.11 It ruled that
the respondents had been illegally dismissed. It anchored its ruling
on the new employment contracts they were made to sign in Dubai.
It stressed that it is illegal for an employer to require its employees
to execute new employment papers, especially those which provide
benefits that are inferior to the POEA-approved contracts.
The NLRC rejected the quitclaim and release executed by the
respondents in Dubai. It believed that the respondents executed the
quitclaim documents under duress as they were afraid that they
would not be allowed to return to the Philippines if they did not sign
the documents. Further, the labor tribunal disagreed with the labor
arbiter’s opinion that the compromise agreement they executed
before the POEA had effectively foreclosed the illegal dismissal
complaint before the NLRC and that the respondents had been guilty
of forum shopping. It pointed out that the POEA case involved pre-
deployment issues; whereas, the complaint before the NLRC is one
for illegal dismissal and money claims arising from employment.
Consequently, the NLRC ordered the agency, Nacino and
Modern Metal to pay, jointly and severally, the respondents, as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 30 April 2008 is hereby REVERSED

and SET ASIDE, a new Decision is hereby issued ordering the respondents
PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENTS
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 155-162.
290

CO., INC., ROMEO NACINO, and MODERN METAL SOLUTIONS,

INC. to jointly and severally, pay the complainants the following:
Employee Underpaid Placement Salary for the Exemplary

Salary fee unexpired portion Damages
of the contract
(1350 x 6 months)
Vinuya, 150 x 6 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
ARMANDO 900 AED
Alcantara 150 X 4 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
VIRGILIO 600 AED
Era, 350 x 4 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
MARINO 1400
AED
Ladea, 150 x 5 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
NOEL 750 AED
Ordovez, 250 X 3 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
LOUIE 750 AED
Anipan, 150 x 4 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
ROBELITO 600 AED
Enjambre, 150 x 4 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
SANDY 600 AED
Lumanta, 250 x 5 = USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00
ARSENIO 1250
AED
TOTAL: 6,850 AED US$3,200 64,800 AED P400,000.00

or their peso equivalent at the time of actual payment plus attorney[‘]s fees
equivalent to 10% of the judgment award.12
_______________
12 Id., at p. 160.
291
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 291

The agency moved for reconsideration, contending that the

appeal was never perfected and that the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in reversing the labor arbiter’s decision.
The respondents, on the other hand, moved for partial
reconsideration, maintaining that their salaries should have covered
the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, pursuant to the

Court’s ruling in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.13
The NLRC denied the agency’s motion for reconsideration, but
granted the respondents’ motion.14 It sustained the respondents’
argument that the award needed to be adjusted, particularly in
relation to the payment of their salaries, consistent with the Court’s
ruling in Serrano. The ruling declared unconstitutional the clause,
“or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less,” in Section 10, paragraph 5, of R.A. 8042,
limiting the entitlement of illegally dismissed overseas Filipino
workers to their salaries for the unexpired term of their contract or
three months, whichever is less. Accordingly, it modified its earlier
decision and adjusted the respondents’ salary entitlement based on
the following matrix:
Employee Duration of Departure Date Unexpired

Contract date dismissed portion of
contract
Vinuya, 2 years 29 March 8 August 19 months and 21
ARMANDO 2007 2007 days
Alcantara, 2 years 3 April 8 August 20 months and 5
VIRGILIO 2007 2007 days
Era, 2 years 12 May 8 August 21 months and 4
MARINO 2007 2007 days
_______________
13 G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009, 582 SCRA 254.
14 Rollo, pp. 246-251; resolution dated September 2, 2009.
292

Ladea, NOEL 2 29 March 8 August 19 months and 21

years 2007 2007 days
Ordovez, 2 3 April 26 July 21 months and 23
LOUIE years 2007 2007 days
Anipan, 2 3 April 8 August 20 months and 5
ROBELITO years 2007 2007 days
Enjambre, 2 29 March 26 July 20 months and 3
SANDY years 2007 2007 days
Lumanta, 2 29 March 8 August 19 months and 21
ARSENIO years 2007 2007 days15
Again, the agency moved for reconsideration, reiterating its

earlier arguments and, additionally, questioning the application of
the Serrano ruling in the case because it was not yet final and
executory. The NLRC denied the motion, prompting the agency to
seek recourse from the CA through a petition for certiorari.
The CA Decision
The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.16 It upheld the
The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.16 It upheld the

NLRC ruling that the respondents were illegally dismissed. It found
no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s rejection of the
respondents’ resignation letters, and the accompanying quitclaim
and release affidavits, as proof of their voluntary termination of
employment.
The CA stressed that the filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal is inconsistent with resignation. Moreover, it found
nothing in the records to substantiate the agency’s contention that
the respondents’ resignation was of their
_______________
15 Id., at p. 250.
16 Supra note 2.
293
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 293

own accord; on the contrary, it considered the resignation letters

“dubious for having been lopsidedly-worded to ensure that the
petitioners (employer[s]) are free from any liability.”17
The appellate court likewise refused to give credit to the
compromise agreements that the respondents executed before the
POEA. It agreed with the NLRC’s conclusion that the agreements
pertain to the respondents’ charge of recruitment violations against
the agency distinct from their illegal dismissal complaint, thus
negating forum shopping by the respondents.
Lastly, the CA found nothing legally wrong in the NLRC
correcting itself (upon being reminded by the respondents), by
adjusting the respondents’ salary award on the basis of the unexpired
portion of their contracts, as enunciated in the Serrano case.
The agency moved for, but failed to secure, a reconsideration of
the CA decision.18
The Petition
The agency is now before the Court seeking a reversal of the CA
dispositions, contending that the CA erred in:
1. affirming the NLRC’s finding that the respondents were
illegally dismissed;
2. holding that the compromise agreements before the POEA
pertain only to the respondents’ charge of recruitment violations
against the agency; and
3. affirming the NLRC’s award to the respondents of their
salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts,
pursuant to the Serrano ruling.
_______________
17 Id., at p. 118.
18 Supra note 3.
294

The agency insists that it is not liable for illegal dismissal, actual
or constructive. It submits that as correctly found by the labor
arbiter, the respondents voluntarily resigned from their jobs, and
even executed affidavits of quitclaim and release; the respondents
stated family concerns for their resignation. The agency posits that
the letters were duly proven as they were written unconditionally by
the respondents. It, therefore, assails the conclusion that the
respondents resigned under duress or that the resignation letters
were dubious.
The agency raises the same argument with respect to the
compromise agreements, with quitclaim and release, it entered into
with Vinuya, Era, Ladea, Enjambre, Ordovez, Alcantara, Anipan and
Lumanta before the POEA, although it submitted evidence only for
six of them. Anipan, Lumanta, Vinuya and Ladea signing one
document;19 Era20 and Alcantara21 signing a document each. It
points out that the agreement was prepared with the assistance of
POEA Conciliator Judy Santillan, and was duly and freely signed by
the respondents; moreover, the agreement is not conditional as it
pertains to all issues involved in the dispute between the parties.
On the third issue, the agency posits that the Serrano ruling has
no application in the present case for three reasons. First, the
respondents were not illegally dismissed and, therefore, were not
entitled to their money claims. Second, the respondents filed the
complaint in 2007, while the Serrano ruling came out on March 24,
2009. The ruling cannot be given retroactive application. Third, R.A.
10022, which was enacted on March 8, 2010 and which amended
R.A. 8042, restored the subject clause in Section 10 of R.A. 8042,
declared unconstitutional by the Court.
_______________
19 Rollo, p. 344.
20 Id., at p. 345.
21 Id., at p. 345-A.
295
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 295

The Respondents’ Position

In their Comment (to the Petition) dated September 28, 2011,22
the respondents ask the Court to deny the petition for lack of merit.
They dispute the agency’s insistence that they resigned voluntarily.
They stand firm on their submission that because of their unbearable
living and working conditions in Dubai, they were left with no
choice but to resign. Also, the agency never refuted their detailed
narration of the reasons for giving up their employment.
The respondents maintain that the quitclaim and release
affidavits,23 which the agency presented, betray its desperate attempt
to escape its liability to them. They point out that, as found by the
NLRC, the affidavits are ready-made documents; for instance, in
Lumanta’s24 and Era’s25 affidavits, they mentioned a certain G & A
International Manpower as the agency which recruited them—a fact
totally inapplicable to all the respondents. They contend that they
had no choice but to sign the documents; otherwise, their release
papers and remaining salaries would not be given to them, a
submission which the agency never refuted.
On the agency’s second line of defense, the compromise
agreement (with quitclaim and release) between the respondents and
the agency before the POEA, the respondents argue that the
agreements pertain only to their charge of recruitment violations
against the agency. They add that based on the agreements, read and
considered entirely, the agency was discharged only with respect to
the recruitment and pre-deployment issues such as excessive
placement fees, non-issuance of receipts and placement
misrepresentation, but not with respect to post-deployment issues
such as ille-
_______________
22 Id., at pp. 453-465.
23 Id., at pp. 268, 272, 277, 280, 281, 285, 289 and 294.
24 Id., at p. 277.
25 Id., at p. 285.
296

gal dismissal, breach of contract, underpayment of salaries and

underpayment and nonpayment of overtime pay. The respondents
stress that the agency failed to controvert their contention that the
agreements came about only to settle their claim for refund of their
airfare which they paid for when they were repatriated.
Lastly, the respondents maintain that since they were illegally
dismissed, the CA was correct in upholding the NLRC’s award of
their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment

contracts, as enunciated in Serrano. They point out that the Serrano
ruling is curative and remedial in nature and, as such, should be
given retroactive application as the Court declared in Yap v.
Thenamaris Ship’s Management.26 Further, the respondents take
exception to the agency’s contention that the Serrano ruling cannot,
in any event, be applied in the present case in view of the enactment
of R.A. 10022 on March 8, 2010, amending Section 10 of R.A.
8042. The amendment restored the subject clause in paragraph 5,
Section 10 of R.A. 8042 which was struck down as unconstitutional
in Serrano.
The respondents maintain that the agency cannot raise the issue
for the first time before this Court when it could have raised it
before the CA with its petition for certiorari which it filed on June
8, 2010;27 otherwise, their right to due process will be violated. The
agency, on the other hand, would later claim that it is not barred by
estoppel with respect to its reliance on R.A. 10022 as it raised it
before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 114353.28 They further argue that
RA 10022 cannot be applied in their case, as the law is an
amendatory statute which is, as a rule, prospective in application,
unless the contrary is provided.29 To put the issue to
_______________
26 G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 369.
27 Rollo, p. 205; date when petition was stamped received by the CA.
28 Id., at pp. 469-470.
29 Civil Code, Article 4.
297
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 297

rest, the respondents ask the Court to also declare unconstitutional

Section 7 of R.A. 10022.
Finally, the respondents submit that the petition should be
dismissed outright for raising only questions of fact, rather than of
law.
The Court’s Ruling
The procedural question
We deem it proper to examine the facts of the case on account of
the divergence in the factual conclusions of the labor arbiter on the
one hand, and, of the NLRC and the CA, on the other.30 The arbiter
found no illegal dismissal in the respondents’ loss of employment in
Dubai because they voluntarily resigned; whereas, the NLRC and
the CA adjudged them to have been illegally dismissed because they
were virtually forced to resign.
The merits of the case

We find no merit in the petition. The CA committed no
reversible error and neither did it commit grave abuse of
discretion in affirming the NLRC’s illegal dismissal ruling.
The agency and its principal, Modern Metal, committed flagrant
violations of the law on overseas employment, as well as basic
norms of decency and fair play in an employment relationship,
pushing the respondents to look for a better employment and,
ultimately, to resign from their jobs.
First. The agency and Modern Metal are guilty of contract
substitution. The respondents entered into a POEA-
_______________
30 Fujitsu Computer Products Corp. of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil.
697, 716; 454 SCRA 737, 758 (2005).
298

approved two-year employment contract,31 with Modern Metal

providing among others, as earlier discussed, for a monthly salary of
1350 AED. On April 2, 2007, Modern Metal issued to them
appointment letters32 whereby the respondents were hired for a
longer three-year period and a reduced salary, from 1,100 AED to
1,200 AED, among other provisions. Then, on May 5, 2007, they
were required to sign new employment contracts33 reflecting the
same terms contained in their appointment letters, except that this
time, they were hired as “ordinary laborer,” no longer aluminum
fabricator/installer. The respondents complained with the agency
about the contract substitution, but the agency refused or failed to
act on the matter.
The fact that the respondents’ contracts were altered or
substituted at the workplace had never been denied by the agency.
On the contrary, it admitted that the contract substitution did happen
when it argued, “[a]s to their claim for [underpayment] of salary,
their original contract mentioned 1350 AED monthly salary, which
includes allowance while in their Appointment Letters, they were
supposed to receive 1,300 AED. While there was [a] difference of
50 AED monthly, the same could no longer be claimed by virtue of
their Affidavits of Quitclaims and Desistance[.]”34
Clearly, the agency and Modern Metal committed a prohibited
practice and engaged in illegal recruitment under the law. Article 34
of the Labor Code provides:
Art. 34. Prohibited Practices.—It shall be unlawful for any individual,

entity, licensee, or holder of authority:
xxxx
_______________
31 Supra note 4.
32 Supra note 6.
33 Supra note 7.
34 Rollo, p. 342.
299
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 299

(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and

verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of
the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor[.]
Further, Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042,35

defined “illegal recruitment” to include the following act:
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment

contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and
including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of
the Department of Labor and Employment[.]
Second. The agency and Modern Metal committed breach of

contract. Aggravating the contract substitution imposed upon them
by their employer, the respondents were made to suffer substandard
(shocking, as they put it) working and living arrangements. Both the
original contracts the respondents signed in the Philippines and the
appointment letters issued to them by Modern Metal in Dubai
provided for free housing and transportation to and from the jobsite.
The original contract mentioned free and suitable housing.36
Although no description of the housing was made in the letters of
appointment except: “Accommodation: Provided by the company,”
it is but reasonable to think that the housing or accommodation
would be “suitable.”
As earlier pointed out, the respondents were made to work from
6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., with a meal break of one to one and a half
hours, and their overtime work was mostly not paid or underpaid.
Their living quarters were cramped as they shared them with 27
other workers. The lodging
_______________
35 Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
36 Supra note 4.
300

house was in Sharjah, far from the jobsite in Dubai, leaving them
only three to four hours of sleep every workday because of the long
hours of travel to and from their place of work, not to mention that
there was no potable water in the lodging house which was located
in an area where the air was polluted. The respondents complained
with the agency about the hardships that they were suffering, but the
agency failed to act on their reports. Significantly, the agency failed
to refute their claim, anchored on the ordeal that they went through
while in Modern Metal’s employ.
Third. With their original contracts substituted and their
oppressive working and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved,
the respondents’ decision to resign is not surprising. They were
compelled by the dismal state of their employment to give up their
jobs; effectively, they were constructively dismissed. A constructive
dismissal or discharge is “a quitting because continued employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer
involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.”37
Without doubt, the respondents’ continued employment with
Modern Metal had become unreasonable. A reasonable mind would
not approve of a substituted contract that pays a diminished salary—
from 1350 AED a month in the original contract to 1,000 AED to
1,200 AED in the appointment letters, a difference of 150 AED to
250 AED (not just 50 AED as the agency claimed) or an extended
employment (from 2 to 3 years) at such inferior terms, or a “free and
suitable” housing which is hours away from the job site, cramped
and crowded, without potable water and exposed to air pollution.
We thus cannot accept the agency’s insistence that the
respondents voluntarily resigned since they personally pre-
_______________
37 C.A. Azucena, Jr., The Labor Code (with Comments and Cases), Volume II,
Sixth Ed., 2007, p. 889, citing Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation v. NLRC,
253 Phil. 149; 171 SCRA 164 (1989).
301
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 301

pared their resignation letters38 in their own handwriting, citing

family problems as their common ground for resigning. As the CA
did, we find the resignation letters “dubious,”39 not only for

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea75b9a1ab7347aea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False having 14/19
did, we find the resignation letters “dubious,”39 not only for having
been lopsidedly worded to ensure that the employer is rendered free
from any liability, but also for the odd coincidence that all the
respondents had, at the same time, been confronted with urgent
family problems so that they had to give up their employment and
go home. The truth, as the respondents maintain, is that they cited
family problems as reason out of fear that Modern Metal would not
give them their salaries and their release papers. Only Era was bold
enough to say the real reason for his resignation—to protest
company policy.
We likewise find the affidavits40 of quitclaim and release which
the respondents executed suspect. Obviously, the affidavits were
prepared as a follow through of the respondents’ supposed voluntary
resignation. Unlike the resignation letters, the respondents had no
hand in the preparation of the affidavits. They must have been
prepared by a representative of Modern Metal as they appear to
come from a standard form and were apparently introduced for only
one purpose—to lend credence to the resignation letters. In Modern
Metal’s haste, however, to secure the respondents’ affidavits, they
did not check on the model they used. Thus, Lumanta’s affidavit41
mentioned a G & A International Manpower as his recruiting
agency, an entity totally unknown to the respondents; the same thing
is true for Era’s affidavit.42 This confusion is an indication of the
employer’s hurried attempt to avoid liability to the respondents.
_______________
38 Supra note 8.
39 Supra note 2, at p. 118.
40 Rollo, pp. 268, 271, 272, 277, 280, 281, 285 and 289.
41 Id., at p. 277.
42 Id., at p. 285.
302

The respondents’ position is well-founded. The NLRC itself had

the same impression, which we find in order and hereunder quote:
The acts of respondents of requiring the signing of new contracts upon

reaching the place of work and requiring employees to sign quitclaims
before they are paid and repatriated to the Philippines are all too familiar
stories of despicable labor practices which our employees are subjected to
abroad. While it is true that quitclaims are generally given weight, however,
given the facts of the case, We are of the opinion that the complainants-
appellants executed the same under duress and fear that they will not be
allowed to return to the Philippines.43
Fourth. The compromise agreements (with quitclaim and

release)44 between the respondents and the agency before the POEA
did not foreclose their employer-employee relationship claims
before the NLRC. The respondents, except Ordovez and Enjambre,
aver in this respect that they all paid for their own airfare when they
returned home45 and that the compromise agreements settled only
their claim for refund of their airfare, but not their other claims.46
Again, this submission has not been refuted or denied by the agency.
On the surface, the compromise agreements appear to confirm
the agency’s position, yet a closer examination of the documents
would reveal their true nature. Copy of the compromise agreement is
a standard POEA document, prepared in advance and readily made
available to parties who are involved in disputes before the agency,
such as what the respondents filed with the POEA ahead (filed in
2007) of the illegal dismissal complaint before the NLRC (filed on
March 5, 2008).
_______________
43 Id., at pp. 159-160.
44 Supra notes 19, 20 and 21.
45 Rollo, p. 307.
46 Id., at p. 299.
303
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 303

Under the heading “Post-Deployment,” the agency agreed to pay

Era47 and Alcantara48 P12,000.00 each, purportedly in satisfaction of
the respondents’ claims arising from overseas employment,
consisting of unpaid salaries, salary differentials and other benefits,
including money claims with the NLRC. The last document was
signed by (1) Anipan, (2) Lumanta, (3) Ladea, (4) Vinuya, (5)
Jonathan Nangolinola, and (6) Zosimo Gatchalian (the last four
signing on the left hand side of the document; the last two were not
among those who filed the illegal dismissal complaint).49 The
agency agreed to pay them a total of P72,000.00. Although there
was no breakdown of the entitlement for each of the six, but guided
by the compromise agreement signed by Era and Alcantara, we
believe that the agency paid them P12,000.00 each, just like Era and
Alcantara.
The uniform insubstantial amount for each of the signatories to
the agreement lends credence to their contention that the settlement
pertained only to their claim for refund of the airfare which they
shouldered when they returned to the Philippines. The compromise
agreement, apparently, was intended by the agency as a settlement
with the respondents and others with similar claims, which explains
the inclusion of the two (Nangolinola and Gatchalian) who were not
involved in the case with the NLRC. Under the circumstances, we
cannot see how the compromise agreements can be considered to
have fully settled the respondents’ claims before the NLRC—illegal
dismissal and monetary benefits arising from employment. We thus
find no reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion in the rejection
by the NLRC and the CA of said agreements.
Fifth. The agency’s objection to the application of the Serrano
ruling in the present case is of no moment. Its ar-
_______________
47 Id.
48 Id., at p. 300.
49 Id., at p. 298.
304

gument that the ruling cannot be given retroactive effect, because it

is curative and remedial, is untenable. It points out, in this respect,
that the respondents filed the complaint in 2007, while the Serrano
ruling was handed down in March 2009. The issue, as the
respondents correctly argue, has been resolved in Yap v. Thenamaris
Ship’s Management,50 where the Court sustained the retroactive
application of the Serrano ruling which declared unconstitutional the
subject clause in Section 10, paragraph 5 of R.A. 8042, limiting to
three months the payment of salaries to illegally dismissed Overseas
Filipino Workers.
Undaunted, the agency posits that in any event, the Serrano
ruling has been nullified by R.A. No. 10022, entitled “An Act
Amending Republic Act No. 8042, Otherwise Known as the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, As Amended, Further
Improving the Standard of Protection and Promotion of the Welfare
of Migrant Workers, Their Families and Overseas Filipinos in
Distress, and For Other Purposes.”51 It argues that R.A. 10022,
which lapsed into law (without the Signature of the President) on
March 8, 2010, restored the subject clause in the 5th paragraph,
Section 10 of R.A. 8042. The amendment, contained in Section 7 of
R.A. 10022, reads as follows:
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or

authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized
deductions from the migrant worker’s salary, the worker shall be entitled to
the full reimbursement “of” his placement fee and the deductions made with
interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months

for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.52 (emphasis ours)
_______________
50 Supra note 26.
51 O G , Vol. 106, No. 19, May 10, 2010, pp. 2729-2746.
52 Id., at p. 2734.
305
VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 305

This argument fails to persuade us. Laws shall have no

retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.53 By its very
nature, the amendment introduced by R.A. 10022—restoring a
provision of R.A. 8042 declared unconstitutional—cannot be given
retroactive effect, not only because there is no express declaration of
retroactivity in the law, but because retroactive application will
result in an impairment of a right that had accrued to the respondents
by virtue of the Serrano ruling—entitlement to their salaries for the
unexpired portion of their employment contracts.
All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective
application, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to
give them a retrospective effect are expressly declared or are
necessarily implied from the language used.54 We thus see no reason
to nullify the application of the Serrano ruling in the present case.
Whether or not R.A. 10022 is constitutional is not for us to rule
upon in the present case as this is an issue that is not squarely before
us. In other words, this is an issue that awaits its proper day in court;
in the meanwhile, we make no pronouncement on it.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.
The assailed Decision dated May 9, 2011 and the Resolution dated
June 23, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114353
are AFFIRMED. Let this Decision be brought to the attention of the
Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment and the
Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration as a black mark in the deployment record of
petitioner Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc., and as a record
that should be considered in any similar future violations.
Costs against the petitioner.
_______________
53 C C P , Article 4.
54 A.M. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and
Jurisprudence, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 28.
206

SO ORDERED.
**
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—Well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be

convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. (Lapasaran vs.
People, 578 SCRA 658 [2009])
Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or
when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay; Absent any
evidence of bad faith, it is within the exercise of respondents’
management prerogative to transfer some of petitioner’s duties if in
their judgment, it would be more beneficial to the corporation.
(Velasco vs. Transit Automotive Supply, Inc., 621 SCRA 275 [2010])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

PERT CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Vinuya

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationfulltext

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERT CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Vinuya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERT CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Vinuya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 680

G.R. No. 197528. September 5, 2012.*

PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., petitioner, vs.

Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Words and Phrases; Article 38 of the

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 285

Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. vs. Vinuya

and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved, the respondents’ decision

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

dated June 23, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP

petitioner Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. (agency), and its

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 287

predicament. The agency assured them that their concerns would be

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

resignation.8 Era mentioned the real reason—“because I dont (sic)

compromise agreement (with quitclaim and release) before the

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 289

quitclaims and releases they executed in Dubai, which were mere

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 30 April 2008 is hereby REVERSED

11 Id., at pp. 155-162.

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CO., INC., ROMEO NACINO, and MODERN METAL SOLUTIONS,

Employee Underpaid Placement Salary for the Exemplary

TOTAL: 6,850 AED US$3,200 64,800 AED P400,000.00

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 291

The agency moved for reconsideration, contending that the

the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, pursuant to the

Employee Duration of Departure Date Unexpired

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ladea, NOEL 2 29 March 8 August 19 months and 21

Again, the agency moved for reconsideration, reiterating its

The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.16 It upheld the

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 293

own accord; on the contrary, it considered the resignation letters

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 295

The Respondents’ Position

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

gal dismissal, breach of contract, underpayment of salaries and

their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 297

rest, the respondents ask the Court to also declare unconstitutional

The merits of the case

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

approved two-year employment contract,31 with Modern Metal

Art. 34. Prohibited Practices.—It shall be unlawful for any individual,

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 299

(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and

Further, Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042,35

(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment

Second. The agency and Modern Metal committed breach of

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 301

pared their resignation letters38 in their own handwriting, citing

did, we find the resignation letters “dubious,”39 not only for

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The respondents’ position is well-founded. The NLRC itself had

The acts of respondents of requiring the signing of new contracts upon