Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.

ANTONIO M. SERRANO VS. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND

GR No. 167614 - March 24, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and
Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a POEA-approved contract of employment for 12 months, as
Chief Officer, with the basic monthly salary of US$1,400, plus $700/month overtime pay, and 7
days paid vacation leave per month.

On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, Serrano was constrained to accept a downgraded
employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000 upon
the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be Chief Officer by the end of
April 1998.

Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make Serrano Chief Officer. Hence, Serrano
refused to stay on as second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998,
serving only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of
nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days.

Serrano filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a Complaint against respondents for constructive
dismissal and for payment of his money claims in the total amount of US$26,442.73 (based on
the computation of $2590/month from June 1998 to February 199, $413.90 for March 1998, and
$1640 for March 1999) as well as moral and exemplary damages.

The LA declared the petitioner's dismissal illegal and awarded him US$8,770, representing his
salaray for three (3) months of the unexpired portion of the aforesaid contract of employment,
plus $45 for salary differential and for attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount;
however, no compensation for damages as prayed was awarded.

On appeal, the NLRC modified the LA decision and awarded Serrano $4669.50, representing
three (3) months salary at $1400/month, plus 445 salary differential and 10% for attorney's fees.
This decision was based on the provision of RA 8042, which was made into law on July 15,
1995.

Serrano filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this time he questioned the
constitutionality of the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042, which reads:
 Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers
shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
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.

The NLRC denied the Motion; hence, Serrano filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals (CA), reiterating the constitutional challenge against the subject clause. The CA affirmed
the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary rate, but skirted the constitutional issue
raised by herein petitioner Serrano.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the subject clause violates Section 10, Article III of the Constitution on non-
impairment of contracts;
2. Whether or not the subject clause violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, and Section
18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector.

HELD:

On the first issue.

The answer is in the negative. Petitioner's claim that the subject clause unduly interferes with
the stipulations in his contract on the term of his employment and the fixed salary package he
will receive is not tenable.
Section 10, Article III of the Constitution
provides: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a
prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to
laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part
thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II is limited in application to
laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by
enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto.

As aptly observed by the OSG, the enactment of R.A. No. 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution
of the employment contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998.Hence, it cannot be
argued that R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause, impaired the employment contract of
the parties. Rather, when the parties executed their 1998 employment contract, they were
deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 8042.
But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subject clause may not be declared
unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was
enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession or
calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs, with the noble end in view of
ensuring respect for the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be
employed. Police power legislations adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people are generally applicable not
only to future contracts but even to those already in existence, for all private contracts must
yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public welfare.

On the second issue.

The answer is in the affirmative.

Section 1, Article III of the Constitution guarantees: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the law.

Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all members of the labor sector, without
distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare.

To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions translate
to economic security and parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of
similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none
should be denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden imposed
on, others in like circumstances.

Such rights are not absolute but subject to the inherent power of Congress to incorporate, when
it sees fit, a system of classification into its legislation; however, to be valid, the classification must
comply with these requirements: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to the
purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and 4) it applies equally to all
members of the class.

There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality of a classification
embodied in a law: a) the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged
classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest; b)
the middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged
classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially
related to serving that interest; and c) strict judicial scrutiny in which a legislative classification
which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the
government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state
interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.

Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it applies to all
OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the subject clause has a discriminatory intent
against, and an invidious impact on, OFWs at two levels:
First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis-à-vis OFWs with
employment contracts of one year or more;
Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year; and
Third, OFWs vis-à-vis local workers with fixed-period employment;

In sum, prior to R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term employment who were
illegally discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation of their money claims: they
were uniformly entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. But with
the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, specifically the adoption of the subject clause, illegally dismissed
OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their employment contract have since
been differently treated in that their money claims are subject to a 3-month cap, whereas no such
limitation is imposed on local workers with fixed-term employment.

The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in
the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally
discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of
one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers
with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs
and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

There being a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector protected by the Constitution,
the Court now subjects the classification to a strict judicial scrutiny, and determines whether it
serves a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means.

What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers
arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history. It is akin to the paramount interest of the
state for which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in
safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards, or in maintaining access to information
on matters of public concern.

In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but found no compelling state interest
that the subject clause may possibly serve.

In fine, the Government has failed to discharge its burden of proving the existence of a compelling
state interest that would justify the perpetuation of the discrimination against OFWs under the
subject clause.

Assuming that, as advanced by the OSG, the purpose of the subject clause is to protect the
employment of OFWs by mitigating the solidary liability of placement agencies, such callous and
cavalier rationale will have to be rejected. There can never be a justification for any form of
government action that alleviates the burden of one sector, but imposes the same burden on
another sector, especially when the favored sector is composed of private businesses such as
placement agencies, while the disadvantaged sector is composed of OFWs whose protection no
less than the Constitution commands. The idea that private business interest can be elevated to
the level of a compelling state interest is odious.

Moreover, even if the purpose of the subject clause is to lessen the solidary liability of placement
agencies vis-a-vis their foreign principals, there are mechanisms already in place that can be
employed to achieve that purpose without infringing on the constitutional rights of OFWs.

The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based
Overseas Workers, dated February 4, 2002, imposes administrative disciplinary measures on
erring foreign employers who default on their contractual obligations to migrant workers and/or
their Philippine agents. These disciplinary measures range from temporary disqualification to
preventive suspension. The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and
Employment of Seafarers, dated May 23, 2003, contains similar administrative disciplinary
measures against erring foreign employers.

Resort to these administrative measures is undoubtedly the less restrictive means of aiding local
placement agencies in enforcing the solidary liability of their foreign principals.

Thus, the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is violative of the
right of petitioner and other OFWs to equal protection.

The subject clause “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”
in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is DECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONAL

Note:

When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of theacts of its
co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is
an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination;
(2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party and at the earliest opportunity; and
(3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case, otherwise the Court will
dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.
----
As discussed earlier, prior to R.A. No. 8042, a uniform system of computation of the monetary
awards of illegally dismissed OFWs was in place. This uniform system was applicable even to
local workers with fixed-term employment.

Article 605 of the Code of Commerce provides:

Article 605 was applied to Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc. v. Ogilvie, in which the Court held
the shipping company liable for the salaries and subsistence allowance of its illegally dismissed
employees for the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts.

While Article 605 has remained good law up to the present, Article 299 of the Code of
Commerce was replaced by Art. 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889, to wit:
Article 1586. Field hands, mechanics, artisans, and other laborers hired for a
certain time and for a certain work cannot leave or be dismissed without
sufficient cause, before the fulfillment of the contract.