ORDUÑA, Paterno Jr. C. Prof.

De Vera
2010-24096 Labor Law Review

Julita M. Aldovino, Joan B. Lagrimas, Winnie B. Lingat, Chita A. Sales, Sheryl L. Guinto, Revilla
S. De Jesus, and Laila V. Orpilla v. Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development
Services Inc., Sage International Development Company, Ltd., and Alberto C. Alvina
G.R. No. 200811
19 June 2019

Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (Payment re: Unexpired Portion of Employment
Agreement)

FACTS:

1. Aldovino et al. applied for work at Gold and Green Manpower Management and
Development Services, Inc. (Gold and Green Manpower), a local manning agency whose
foreign principal is Sage International Development Company, Ltd. (Sage International).
a. They were hired as sewers for Dipper Semi-Conductor Company, Ltd. (Dipper
Semi-Conductor), a Taiwan-based company.
b. Their respective employment contracts provided an eight-hour work day, a fixed
monthly salary, and entitlement to overtime pay, among others.
c. However, before they could be deployed for work, Gold and Green Manpower
required each applicant to pay a P72,000.00 placement fee.
d. Moreover, when Aldovino et al. arrived in Taiwan, Gold and Green Manpower took
all their travel documents, including their passports. They were then made to sign
another contract that provides that they would be paid on a piece-rate basis instead
of the fixed monthly salary indicated in their employment contracts.
2. During their employment, Aldovino et al. toiled from 8AM to 9PM for six days a week. At
times, they were forced to work on Sundays without any overtime premium. Because they
were paid on a piece-rate basis, they received less than the fixed monthly salary stipulated
in their original employment contract.
3. Aldovino et al., except De Jesus, filed before a local court in Taiwan a complaint against
their employers, Dipper Semi-Conductor and Sage International. The parties met before
the Bureau of Labor Affairs for a dialogue, wherein Dipper Semi-Conductor ordered
Aldovino et al. to return to the Philippines as it was no longer interested in their services.
They, however, stayed in Taiwan, without work, for four months while their case was
pending.
4. Eventually, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement and Aldovino et al. were
made to sign Affidavits of Quitclaim and Release in favor of Gold and Green Manpower
and Sage International.
5. When they returned to the Philippines, Aldovino et al. filed before the LA a case for illegal
termination, underpayment of salaries, human tracking, illegal signing of papers, and other
money claims, such as overtime pay, return of placement fees, and moral and exemplary
damages against Gold and Green Manpower and Sage International.
 a. In its Decision, the LA dismissed the complaint for illegal termination, but ordered
Gold and Green Manpower and Sage International to pay Aldovino et al.
P20,000.00 each as financial assistance.
b. On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision and Resolution affirmed the Decision of the
LA, but it deleted the award for financial assistance for lack of factual and legal
bases.
c. The CA reversed the Resolution of the NLRC, ruling that Aldovino et al. have been
illegally dismissed from service and that the Compromise Agreement did not bar
them from filing the illegal dismissal case. Furthermore, the CA ordered Gold and
Green Manpower and Sage International to pay Aldovino et al. their salaries for the
unexpired portion of their contract in accordance with Sec. 7 of RA 10022.
However, there was a three-month cap imposed with regard to the amount of
salaries to be paid to each worker. Thus, Aldovino et al. moved for partial
reconsideration, praying that the three-month cap be annulled. This was, however,
denied by the CA.
d. Hence, Aldovino et al. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUES:

[1] Whether or not Aldovino et al. are entitled to the payment of their salaries for the unexpired
portion of their employment contract – YES, the three-month cap in Sec. 7 of RA 10022 was
declared to be unconstitutional.

[2] Whether or not Sec. 7 of RA 10022, which reinstated the three-month cap, has the force and
effect of law – NO, its reinstatement in a subsequent law did not cure its unconstitutionality.

RATIO:

1. Aldovino et al. questioned the three-month salary cap stated in the dispositive portion of
the CA Decision and Resolution. Citing the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services
Inc., they asserted that the three-month cap in Sec. 10 of RA 8042, or the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as reenacted in Sec. 7 of RA 10022, has already been
declared unconstitutional. Thus, they asserted that they are entitled to the payment of their
salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts.
2. Gold and Green Manpower and Sage International questioned the legality of the monetary
damages awarded to petitioners. They asserted that the CA erred in nullifying the
Compromise Agreement, pointing out that the labor tribunals had already rendered it valid.
3. This case is governed by Philippine laws, such that both the Constitution and the Labor
Code guarantee the security of tenure. It is not stripped off when Filipinos work in a
different jurisdiction. We follow the lex loci contractus principle, which means that the law
of the place where the contract is executed, i.e. the Philippines, governs the contract.
4. With regard to the Affidavits of Quitclaim and Release, waivers and quitclaims executed
by employees are generally frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. This is based
on the recognition that employers and employees do not stand on equal footing. Thus,
quitclaims do not bar employees from ling labor complaints and demanding benefits to
 which they are legally entitled. They are “ineffective in barring recovery of the full measure
of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel.”
5. Furthermore, the law does not recognize agreements that result in compensation less than
what is mandated by law. These quitclaims do not prevent employees from subsequently
claiming benefits to which they are legally entitled. In fact, in Am-Phil Food Concepts Inc.
v. Padilla, it was held that quitclaims do not negate charges for illegal dismissal.
6. In this case, the object and foundation of the Compromise Agreement was to settle the
payment of salaries and overtime premiums to which Aldovino et al. were legally entitled.
Hence, it should not be construed as a restriction on the right to prosecute of Aldovino et
al. of their other legitimate claims, which they may have against Gold and Green
Manpower and Sage International.
7. Moreover, the SC noted that at the time the Compromise Agreement was executed,
Aldovino et al. had just been terminated from employment. They, therefore, had no other
choice but to accede to the terms and conditions of the agreement to recover the difference
in their salaries and overtime pay. With no means of livelihood, they signed the
Compromise Agreement out of dire necessity.
8. Lastly, by signing the Compromise Agreement, Aldovino et al. did not voluntarily
terminate their employment.
9. In fact, Aldovino et al. were illegally dismissed because their termination was effected
merely because Gold and Green Manpower and Sage International no longer wanted their
services. Furthermore, Aldovino et al. were not accorded due process. A valid dismissal
must comply with substantive and procedural due process: i.e. there must be a valid cause
and a valid procedure. The employer must comply with the two-notice requirement, while
the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard. Here, Aldovino et al. were only
verbally dismissed, without any notice given or having been informed of any just cause for
their dismissal.
10. Having substantially discussed that Aldovino et al. were indeed illegally terminated, it is
now necessary to discuss whether they are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired term
of their contract.
11. In Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, it was held that limiting the wages
that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both
a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution. In ruling as
such, the SC declared that:
a. Putting a cap on the money claims of certain overseas workers does not increase
the standard of protection afforded to them. On the other hand, foreign employers
are more incentivized by the reinstated clause to enter into contracts of at least a
year because it gives them more flexibility to violate our overseas workers' rights.
Their liability for arbitrarily terminating overseas workers is decreased at the
expense of the workers whose rights they violated. Meanwhile, these overseas
workers who are impressed with an expectation of a stable job overseas for the
longer contract period disregard other opportunities only to be terminated earlier.
They are left with claims that are less than what others in the same situation would
receive. The reinstated clause, therefore, creates a situation where the law meant to
protect them makes violation of rights easier and simply benign to the violator.
12. A statute declared unconstitutional confers no rights, imposes no duties, affords no
protection, creates no office, and is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all.
 Incorporating a similarly worded provision in a subsequent legislation does not cure its
unconstitutionality. Without any discernable change in the circumstances warranting a
reversal, the SC will not hesitate to strike down the same provision. Thus, the three-month
cap was declared unconstitutional.

RULING:

The Petition for Review on Certiorari was Granted. Aldovino et al. were found to be entitled to
the salaries in relation to the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, without regard for
the three-month cap which was declared to be unconstitutional.