Princess Talent Center Production, Inc., Luchi Singh Moldes v. Desiree Masagca

Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. and/or Luchi Singh Moldes v.
Desiree Masagca,
G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
FACTS:
A Model Employment Contract for was executed on February 3, 2003 between respondent and
petitioner PTCPI as the Philippine agent of SAENCO, the Korean principal/promoter.
Respondent left for South Korea on September 6, 2003 and worked there as a singer for nine
months, until her repatriation to the Philippines sometime in June 2004.
When respondent was dismissed from employment and repatriated to the Philippines in June
2004, her original six-month Employment Contract with SAENCO had already expired.
Although respondent's employment with SAENCO was good for six months only, it was
extended under the same terms and conditions for another six months. Respondent and
petitioners submitted evidence establishing that respondent continued to work for SAENCO in
Ulsan, South Korea even after the original six-month period under respondent's Employment
Contract expired on March 5, 2004.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Masagca was illegally dismissed. (AFFIRMATIVE)
RULING:
Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which
constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which
constitutes procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the
disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid.
Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal
justification for dismissing the employee. When in doubt, the case should be resolved in favor of
labor pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and the 1987 Constitution.
Even though it is true that respondent could not legitimately continue to work in South Korea
without a work visa, petitioners cannot invoke said reason alone to justify the premature
termination of respondent's extended employment. Petitioners and SAENCO should also have
been responsible for securing respondent's work visa for the extended period of her employment.
Petitioners additionally charge respondent with serious misconduct and willful disobedience,
contending that respondent violated club policies by engaging in illegal activities such as
wearing skimpy and revealing dresses, dancing in an immoral or provocative manner, and going
out with customers after working hours.
As the Court of Appeals pertinently observed, if respondent was truly misbehaving as early as
September 2003 as petitioners alleged, SAENCO would have terminated her employment at the
earliest opportunity to protect its interest. Instead, SAENCO even extended respondent's
employment beyond the original six-month period. The Court likewise points out that there is
absolutely no showing that SAENCO, at any time during the course of respondent's employment,
gave respondent a reminder and/or warning that she was violating club policies.
This leads to another finding of the Court in this case, that petitioners also failed to afford
respondent procedural due process.
Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employer shall furnish the
worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice stating the causes for
termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself/herself with the assistance of his/her representative, if he/she so desires. The burden of
proving compliance with the requirements of notice and hearing prior to respondent's dismissal
from employment falls on petitioners and SAENCO, but there had been no attempt at all by
petitioners and/or SAENCO to submit such proof.
To reiterate, respondent could only be dismissed for just and authorized cause, and after
affording her notice and hearing prior to her termination. SAENCO had no valid cause to
terminate respondent's employment. Neither did SAENCO serve two written notices upon
respondent informing her of her alleged club policy violations and of her dismissal from
employment, nor afforded her a hearing to defend herself. The lack of valid cause, together with
the failure of SAENCO to comply with the twin-notice and hearing requirements, underscored
the illegality surrounding respondent's dismissal.

Princess Talent Center Production, Inc., Luchi Singh Moldes v. Desiree Masagca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Princess Talent Center Production, Inc., Luchi Singh Moldes v. Desiree Masagca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Princess Talent Center Production, Inc., Luchi Singh Moldes v. Desiree Masagca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. and/or Luchi Singh Moldes v.

Whether or not Masagca was illegally dismissed. (AFFIRMATIVE)

You might also like