461 Phil. 429
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered its Decision[5] affirming with modification the Arbiter's Decision with respect to the monetary award, thus:All other claims of the complainant and the respondents' counterclaims for damages, attorney's fees and expenses for documentation are hereby denied for want of merit.
- Declaring that the dismissal of the complainant is illegal;
- Ordering respondents Chung I Manpower Agency/Tseng Wen- Shu and Sunace International Management Services to pay jointly and severally the complainant the following:
a) Unpaid salary from May 22 to June 13, 1998 = New Taiwan Dollars - NT $ 11,616 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment; b) Salary for the unexpired portion of her contract (May 22, 1998 to May 22, 1999) equivalent to three (3) months (15,840 NT $ x 3) = New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 47,520; c) Refund of placement fee: P 23,000; d) Overtime pay for three weeks = 500 NT $ or its peso equivalent; e) Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P 20,000 each, or P 40,000.00.
TOTAL AWARD = NT$ 59,136 P 63,000
SO ORDERED."
"WHEREFORE, the Decision appeal(ed) from is Modified. Respondents are ordered to pay complainant the following:Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied."The claims for payment of damages and overtime pay are dismissed for lack of merit.
- unpaid salary from 22 May to 13 June 1998 - NT$ 11,616.00
- salary for the unexpired portion of her contract (14 June 1998 to 22 May 1999) ----- NT$ 47,520.00 (for three months)
- Refund of placement fee: P 23,000.00.
"SO ORDERED."
"Petitioner claims that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter Gambito committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding that private respondent was illegally dismissed as said finding was not supported by substantial evidence and there was misappreciation of facts by both public respondents.On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration.
"The contention is without merit. In termination cases, the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. In this case, the petitioner miserably failed to prove that private respondent was legally terminated. After a careful scrutiny of the records of this case, we find no reason to disturb the NLRC's findings that private respondent was illegally dismissed. As aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC:`In the instant case, respondents failed to substantiate their defense that complainant was unfit for work and incapable of performing the tasks assigned to her. Nothing was presented as evidence to bolster their allegation; not even copies of the alleged warnings that they sent her which allegedly remained ignored (pp. 61 & 182, Records)."It is likewise evident that petitioner failed to comply with the twin- requirement of notice and hearing which constitutes the essential elements of due process, thus making private respondent's dismissal illegal. Petitioner never gave private respondent any chance to know why she was repatriated. She was suddenly fetched by Tseng Wen making her believe that she will only be given another employment. She never knew the reason, it ever there was, why she was dismissed and brought back to the Philippines.
"It is a settled rule that "if the contract is for a fixed term and the employee is dismissed without just cause, he is entitled to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract."
In this case, as private-respondent's contract was for one year and her dismissal was not for a just cause, hence, she is entitled to her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract. The NLRC, therefore, correctly awarded private respondent the amount which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of her contract as well as her unpaid salary.
"The claim that public respondent NLRC abused its discretion when it ordered the refund of the placement fee of P 23,000.00, when the official receipt (Exhibit "N") which is the best evidence as to the payment of the placement fee of private respondent Nayona, only states P 20,840.00, holds no water. As correctly ruled by the Labor Arbiter:`x x x. Moreover, we do not believe that the complainant paid a placement fee of only P 5,000.00 as shown in Annex "1" of respondents' position paper. Recruitment agencies are allowed to collect placement fees not exceeding P 5,000.00 as required by the POEA. However, applicants pay more but their payments are not reflected in the receipts issued to them by these agencies.'"x x x
"Private respondent having been illegally dismissed and not paid the wages due her from the foreign employer, the liabilities arising as a consequence thereof shall attach to petitioner."x x x
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 29, 1999 and Resolution dated December 20, 1999 of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
"x x xA plain reading of the above provision clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker comes into play only when the employment contract has a term of at least one (1) year or more.
"In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee 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.
"x x x."