Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    11 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Inot
    Respondents were deployed by petitioner agency to work for Modern Metals in Dubai under 2-year contracts approved by POEA. However, upon arriving in Dubai, respondents were given different contracts by Modern Metals with worse terms. Respondents resigned due to the unbearable conditions. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner agency. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding respondents voluntarily resigned, but the NLRC reversed, finding the changed contracts were illegal. The NLRC ordered damages paid to respondents. The Supreme Court upheld, finding that while a new law restored a provision, it could not be applied retroactively to impair accrued rights from an earlier ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    11 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Inot
    26 views1 page
    Respondents were deployed by petitioner agency to work for Modern Metals in Dubai under 2-year contracts approved by POEA. However, upon arriving in Dubai, respondents were given different contracts by Modern Metals with worse terms. Respondents resigned due to the unbearable conditions. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner agency. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding respondents voluntarily resigned, but the NLRC reversed, finding the changed contracts were illegal. The NLRC ordered damages paid to respondents. The Supreme Court upheld, finding that while a new law restored a provision, it could not be applied retroactively to impair accrued rights from an earlier ruling.

    Original Title

    11 digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondents were deployed by petitioner agency to work for Modern Metals in Dubai under 2-year contracts approved by POEA. However, upon arriving in Dubai, respondents were given different contracts by Modern Metals with worse terms. Respondents resigned due to the unbearable conditions. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner agency. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding respondents voluntarily resigned, but the NLRC reversed, finding the changed contracts were illegal. The NLRC ordered damages paid to respondents. The Supreme Court upheld, finding that while a new law restored a provision, it could not be applied retroactively to impair accrued rights from an earlier ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views1 page

    11 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Inot
    Respondents were deployed by petitioner agency to work for Modern Metals in Dubai under 2-year contracts approved by POEA. However, upon arriving in Dubai, respondents were given different contracts by Modern Metals with worse terms. Respondents resigned due to the unbearable conditions. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner agency. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding respondents voluntarily resigned, but the NLRC reversed, finding the changed contracts were illegal. The NLRC ordered damages paid to respondents. The Supreme Court upheld, finding that while a new law restored a provision, it could not be applied retroactively to impair accrued rights from an earlier ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    197528               September 5, 2012

    PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., Petitioner,


    vs.
    ARMANDO A. VINUY A, LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S. LUMANTA. JR., ROBELITO S.
    ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R. ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY 0. ENJAMBRE and NOEL T.
    LADEA, Respondents.

    FACTS:
    - In 2007, Respondents alleged that petitioner agency deployed them for their principal Modern
    Metal in Dubai, UAE with a 2-year employment contracts approved by the (POEA).
    - However, in Dubai, Modern Metals gave them appointment letters with terms different from
    those they signed in the Philippines – increasing their employment terms, reducing salaries,
    allowances, and benefits. The working conditions were also not as promised.
    - They complained to their agency but to no avail.
    - Due to unbearable living and working condition, they resigned from their job and indicated
    personal/family problems as their reasons, (except for Era who mentioned real reason).
    - On March 15, 2008, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
    - The agency alleged that they were not illegally dismissed because they resigned voluntarily.
    - Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding that respondents voluntarily resigned.
    - Respondents appealed to NLRC which reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter.
    - NLRC pointed out that signing of different contract in Dubai is illegal. It ordered the petitioner to
    pay the salary, placement fee, and exemplary damages to respondents.
    - Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by NLRC, but modified their
    judgment adjusting the awards, particularly their salaries, in light of court’s ruling in Serrano
    striking down the clause in Sec 10, par 5, RA 8042 which limits the entitlement of illegally
    dismissed OFW. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and questioned the applicability of
    Serrano ruling. This was denied, and CA upheld NLRC’s decision. Hence, the instant petition.

    ISSUE: WON RA 10022, which was enacted on March 8, 2010, restoring the subject clause in Sec 10 of
    RA 8042 being amendatory in nature can be applied retroactively.

    HELD: No. 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.
    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.

    Amendment introduced by RA 10022 can’t be given retroactive application because it will result in an
    impairment of right that had accrued to the respondents by virtue of Serrano ruling.

    You might also like