Sameer V Cabiles

BADGE:
labor law, overseas Filipino workers,

migrant workers and Overseas
Filipino Workers Act of 1995 (R.A. No.
8042)
CAPTION:
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT

AGENCY, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014
SYLLABI:
Employers cannot be compelled to retain
the services of an employee, who is
guilty of acts that are inimical to the
interest of the employer. Indeed,
employers have the prerogative to
impose productivity and quality
standards at work. They may also impose
reasonable rules to ensure that the
employees comply with these standards.
Failure to comply may be a just cause for
their dismissal.
FACTS:
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency, Inc., is a recruitment
and placement agency.
Respondent, Joy Cabiles, was hired and
thus signed a one-year employment
contract for a monthly salary of
NT$15,360.00. Joy was
deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal,
Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997.
She alleged that in her employment
contract, she agreed to work as quality
control for one year. In Taiwan, she was
asked to work as a cutter. Sameer claims
that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr.
Huwang from
Wacoal informed Joy, without prior
notice, that she was terminated and that
“she should immediately report to their
office to get her salary and passport.”
She was asked to “prepare for immediate
repatriation.” Joy claims that she was
told that from June 26 to July 14, 1997,
she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15
According to her, Wacoal deducted
NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to
Manila.
On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a

complaint for illegal dismissal with the
NLRC against petitioner and Wacoal.
CA dismissed the complaint. NLRC
reversed CA’s decision. CA affirmed the
ruling of the National Labor Relations
Commission, finding the respondent
illegally dismissed and awarding her
three months’ worth of salary, the
reimbursement of the cost of her
repatriation, and attorney’s fees
ISSUES:
Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to
the unexpired portion of
her salary due to illegal dismissal?
RULING:
YES. The Court held that the award of
the three-month equivalent of
respondent’s salary should be increased
to the amount equivalent to the
unexpired term of the employment
contract.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services,

Inc. and Marlow Navigation
Co., Inc., this court ruled that the clause
“or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less” is
unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause and substantive due
process.
A statute or provision which was
declared unconstitutional is not a
law. It “confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; it affords no protection; it creates
no office; it is inoperative as if it has not
been passed at all.”
The Court said that they are aware that
the clause “or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less,” was reinstated
in Republic Act No. 8042 upon
promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022
in 2010.
FALLO:
YES. The Court held that the award of
the three-month equivalent of
respondent’s salary should be increased
to the amount equivalent to the
unexpired term of the employment
contract.
Ruling on the constitutional issue
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution

is supreme. No branch or
office of the government may exercise its
powers in any manner inconsistent with
the Constitution, regardless of the
existence of any law that supports such
exercise. The Constitution cannot be
trumped by any other law. All laws must
be read in light of the Constitution. Any
law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law

is null because it is
inconsistent with the Constitution, the
nullity cannot be cured by
reincorporation or re-enactment of the
same or a similar law or provision.
A law or provision of law that was

already declared unconstitutional remains
as such unless circumstances have so
changed as to warrant a reverse
conclusion.
The Court observed that the reinstated
clause, this time as provided in Republic
Act. No. 10022, violated the
constitutional rights to equal protection
and due process. The petitioner, as well
as the Solicitor General, has failed to
show any compelling change in the
circumstances that would warrant us to
revisit the precedent.
The Court declared, once again, the

clause, “or for three (3) months
for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less” in Section 7 of
Republic Act No. 10022, amending
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042,
as unconstitutional and, therefore, null
and void.

Sameer V Cabiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sameer V Cabiles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Sameer V Cabiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BADGE:

labor law, overseas Filipino workers,

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT

On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services,

Ruling on the constitutional issue

In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution

Thus, when a law or a provision of law

A law or provision of law that was

The Court declared, once again, the

You might also like