VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC.

, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROGELIO BISULA RUBEN ARROZA JUAN GACUTNO LEONILO
ATOK, NILO CRUZ, ALVARO ANDRADA, NEMESIO ADUG SIMPLICIO BAUTISTA, ROMEO ACOSTA, and JOSE
ENCABO respondents.

Facts:
Rogelio Bisula and other seamen entered into a contract of employment for a 12-month period. Some three
months after the commencement of their employment, the seamen demanded a 50% increase of their salaries
and benefits. Bisula and other seamen demanded this increase while their vessel was en route to a port in
Australia controlled by the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), a militant international labor
organization with affiliates indifferent ports of the world, which reputedly can tie a vessel in a port by
preventing its loading and unloading unless it paid its seamen their prescribed ITF rates. In reply, the agent of
the owner of the vessel agreed to pay a 25% increase, but when the vessel arrived in Japan shortly afterwards,
the seamen were repatriated to Manila and their contract terminated. There is no showing that the Seamen
were given the opportunity to at least comment for the cancellation of their contracts, although they had
served only three (3) out of the twelve (12) months' duration of their contracts. The private respondents filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of earned wages with the National Seamen Board (NSB). The
Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services Inc. in turn filed a complaint for breach of contract and recovery of
excess salaries and overtime pay against the private respondents. On July 2, 1980,the NSB rendered a decision
declaring that the seamen breached their employment contracts when they demanded and received from Vir-
jen Shipping wages over and above their contracted rates. The dismissal of the seamen was declared legal and
the seamen were ordered suspended. The seamen appealed the decision to the NLRC which reversed the
decision of the on the ground that the termination of the contract by the petitioner was without valid cause.
Hence, the petition.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the findings of the NSB is more credible than the NLRC that the seamen did not violate their
contract
2. Whether or not the seamen violated their contracts of employment
Held:
1. The decision sought to be reconsidered appears to be a deviation from the Court's decision, speaking
through the First Division, in
Wallem Shipping, Inc. v. Hon. Minister of Labor (102 SCRA 835). Faced with two seemingly conflicting
resolutions of basically the same issue by its two Divisions, the Court, therefore, resolved to transfer the case
to the Court en banc.

We sustain the decision of the respondent National labor Relations Commission.

1. The contention that manning industries in the Philippines would not survive if the instant case is not
decided in favor of the petitioner is not supported by evidence. The Wallem case was decided on February 20,
1981.There have been no severe repercussions, no drying up of employment opportunities for seamen, and
none of the direct consequences repeatedly emphasized by the petitioner. Why should Vir-jen be all
exception? Filipino seamen are admittedly as competent and reliable as seamen from any other country in the
world. Otherwise, there would not be so many of them in the vessels sailing in every ocean and sea on this
globe. It is competence and reliability, not cheap labor that makes our seamen so greatly in demand. Filipino
seamen have never demanded the same high salaries as seamen from the United States, the United Kingdom,
Japan and other developed nations. But certainly, they are entitled to government protection when they ask
for fair and decent treatment by their employer, and when they exercised the right to petition for improved
terms of employment, especially when they feel that these are sub-standard or are capable of improvement
according to internationally accepted rules. In the domestic scene, there are marginal employers who prepare
two sets of payrolls for their employees one in keeping with minimum wages and the other recording the sub-
standard wages that the employees really receive. The reliable employers, however, not only meet the
minimums required by fair labor standards legislation but even go way above the minimums while earning
reasonable profits and prospering. The same is true of international employment. There is no reason why this
Court and the Ministry of Labor and. Employment or its agencies and commissions should come out with
pronouncements based on the standards and practices of unscrupulous or inefficient shipowners, who claim
they cannot survive without resorting to tricky and deceptive schemes, instead of Government maintaining
labor law and jurisprudence according to the practices of honorable, competent, and law-abiding employers,
domestic or foreign.

2. The form contracts approved by the National Seamen Board are designed to protect Filipino seamen not
foreign shipowners who can take care of themselves. The standard forms embody' the basic minimums which
must be incorporated as parts of the employment contract. (Section 15, Rule V, Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code.) They are not collective bargaining agreements or immutable contracts which
the parties cannot improve upon or modify in the course of the agreed period of time. To state, therefore,
that the affected seamen cannot petition their employer for higher salaries during the 12 months duration of
the contract runs counter to established principles of labor legislation. The National Labor Relations
Commission, as the appellate tribunal from decisions of the National Seamen Board, correctly ruled that the
seamen did not violate their contracts to warrant their dismissal.

NORBERTO SORIANO, petitioner,

vs.
OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), respondents

Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine Engineer, sought employment and was hired by private
respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized shipping agent in the Philippines, Offshore Shipping
and Manning Corporation As evidenced by the Crew Agreement, petitioner was hired to work as Third Marine
Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a conduction basis for a period of
fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six (6) months by mutual
agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer.
Thus, while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on July 23, 1985 he signed off on November
27, 1985 due to the alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner
to the position of Second Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic salary from
US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila.

In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA for short), a
complaint against private respondent for payment of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary for
November, 1985 and refund of his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20,000.00
contending therein that private respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his
salary of US$800.00 per month to US$560.00, causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines.
POEA found merit and grant his petition.

Accordingly, respondent POEA ruled as follows:

VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, respondents are hereby ordered to pay
complainant, jointly and severally within ten (10) days from receipt hereof the amount of
P15,000.00 representing the reimbursement of the cash bond deposited by complainant less
US$285.83 (to be converted to its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment).

Further, attorney's fees equivalent to 10 % of the aforesaid award is assessed against

respondents.

All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

Dissatisfied, both parties appealed the aforementioned decision of the POEA to the National Labor Relations
Commission. Complainant-petitioner's appeal was dismissed for lack of merit while respondents' appeal was
dismissed for having been filed out of time.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence this recourse
Issue:
W/N respondent committed grave abuse of discretion and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by
disregarding the alteration of the employment contract made by private respondent.
Petitioner claims that the alteration by private respondent of his salary and overtime rate which is evidenced
by the Crew Agreement and the exit pass constitutes a violation of Article 34 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines.

SC said that there is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the approval of the
Department of Labor is a serious violation of law.

In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission correctly analyzed the
questioned annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original employment contract but only a
clarification thereof which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted
law. Under similar circumstances, this Court ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the coverage
of a statute are strictly construed. But such construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable, sensible
and fair. Hence, to rule out from the exemption amendments set forth, although they did not materially
change the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit, was held to be unreasonable and unjust, and
not in accord with the declared purpose of the Margin Law.

Petition was denied and the decision of the NLRC was affirmed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LETICIA SAGAYAGA, ALMA SO, VICENTE SO YAN HAN and
ORLANDO BURGOS, accused.
LETICIA SAGAYAGA, appellant.
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, convicting the
appellant Leticia Sagayaga of large scale illegal recruitment as defined in Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 and
sentencing her to suffer life imprisonment.

That during the period from October 1997 to December 1997 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and helping each other and representing themselves to have the power, capacity
and lawful authority to deploy complainants as factory workers in Taiwan, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise employment to ELMER JANER, ERIC FAROL and ELMER RAMOS
for and in consideration of amounts ranging from P70,000.00 to P75,000.00 which they paid to said accused,
without the latter having deployed and/or reimbursed complainants of their payments despite demands, to
the damage and prejudice of said complainants.

The appellant Leticia Sagayaga was then working as corporate treasurer. She stated that , the persons who
had effective and actual control, management and direction of the business and transactions of Alvis
Placement Services Corporation were the accused-spouses Vicente So Yan Han and Alma So. As Treasurer of
the corporation, her duties were limited to receiving money or fees paid to the agency by applicants and to
deposit the same in the bank in the name and for the account of the corporation. Although she (appellant)
received money from the complainants Elmer Janer and Eric Farol, the same was deposited by her with the
bank under the account of the corporation. And if ever she signed promissory notes in behalf of the
corporation and issued checks to the complainants, she did so upon the instruction and assurance of accused-
spouses So Yan Han and Alma So that said notes and checks would have sufficient funds on their due dates.

ISSUE:

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE AND IN SENTENCING HER TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT

HELD:
The appeal has no merit.
Under Section 6 (m) of Rep. Act No. 8042,[7] illegal recruitment may be committed by any person, whether a
non-licensee, non-holder of authority, licensee or holder of authority, thus

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without
the workers fault....[8]

Under the last paragraph of the said section, those criminally liable are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of a juridical person, the officers having control, management or direction of the business
shall be criminally liable.
The appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment as a principal by direct participation, having dealt directly with the
private complainants.
An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal,
together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.
The appellants bare denial of her involvement in the management, administration, control and operation
of APSC cannot prevail over her judicial admissions, the positive testimonies of the private complainants and
the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALONA BULI-E and JOSEFINA (JOSIE) ALOLINO, appellants.

DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:

Appellants Alona Buli-e and Josefina Alolino assail the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
Branch 15, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment committed in large scale
and eight counts of estafa.
On March 16, 1993, the following information was filed against Jose Alolino and appellants, Alona Buli-e
and Josefina Alolino:

The undersigned accuses ALONA BULI-E, JOSEFINA (JOSIE) ALOLINO and JOSE ALOLINO for VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 38 (b), PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED BY P.D. 1920 FURTHER AMENDED BY P.D. 2018,
committed in large scale, which is an act of economic sabotage, and by a syndicate, committed as follows:

That during the period from March 1991 to July 1992, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused representing themselves to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and hire and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad did then and there willfully and
unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment / job placement to the following persons:

1. Constancio Macli-ing
2. Jesssica Estay
3. Sidolia Fias-eo
4. John Mangili
5. Nieva Lampoyas
6. Sabado Agapito
7. Joseph Oratil and
8. Joel Oratil
in Taiwan without first obtaining or securing license or authority from the proper government agency.

Evidence for the prosecution showed that on various dates from June 1990 to July 1992, complainants went to
the house of appellant in, Baguio City upon learning that she was recruiting workers for overseas employment.

Buli-e confirmed to complainants that she was, in fact, recruiting contract workers for Taiwan and
that, although she did not have a license of her own to recruit, her boss in Manila who was a licensed
recruiter, was in the process of getting her one which would soon be issued. [10] Buli-e identified her superiors
in Manila to be the spouses Jose[11] and Josefina Alolino.

Josefina denied that Buli-e was her agent and insisted that she never gave Buli-e authority to recruit for
RSI. On the contrary, Buli-e allegedly informed Josefina that she was an agent of Mrs. Fe Go, another
marketing Director of RSI.

Josefina testified that herein complainants were originally referred by Buli-e to Mrs. Fe Go who, in turn,
referred them to her. Josefina said that she accepted referrals from Buli-e even though the latter was not her
agent nor connected with RSI because their agency accepts referrals from everyone. In 1992, Buli-e, claiming
that complainants authorized and designated her to act as their spokesperson, went to the house of Josefina
several times to follow up the progress of their applications.[48]
On July 4, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 11122-R, the Court finds the accused Alona Buli-e and Josefina (Josie) Alolino
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, by direct participation and in conspiracy with each other, of the
crime of illegal recruitment in a large scale as defined and penalized under Article 38(b) in
relation to Article 39 of PD 442 as amended by PD 2018 and sentences each of them to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 each, and to pay the costs.

2. In Criminal case No. 11123-R to 11130-R (8 counts), the court finds the accused Alona Buli-e and
Josefina (Josie) Alolino guilty beyond reasonable doubt by direct participation and in conspiracy
with each other of the crime of Estafa as charged .

The accused Alona Buli-e and Josefina (Josie) Alolino being detention prisoners are entitled to be
credited 4/5 of their preventive imprisonment in the service of their sentence in accordance with
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

In rendering the decision, the trial court ruled that by their acts, Buli-e and Josefina, conspired and
confederated with one another in the illegal recruitment of complainants for overseas employment. Buli-e
performed the recruitment activities in Baguio and Josefina, in Manila. The trial court specifically noted Buli-es
acts of accompanying the complainants to Manila for their medical examinations,
securing complainants NBI clearances and passports as well as receiving complainants downpayments for the
purported placement fee as an indication that she directly participated in the recruitment of all complainants.
The trial court observed that Buli-e practically confessed her acts of recruitment in open court and justified the
same by claiming that she was just acting as an agent of Josefina or was authorized to act in behalf of the latter.
As regards Josefina, the trial court held that she directly participated in the recruitment of complainants
even if she did not personally go to Baguio City since she received the applications and other requirements such
as NBI clearances, passports, bio-data as well as the advanced payments of complainants from Buli-e. Either she
or her husband Jose, or both of them, entertained complainants who were brought by Buli-e to their home at
No. 11 Concorde Street, Airmans Village, Las Pias, Metro Manila. The spouses repeatedly promised to work or
make arrangements for complainants deployment abroad.

ISSUE:

I. RTC ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE DEFENSE OF THE CO-ACCUSED ALONA BULI-E THAT SHE MERELY
REFERRED THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTIES TO CO-ACCUSED SPOUSES JOSE AND JOSEFINA ALOLINO, WHOM
SHE HONESTLY BELIEVED TO BE BONA FIDE OVERSEAS JOB RECRUITERS;

HELD:

Josefinas acts clearly show that she and Buli-e acted in concert towards the accomplishment of a common
felonious purpose which was to recruit workers for overseas employment even though they had no license to
do so. Settled is the rule that if it is proved that two or more persons, aimed, by their acts, at the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, although apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred even though no actual meeting between or among
them to coordinate ways and means is proved

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 15, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the actual damages awarded to Fias-eo and Mangili in Criminal Cases Nos. 11125-R and
11126-R are deleted. Costs de oficio.

PHIL. EMPLOY SERVICES and RESOURCES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
JOSEPH PARAMIO, RONALD NAVARRA, ROMEL SARMIENTO, RECTO GUILLERMO, FERDINAND BAUTISTA and
APOLINARIO CURAMENG, JR., respondents.

On different dates from April 1996 to October 1996, respondents Joseph Paramio, Ronald Navarra, Romel
Sarmiento, Recto Guillermo, Ferdinand Bautista and Apolinario Curameng, Jr. applied for employment in
Taiwan2with petitioner, Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. (PSRI for brevity), a domestic corporation
engaged in the recruitment and deployment of Filipino Workers Overseas.3 Their applications were processed
along with the requisite papers and documents in support thereof, and they paid P19,000 each as placement
fee.4 Thereafter, they executed in the Philippines separate one-year contracts of employment with their
employer in Taiwan, Kuan Yuan Fiber Co., Ltd. Hsei-Chang. The respondents were deployed in Taiwan as
operators on different dates5 and each of them had a monthly salary of NT$15,360 (New Taiwan Dollars), with
free food and accommodation.6

After the orientation given by their employer, the respondents were told that their schedule of work was up to
9:00 p.m.,7 except for respondent Navarra who was made to work up to 12:00 midnight.8 The respondents
were downhearted when they discovered that, upon their arrival in their quarters, they had no beddings,
pillows and blankets.9 They encountered worse problems in the course of their employment, viz.:

a). Irregular and deliberate charging of deductions which were not fully accounted such as the blankets
issued, charging of penalties amounting to 400 NT to all employees for a littering violation attributable
only to one employee;

b). Mandatory imposition of overtime work exceeding 10 hours without just overtime compensation
and night shift differentials;

c). Failure to comply with some stipulations stated in the Employment Contract particularly those
relating to the accommodation and lodging of the contracted workers;

d). Lack of observance of safety precautions at work area.10

The respondents brought their problems to the attention of the management, However, instead of solving the
problems, Chua cautioned the respondents not to air their complaints and to simply forget about whatever
plans they had in mind.11 Disappointed, the respondents, along with their co-workers, contacted the Overseas
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in Taiwan and sought the latters assistance, only to be frustrated
when their requests were not favorably acted upon.

respondent Navarra and another employee, Pio Gabito, were summoned by the management and told that
they were to be repatriated, without specifying the ground or cause therefor. They pleaded that they be
informed of the cause or causes for their repatriation, but their requests were rejected. 14 Worse, the manager
of their employer summoned the police, who arrived and escorted them to the airport. They were even given
time to pack all their personal belongings.

Upon respondent Navarras arrival in Manila, the petitioner sought to settle his complaints. 15 After the
negotiations, the petitioner agreed to pay P49,000 to the said respondent but, in consideration thereof, the
latter executed a quitclaim releasing the petitioner from any or all liabilities for his repatriation.
The respondents also decided to go home, but their employer and their broker told them 17 that they would be
repatriated two days later, or on May 12, 1997. They were ready to leave on the aforesaid date, but were
informed that they would have to pay their employer NT$30,000; otherwise, they would not be allowed to go
home. As they were unable to pay the NT$30,000, the respondents failed to return to the Philippines.18

The management and broker gave the respondents two (2) options: (a) imprisonment for their refusal to pay
NT$30,000.00; or (b) sign separate agreements with their employer. The respondents had no other recourse
but to sign agreements19 authorizing their employer to (a) deduct the amount of NT$30,000 from their
salaries; (b) remit their salaries to the Philippines; and, (c) deduct NT$10,000 from their salaries as
"bond."20 However, the respondents were still not repatriated. The next day, or on May 13, 1997, their
employer issued a regulation that overtime of ten hours or more would be implemented. 21 Thus, the
conditions in the respondents workplace worsened.

Respondents, filed separate complaints before the NLRC Arbitration Branch against Bayani Fontanilla for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, refund of placement fee, tax refund, refund of plane fares, attorneys
fees and litigation expenses.

On October 29, 1998, Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal of the
respondents was illegal. The dispositive portion states, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainants dismissal to be illegal and

respondents are ordered to pay to complainants as follows:

1. Ronald Navarra NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300
refund of plane fare less P49,000.

2. Recto Guillermo NT$15,360 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and
P4,300 refund of air fare.

3. Joseph Paramio NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300
refund air fare.

4. Apolinario Curameng, Jr. NT$23,040 or its peso equivalent; P75,000 refund of placement fee and
P4,300 refund of air fare.

5. Ferdinand Bautista NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and
P4,300 refund of air fare; and

6. Romel Sarmiento NT$ or its peso equivalent P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300
refund of air fare.

The claim for tax refund is dismissed for not having been substantiated.39

Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) the NLRC issued a
resolution43 finding that the respondents were legally dismissed and set aside the decision of the labor arbiter.
The decretal portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and the instant case
dismissed for lack of merit

Issue:

. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED WHEN THEY WERE REPATRIATED TO THE
PHIL. BY THEIR TAIWAN EMPLOYER.

HELD:

SC ruled that the respondents dismissal was not based on just, valid and legal grounds.
In order to effect a valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there be just and valid cause as
provided in Article 28256 and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself.57 Dismissal may also be based on any of the authorized causes provided for in Articles 283 and 284 of
the Labor Code.58

Moreover, when there is a doubt between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, such
doubt should be resolved in favor of labor.

It is not necessary that there be an express termination of ones services before a case of illegal
dismissal can exist. In the landmark case of Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, et al. (171 SCRA 164) the Supreme Court ruled that "a constructive
discharge is defined as: "A quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely." In the case at bar, the petitioners were made to suffer unbearable
conditions in the workplace and the inhuman treatment of their employer until they were left with no
choice but to quit. Thus, it cannot be said that the resignation and repatriation of complainants
Curameng, Bautista, Sarmienta and Guillermo was voluntary.

It was held in the case of Valdez vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 87:

"It would have been illogical for herein petitioner to resign and then file a complaint for illegal
dismissal. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of said complaint."

Assuming arguendo that the quitclaim was executed voluntarily, still, it cannot diminish petitioners
entitlement to the full compensation provided in their contract. At the most, such amount can be considered
an advance on his claim.90

PLACEWELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
IRENEO B. CAMOTE,

,Respondent filed a sworn Complaint4 for monetary claims against petitioner alleging that when he arrived at
the job site, he and his fellow Filipino workers were required to sign another employment contract written in
Arabic under the constraints of losing their jobs if they refused; that for the entire duration of the new
contract, he received only SR 590.00 per month; that he was not given his overtime pay despite rendering nine
hours of work everyday; that he and his co-workers sought assistance from the Philippine Embassy but they
did not succeed in pursuing their cause of action because of difficulties in communication.

The labor arbiter rendered a decision holding that the modification of respondents employment contract is
not allowed under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A. No. 8042);5 thus, he should have received the
original contracted salary of US$370.00 per month instead of the new rate given by SAAD. It was also noted
that respondent did not refute petitioners allegation regarding the non-payment of placement and other
processing fees prior to deployment. The labor arbiter also found that there is no differential as far as
respondents overtime pay is concerned considering that he was given overtime pay based on the new rate of
SR 800.00. Since respondent rendered one hour of overtime work per day for only 18 months, and not the
entire 24 months as claimed, the total overtime pay he received is more or less equivalent to the amount he
ought to have received if the original contracted rate of US$370.00 was used. Finally, the labor arbiter
awarded respondent attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award for being compelled to
hire a counsel to protect his rights and interests. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING respondent PLACEWELL

INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION to pay complainant IRENEO B. CAMOTE the amount of PESOS: TWO
HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR ONLY (P215,424.00) representing
underpayment of wages and attorneys fees.

On appeal by the petitioner, the NLRC set aside the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is Vacated and Set Aside. In lieu thereof, a new
judgment is rendered, dismissing the above-entitled case for lack of cause of action.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals which set aside the
Resolution of the NLRC, and reinstated with modifications the Decision of the labor arbiter.

ISSUE:

W/N respondent was illegally terminated and was forced to to enter into a new employment contract.

HELD:

Petitioner avers that respondent failed to substantiate the allegation that he was forced to enter into the new
employment contract with SAAD which proves that the new contract was actually voluntarily entered and
agreed upon between said parties; that if respondent was indeed forced to sign the new contract, his claims
are now barred by laches because respondent never informed petitioner of any problem at the job site until
two years after his deployment; that the appellate courts award for unauthorized deductions in the amount
of P171,780.00 should be deleted for lack of legal or factual basis; that respondent is not entitled to attorneys
fees.

Moreover, we find that there was no proper dismissal of respondent by SAAD; the "termination" of
respondent was clearly a ploy to pressure him to agree to a lower wage rate for continued employment. Thus,
the original POEA-approved employment contract of respondent subsists despite the so-called new agreement
with SAAD. Consequently, the solidary liability of petitioner with SAAD for respondents money claims
continues in accordance with Section 10 of R.A. 8042.12