FACTS: Respondents were
contracted by the agency for deployment to work as aluminum
fabricator/installer in Modern Metal in Dubai, UAE. The contract was for 2
years, approved by POEA, providing 9 working hours a day, a salary of 1,350 AED
with overtime pay, food allowance, free and suitable housing, free
transportation, free laundry, free medical and dental services. 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 file a complaint for
illegal dismissal against PERT CPM. They agency alleged that they were not
illegally dismissed because they resigned voluntarily. Labor Arbiter dismissed
the complaint finding that they 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. NLRC ordered the payment of
agency 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. CA upheld NLRC’s decision.
ISSUE: W/N 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. Amendment
introduced by RA 10022 cant be given retroactive application because it will
result in an impairment of right that had accrued to the respondents by virtue
of Serrano ruling
No comments:
Post a Comment