Acuña v. CA

G.R. No. 159832. May 5, 2006

P- Mercedita Acuña et al

R- Joint International Corp. and Elizabeth Alañon

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·         Acuña and the other 2 workers were deployed by the JIC as machine operators in Taiwan through an employment contract (salary is NTD15k + overtime pay) for 2 years.
·         After 7 days, they left their jobs and booked a flight home due to unbearable conditions.
·         They demanded from JIC the return of their placement fees and plane fare, and claimed their unpaid salary for the period of 5 days.
·         The JIC refused, but later offered settlement agreement. The petitioners signed a waiver for the said refund.
·         They filed a complaint before NLRC for illegal dismissal and non-payment of the benefits with moral & exemplary damages.
·         The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor declaring that they did not resign voluntarily from their jobs. Thus, JIC was ordered to pay jointly & severally the said claims.
·         On appeal, the NLRC ruled that there was constructive dismissal since working under said conditions was unbearable.
·         However, the CA ruled otherwise because there was no fraud or malice, or intention on the part of the principal to subject them to unhealthy conditions.

Issue:

            WoN petitioners were illegally dismissed, thus entitling them to benefits plus damages.

Ruling:

            No. The circumstances show that there was no constructive dismissal (CD = involuntary resignation when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee).

            However, on the matter of overtime pay, the claim should not be disallowed just because the petitioners cannot substantiate them. GR- claims for overtime pay require documents to be subjected to rules of evidence and procedure. E2R- claim of overseas workers against foreign employers.

            Under LC Art.4, when controversies exist between a worker and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in favor of the worker.

            Thus, the respondents were solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of petitioners.

            As to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the Court holds it lacks legal basis because they failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill motive on the part of the respondents.

            Thus, the petition is DENIED.