MANILA, Philippines – In what is considered as an unprecedented and landmark decision, the Supreme Court awarded a total of $26,442.73 in wages to an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) as it declared as unconstitutional a provision in a law that limits to three months the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs.
The total amount awarded by the SC to Filipino seafarer Antonio Serrano represented the nine months and 23 days that he would have spent on board a ship if his foreign employer had complied with the 12-month valid contract they had signed.
In doing so, the High Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision in the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act which limited to just three months the money claims of OFWs, as it pointed out:
“A closer examination reveals that the provision has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on OFWs at two levels: first, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis-Ã -vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more; and second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year and OFWs vis-Ã -vis with local workers with fixed period of employment.”
It is unfair for such provision to limit illegally dismissed OFWs salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, or three months for every year of the unexpired term, the SC emphasized.
The office of the solicitor general defended the provision as it insisted that it is part of the State’s police power to protect the employment of Filipino seafarers.
By limiting the liability of employers to three months, the Filipino seafarers have a better chance of getting hired, it argued.
However, the SC pointed out the provision violates due process as it deprives illegally dismissed OFWs salaries and other emoluments under their fixed-period employment contracts.
The case arose from a complaint for “constructive dismissal” which was filed by Serrano against recruiter Gallant Maritime Services Incorporated and Marlow Navigation Company Limited.
Records showed that Serrano was hired as chief officer for 12 months with a basic monthly salary of $1,400. But on the day of their departure on March 19, 1998, Serrano said Gallant downgraded his contract to that of second officer with a monthly salary of $1,000.
Serrano said he was forced to accept the demotion following Gallant’s assurance that he would be made chief officer by the end of April 1998.
However, Gallant and Marlow reneged on the promise and Serrano, who refused to stay on as second officer, was repatriated on May 26, 1998.
On his return home, Serrano filed a complaint against Gallant with the labor arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and demanded payment of the unexpired portion of the contract totaling $26,442.73.
The labor arbiter ruled in Serrano’s favor and ordered Gallant to pay him $8,770 representing only three months as mandated by the provision in the law.
On Serrano’s appeal, the NLRC upheld the arbiter’s findings that he was illegally dismissed but reduced the amount awarded to him to just $4,669.
The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals which upheld the NLRC’s decision but skirted the question of the constitutionality and legality of the provision, an issue which the Supreme Court eventually decided by ordering that Serrano be paid the full amount of $26,442.73.
Loading ...
Reader’s Views