Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
67 views1 page

11 Digest

Respondents were deployed by petitioner agency to work for Modern Metals in Dubai under 2-year contracts approved by POEA. However, upon arriving in Dubai, respondents were given different contracts by Modern Metals with worse terms. Respondents resigned due to the unbearable conditions. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner agency. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding respondents voluntarily resigned, but the NLRC reversed, finding the changed contracts were illegal. The NLRC ordered damages paid to respondents. The Supreme Court upheld, finding that while a new law restored a provision, it could not be applied retroactively to impair accrued rights from an earlier ruling.

Uploaded by

Naomi Inot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views1 page

11 Digest

Respondents were deployed by petitioner agency to work for Modern Metals in Dubai under 2-year contracts approved by POEA. However, upon arriving in Dubai, respondents were given different contracts by Modern Metals with worse terms. Respondents resigned due to the unbearable conditions. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner agency. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding respondents voluntarily resigned, but the NLRC reversed, finding the changed contracts were illegal. The NLRC ordered damages paid to respondents. The Supreme Court upheld, finding that while a new law restored a provision, it could not be applied retroactively to impair accrued rights from an earlier ruling.

Uploaded by

Naomi Inot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

197528               September 5, 2012

PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., Petitioner,


vs.
ARMANDO A. VINUY A, LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S. LUMANTA. JR., ROBELITO S.
ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R. ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY 0. ENJAMBRE and NOEL T.
LADEA, Respondents.

FACTS:
- In 2007, Respondents alleged that petitioner agency deployed them for their principal Modern
Metal in Dubai, UAE with a 2-year employment contracts approved by the (POEA).
- 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 filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
- The agency alleged that they were not illegally dismissed because they resigned voluntarily.
- Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint finding that respondents 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. It ordered the petitioner 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, and CA upheld NLRC’s decision. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE: WON 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. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. By its very nature, the
amendment introduced by R.A. 10022 — restoring a provision of R.A. 8042 declared unconstitutional —
cannot be given retroactive effect, not only because there is no express declaration of retroactivity in
the law, but because retroactive application will result in an impairment of a right that had accrued to
the respondents by virtue of the Serrano ruling - entitlement to their salaries for the unexpired portion
of their employment contracts.
All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective application, unless the purpose and
intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect are expressly declared or are necessarily
implied from the language used.

Amendment introduced by RA 10022 can’t be given retroactive application because it will result in an
impairment of right that had accrued to the respondents by virtue of Serrano ruling.

You might also like