TOPIC
Recruitment and Placement, Termination of Contract Migrant Worker
TITLE
Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management G.R. No. 179532, (May 30,2011)
DOCTRINE
As previously held, the clause “or for three months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less” provided in the 5th paragraph of Section
10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of
Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to equal protection of the laws
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals
NATURE OF
CASE
FACTS
LA
NLRC
CA
ISSUE/S
(Primary)
Claudio Yap was hired as an electrician for vessel M/T SEASCOUT by
Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. in behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping
Limited for 12 months as stipulated in employment contract. However, 3
months upon boarding, the vessel was sold which POEA was informed.
Yap and other crew members were also informed of the same. Yap was
paid his seniority bonus, vacation bonus and extra bonus but refused to
accept the payment of one-month basic wage insisting that he is entitled to
the payment of unexpired portion of his contract since he was illegally
dismissed. Respondent however averred otherwise and that he was validly
terminated and entitled only to the payment of the corresponding months
he worked (3 months).
Stand/Contention
Rationale
Yap was constructively and
illegally dismissed and entitled to
salaries for the unexpired portion
of his contract for 9 mos
Stand/Contention
Rationale
Affirmed LA findings however There can be no choice to grant only 3
entitled only to 3 mos of salary mos salary for every year of the
under Sec. 10 RA 8042. Upon unexpired term because there is no full
review, it modified 3 mos to year of unexpired term which this can
entitlement to the whole months be applied
of the unexpired portion
Stand/Contention
Rationale
Affirmed LA and NLRC findings Employment contract has term of 1
on illegal dismissal but reversed year but was pre-terminated without
NLRC finding to entitlement to valid cause to which Yap was paid
payment of unexpired portion
correspondingly to the months he
worked. Hence, Sec. 10 RA 8042 is
applicable
WON Sec. 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional
RULING
Yes, Sec. 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional.
As held in Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services Inc, the clause “or for three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” provided in
the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for
being violative of the rights of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to equal
protection of the laws.
The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect
classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixedterm employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on
the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their
contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixedterm employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of
OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.
NOTES
Sec. 10, RA 8042 MONEY CLAIMS.x x x - In case of termination of
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by
Legal
Basis/Provisions law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of
his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus
Related
his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for
three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less.