8/19/2019 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Vs

1/2

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency vs. Joy Cabiles

Facts: Petitioneris a recruitment and placement agency. Joy Cabiles applied for work oered by petitioner for aquality control job in Taiwan. pon appro!al of Joy"s application# $%e was asked ny petitioner to sign a one&year employment contract for a mont%ly salary of 'T()*#+,-.--. $%e alleged t%at $ameer !erseas /gencyrequired %er to pay a placement fee of P%P0-#---.-- w%en s%e signed t%e employment contract. Joy wasdeployed to work for Taiwan 1acoal# Co. 2td. 31acoal4 on June 5,# )660. $%e alleged t%at in %er employmentcontract# s%e agreed to work as quality control for one year. 7n Taiwan# s%e was asked to work as a cutter.$ameer !erseas Placement /gency claims t%at on July )8# )660# a certain 9r. uwang from 1acoalinformed Joy# wit%out prior notice# t%at s%e was terminated and t%at ;s%e s%ould immediately report to t%eiroC and C/ ruled t%at Joy was illegally dismissed and t%us s%e is entitled to to t%e equi!alent of t%ree

mont%s wort% of salary# reimbursement of wit%%eld repatriation e?pense# and attorney@s fees.

7ssue: 1%et%er or not Petitioner is liable to Joy

>uling:

) T%e petitioner is liable to t%e respondent. $ameer !erseas Placement /gency failed to s%ow t%at t%erewas just cause for causing Joy@s dismissal. T%e employer# 1acoal# also failed to accord %er due process oflaw. F1s are not stripped of t%eir security of tenure w%en t%ey mo!e to work in a dierent jurisdiction.1it% respect to t%e rig%ts of o!erseas Filipino workers# we follow t%e principle of lex loci contractus.Dstablis%ed is t%e rule t%at lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made)governs in this jurisdiction. There is no question that the contract of employment in this casewas perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, the Laor !ode, its implementing rules andregulations, and other laws a"ecting laor apply in this case

 T%us# as in line wit% our 2abor 2aw# Petitioner %as t%e burden of pro!ing t%at respondent was ineepublic /ct 'o. )--55 was promulgated on 9arc% E#5-)-. T%is means t%at t%e reinstatement of t%e clause in >epublic /ct 'o. E-85 was not yet in eect at t%etime of respondent@s termination from work in )660. >epublic /ct 'o. E-85 before it was amended by>epublic /ct 'o. )--55 go!erns t%is case.

7n t%e %ierarc%y of laws# t%e Constitution is supreme. 'o branc% or o

8/19/2019 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Vs

2/2

pro!ision of law t%at was already declared unconstitutional remains as suc% unless circumstances %a!e soc%anged as to warrant a re!erse conclusion.

2imiting t%e wages that should e recovered y an illegally dismissed overseas wor%er to threemonths is oth a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the !onstitution.

132. Sameer Oversees Placement Agency Inc.

  vs. Joy C. Cabiles G.R. No.

5