ON JUNE 4, 2007, petitioner Arlene A. Cuartocruz and Cheng Chi Ho, a Hong Kong national, entered into a contract of employment whereby petitioner shall work as the latter’s domestic helper for a period of two years. She was tasked to do household chores and baby-sitting, among others, for a monthly salary of HK$3,400 and other benefits. Respondent Active Works Inc. (AWI), a Philippine corporation engaged in the recruitment of domestic helpers in Hong Kong, is petitioner’s agency.
On Aug. 3, 2017, petitioner upon arrival in Hong Kong proceeded to the residence of her employer. On Aug. 11, 2017, she received a warning letter from her employer, stating that she is required to improve her attentiveness in performing her work within one month, failing which the letter shall serve as a written notice of termination of her employment contract effective Sept. 11, 2007. On the same day, petitioner wrote a reply apologizing for giving false information by stating in her bio-data that she is single when in fact she is a single parent.
In a letter dated Aug. 16, 2007, Cheng Chi Ho informed the Immigration Department of Wangchai, Hong Kong that he is terminating the contract with petitioner effective immediately for the following reasons: “disobey order (sic), unmatch the contract which she submit before (sic) and refuse to care my baby (sic).”
Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of unpaid salaries and salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract of employment, reimbursement of placement fee and other fees and moral and exemplary damages.
Does her complaint prosper?
Ruling: Yes.
Under Philippine law, workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process beforetermination of their employment. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law, and without going through the proper procedure. The purpose of these two-pronged qualifications is to protect the working class from the employer’s arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of its right to dismiss.
In this case, respondents failed to prove by substantial evidence that there was just or authorized cause for the termination of petitioner’s employment. About a week into her job, or on Aug. 11, 2007, petitioner received a warning letter from her employer requiring her “to improve [her] attentiveness on [her] performance within one month xx x” failing which the letter shall serve “as a written notice x x x that the x x x contract will be terminated with immediate effect on Sept. 11, 2007.” Nonetheless, after five days, or on Aug. 16, 2007, petitioner’s contract was terminated for the following reasons: “(1) disobey order (sic); (2) unmatch the contract which she submit before (sic); and (3) refuse to care my baby (sic).”
The grounds cited for the termination of petitioner’s employment contract are considered just causes under Article 282 of the Labor Code, but only if respondents were able to prove them. The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer, who must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.
Here, no evidence was presented to substantiate the employer’s accusations. There was no showing of particular instances when petitioner supposedly disobeyed her employer and refused to take care of his baby. With respect to petitioner’s alleged misrepresentation that she was single when in fact she was a single parent, there is also no showing how this affected her work as a domestic helper.
In fact, being a mother herself puts petitioner in a better position to care for her employer’s child. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. (Arlene A. Cuartocruz vs. Active Works Inc., et al., G.R. 209072, July 24, 2019).