Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. v. Manuel (2021)

See: Original Decision

Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. v. Manuel, G.R. No. 249843, October 6, 2021, Per Zalameda, J.:

1. Background

• On 13 April 2017, petitioner Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. (Ascent) deployed respondent Alma Tacda Manuel (respondent) to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to work as a domestic helper for a contract term of two (2) years with a salary of US$400.00 a month.

• Twelve (12) days later, respondent complained about her working conditions and refused to work for her employer. Consequently, her employer brought her to Silver Contract Manpower Office (Silver Contract), Ascent’s foreign principal, where she stayed while the latter looked for another employer for her. However, when Silver Contract offered her a new job in Abha, KSA, respondent refused because she wanted to work in Riyadh.

• Later, a former employee of Silver Contract took her to United Project Company (UPC). She stayed there, along with other workers who were to be repatriated or were waiting for a job assignment. After several months at UPC, respondent pleaded for Silver Contract to repatriate her. Before her repatriation, she executed a letter, which reads:

Ako po si Alma T. Manuel may numerong pasaporte D1389230A Taga Carmen [N]orth Cotabato na nagsasabi[:]

[A]ko po ay uuwi ng Philippines na walang kailangan sa aking kasalukuyang [e]mployer

Ayaw ko nang mag trabaho

walang pananagutan ang akin[g] Agency

wala rin akong kailangan sa Agency na Ascent

• On 10 July 2017, she flew back to the country. Barely a month after, she filed a complaint  for constructive dismissal, payment of the unexpired portion of her contract, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against Ascent and its directors and other officers… She later amended her complaint to include claims for sexual harassment, discrimination, maltreatment, and trafficking.

• Respondent alleged that she applied for a job in Riyadh. However, when she was at the airport, she was surprised to see that her plane ticket was bound for Jeddah. She then learned from Ascent’s representative that she was actually headed to Abha, KSA. She got worried, but she knew she had to proceed since she needed the money to provide for her children.

• On respondent’s third day at her employer’s house, the employer, Raman, required her to give him a massage. She refused but Raman was insistent. While she was massaging his feet, Raman grazed her breast and forced her to hold his private part. Fortunately, they were interrupted when Raman’s wife called her. Shocked by what happened, she ran to the kitchen and wept. When Raman left, respondent confided with Raman’s spouse. Raman, however, continued to harass her sexually whenever he could. Hence, she asked to be returned to Silver Contract.

• When she arrived, a certain Mr. Musa of Silver Contract asked her if she was willing to work for another employer. She initially agreed, but eventually refused the offer when Mr. Musa told her that her new employment would be in Abha again. Subsequently, a man took her from Silver Contract under the pretext that he was her new employer then brought her to UPC. There, she and seven (7) other people were locked up in a tiny space without sufficient ventilation and air conditioning. They were not given enough ration for food and water. She had to eat left-overs, sometimes even spoiled food. More than two (2) months later, she realized the hopelessness of her situation and asked to be repatriated.

• Ascent and petitioner Mohammad Ali Abang Datucali jointly filed their Position Paper, denying respondent’s dismissal, let alone her constructive dismissal. They alleged that respondent refused to work because her employer’s house was huge, and it was difficult for her to clean the said house every day. She continued to work for a month until she decided to quit, prompting her employer to return her to Silver Contract. Silver Contract’s representatives explained to respondent the consequences of her action, but she still chose to be repatriated. Before her repatriation, she voluntarily executed the letter showing that she willingly and voluntarily pre-terminated her employment contract.

2. SC Decision / Resolution

• Jurisprudence defines resignation as the “voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment.” On the other hand, constructive dismissal can happen in any number of ways. At its core, however, is the gratuitous, unjustified, or unwarranted nature of the employer’s action. In Jacob v. First Step Manpower Int’l Services, Inc., the Court explained that constructive dismissal does not always entail a forthright dismissal or diminution in rank, compensation, benefit, and privileges. There can also be constructive dismissal where an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by employers becomes so unbearable for the employees that it could foreclose any choice by the latter except to forego their continued employment.

• In the instant case, the totality of evidence establishes the unfairness and unjustness of respondent’s situation. Considering what respondent went through, the Court agrees that her unbearable condition and environment precipitated her repatriation. The CA’s finding on this is worth quoting:

In filing this labor complaint, petitioner maintained that she was constructively dismissed, citing several circumstances making her continued employment unendurable and unacceptable. She enumerated in detailer her concerns such as (1) she was deployed in Abha not in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; (2) the sexual advances of the male employer unto her including the touching of her breasts and forcing her to touch his private part; (3) her transfer to another employment agency, United Project; (4) she was locked along -with another applicant in a room and were not given water to drink or decent food to eat. To the Court’s mind, these circumstances attributable to private respondents are easily rebuttable. Interestingly, though, neither Ascent Skills Human Resources nor Silver refute these.

Assuming that it was petitioner who refused to be transferred to UPC, her work in Abha, Saudi Arabia, to begin with, was not shown to have been processed through the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). It can be recalled that petitioner was originally deployed to work in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia but was surprised to see her plane ticket indicating that she was going to Abha. Such fact, again, was not denied by private respondents and was corroborated by her own employment contract with Silver. x x x

Petitioner’s assignment as domestic helper in Abha, Saudi Arabia instead of Riyadh as stated in her contract with Silver, was a breach of the original contract approved by the government. Hence, petitioner’s refusal to accept another work from UPC was proper under the circumstances. The Court cannot tolerate this practice as it will open floodgates to even more abuse of our overseas workers in the hands of their foreign employers and recruiters. x x x

• As correctly stressed by the CA, respondent had the right to refuse her employment in Abha. The employment she signed for was in Riyadh. On this score, the NLRC erroneously held that there was no violation of the employment contract since it did not state what city respondent was supposed to work. On the contrary, the employment contract stated the employer’s address to be Riyadh, not elsewhere. Also, Silver Contract’s office was in Riyadh. Clearly, respondent was made to believe that she was bound for Riyadh, not Abha.

• Since Silver Contract could not immediately find the right employment opportunity for the respondent, the least it could do for her was to provide her with appropriate living conditions. Instead, out of spite, Silver Contract placed her in a miserable situation that forced the latter to sever her employment. What Silver. Contract did under the circumstances is indubitably tantamount to constructive dismissal. As recently held by the Court, there is constructive dismissal where the employer intentionally places the employee in a situation that will result in the latter being coerced into severing his ties with the former.

• Lest it be forgotten, respondent’s employer likewise contributed immensely to her predicament. She left her job because her employer was molesting her, and the spouse was not doing anything about it. Respondent’s traumatic experience is similar to the case of the overseas household helper in Jacob. Therein, the household helper was also subjected to her employer’s lewd conduct. When she complained to her employer’s spouse, the latter disregarded her accusations and even subjected her to physical and verbal harm. The acts of her employer became unbearable for the overseas household helper that she decided to escape from them and return to her foreign agency. In holding that there was constructive dismissal under the circumstances, the Court elucidated:

Certainly, the treatment petitioner experienced in the hands of her foreign employers fostered a hostile and unbearable work setting which impelled her not only to leave her employers but also, as in petitioner’s words, to escape (tumakas). The conclusion is all too clear that there exists a well-grounded fear on her part prompting her to run away despite having been employed overseas for barely two (2) months.

• The cessation of petitioner’s employment was not of her own doing but was brought about by unfavorable circumstances created by her foreign employers. To put in simply, if petitioner failed to continue her job, it was because she refused to be further subjected to the ordeal caused by [her] employers’ conduct. All of these evidently constitute a case of constructive dismissal.

• Petitioners are adamant that the evidence on record sufficiently proved that respondent’s resignation was voluntary. They also harp on the voluntariness of the execution of her letter. The NLRC agreed, holding that respondent failed to prove that she was coerced or threatened when she stated in her letter that she opted to go back to the Philippines as she no longer wanted to work.

• To restate, in interposing the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.

• The CA correctly held that the letter alone is not sufficient proof that respondent voluntarily quit from her employment. To be sure, quitclaims, waivers, or releases are looked upon with disfavor. They are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a worker’s legal rights. The reason for this rule is that the employer and the employee do not stand on the same footing, such that quitclaims usually take the form of contracts of adherence, not of choice.

• Given that resignation is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment of an office, it must be concurrent with the intent and the act. Again, the Court must take into consideration the totality of the circumstances to determine the voluntariness of respondent’s action.

• The attendant circumstances herein disprove petitioners’ assertion. Contrary to what petitioners try to impress upon this Court, respondent was very willing to continue with her employment. That is precisely why she stayed in KSA despite the abrupt end of her first employment. However, Silver Contract reneged on its obligation to find work for respondent in Riyadh and unduly presented her with options to work elsewhere. When she refused, Silver Contract brought her to a place unknown to her. There, she was locked up and neglected. Respondent’s traumatic situation at UPC pushed her into a desperate position. With her future abroad getting bleaker and the situation more insufferable by the day, she was left with no other option but to seek refuge in her own country. These circumstances paint a clear picture of utter hopelessness on the part of respondent and coercion by Silver Contract.

• The Court could hardly lend credence to petitioners’ assertion that respondent was brought to UPC for the sole purpose of providing her with accommodation while waiting for a new employer. It is also difficult to believe that Silver Contract did not neglect respondent or deprived her of her liberty. If these assertions were true, petitioners could have easily submitted a picture of UPC to dispute respondent’s assertion as to the inhumane condition of the place. Also, if Silver Contract was really concerned for respondent’s well-being, it should have asked its own employee to look after respondent, instead of leaving her to the care of a mere former employee. It should not have also allowed her to stay in an accommodation where her safety was at risk.

• Notably, to bolster its finding in favor of petitioner, the NLRC lifted this excerpt from respondent’s position paper:

Bago po ako umuwi ay may ipinasulat po sila sa aking na wala po akong habol sa agency ko po. Ginawa ko na rin po iyon kasi gusto ko na makauwi mula sa mga masamang naranasan ko doon.

• The NLRC construed this explanation as sufficient evidence of the voluntariness of respondent’s action.[48] However, the tenor of such a statement can also show the helplessness of respondent’s situation – that she acceded to what Silver Contract told her to do so she can finally end her agony abroad. Given the totality of the circumstances, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter interpretation.

• The Court likewise sees no merit in petitioners’ argument that for respondent’s allegation to be credible, she should have lodged a complaint before the Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) instead of executing the letter.[49] Respondent’s failure to complain to the. POLO cannot be taken against her. To subscribe to petitioners’ line of argument would be to unduly add burden to an already hapless overseas Filipino worker. This, the Court cannot accept. Respondent, who was out of work for more than two (2) months and deprived of comfort and freedom during the same period, was understandably already under a lot of stress. Going to the POLO to complain would have only prolonged her ordeal and delay her return to the country. It bears pointing out, however, that respondent lost no time in filing the proper complaint before the labor tribunal. She lodged her complaint barely a month after her repatriation. Besides, since the employer bears the burden to establish the voluntariness of the employee’s resignation, Silver Contract should have taken the initiative to bring the matter to the POLO if only to solidify its claim as regards the voluntariness of respondent’s action.

• All things considered, the Court affirms the CA’s finding that respondent was constructively dismissed.