Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. vs. Manuel

An overseas Filipino worker who is assigned to a work location different from that stipulated in the approved employment contract, subjected to sexual harassment by the foreign employer, and confined under inhumane conditions by the foreign principal is constructively dismissed, and a repatriation letter executed under such coercive circumstances cannot be deemed a voluntary resignation. The employer bears the burden of proving voluntariness of resignation, and quitclaims or releases executed under conditions of duress are ineffective to bar the worker's claims.

Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. is a Philippine recruitment agency that deployed respondent Alma Tacda Manuel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a domestic helper under a two-year contract with a monthly salary of US$400.00. Silver Contract Manpower Office served as Ascent's foreign principal in the KSA. The individual petitioners are corporate officers and members of the board of directors of Ascent. The dispute arose from respondent's deployment to a work location different from that stated in her contract, her subsequent mistreatment, and the conditions under which she sought repatriation, all of which formed the basis of her complaint for constructive dismissal before the labor tribunals.

On 13 April 2017, Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. deployed respondent Alma Tacda Manuel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to work as a domestic helper for a contract term of two years with a monthly salary of US$400.00. Her employment contract, approved by the government, indicated her work destination as Riyadh, and Silver Contract Manpower Office, Ascent's foreign principal, maintained its office in Riyadh. However, upon arriving at the airport, respondent discovered that her plane ticket was bound for Jeddah, and she later learned from Ascent's representative that she was actually headed to Abha, KSA. Despite her worry, she proceeded, needing the income to provide for her children.

On her third day at her employer Raman's house, Raman required her to give him a massage. While she was massaging his feet, he grazed her breast and forced her to hold his private part. They were interrupted when Raman's wife called her, and respondent ran to the kitchen and wept. When Raman left, she confided in his spouse, but the harassment continued whenever Raman had the opportunity, prompting her to ask to be returned to Silver Contract. Twelve days after her deployment, respondent complained about her working conditions and refused to continue working for her employer.

Upon her return to Silver Contract, a certain Mr. Musa asked if she was willing to work for another employer. She initially agreed but refused when told the new employment would again be in Abha, as she wanted to work in Riyadh as stipulated in her contract. Subsequently, a man took her from Silver Contract under the pretext of being her new employer and brought her to United Project Company (UPC). There, she and seven other workers were locked in a tiny space without sufficient ventilation or air conditioning, deprived of adequate food and water, and forced to eat leftovers, sometimes spoiled food. More than two months later, respondent pleaded for repatriation. Before her repatriation, she executed a letter stating that she was going home to the Philippines with no demand on her employer or agency, that she no longer wanted to work, and that the agency had no liability.

On 10 July 2017, respondent returned to the Philippines. Barely a month later, 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 officers. She later amended the complaint to include claims for sexual harassment, discrimination, maltreatment, and trafficking. Ascent and petitioner Mohammad Ali Abang Datucali denied constructive dismissal, alleging that respondent quit because the employer's house was too large and difficult to clean, and that she voluntarily executed the repatriation letter. The Labor Arbiter found constructive dismissal, but the NLRC reversed, holding that respondent voluntarily resigned. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, a ruling that the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed with modification.

• Voluntary Resignation: Petitioners argued that the evidence on record sufficiently proved that respondent's resignation was voluntary, emphasizing that she voluntarily executed the letter stating she no longer wanted to work and had no claims against the agency.
• Absence of Coercion: Petitioners maintained that respondent failed to prove she was coerced or threatened when she executed her repatriation letter, asserting that the letter constituted sufficient proof of her voluntary decision to pre-terminate her employment.
• Failure to File POLO Complaint: Petitioners argued that for respondent's allegations of mistreatment to be credible, she should have lodged a complaint before the Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) instead of merely executing the letter and seeking repatriation.
• No Contract Violation: Petitioners contended that there was no violation of the employment contract since the contract did not state what city respondent was supposed to work in.

• Constructive Dismissal: Respondent maintained that she was constructively dismissed, citing circumstances including her unauthorized deployment to Abha instead of Riyadh, the sexual advances of her male employer, her transfer to UPC where she was locked up and deprived of adequate food and water, and the overall unbearable conditions that forced her repatriation.
• Coerced Repatriation Letter: Respondent argued that the letter she executed before repatriation was not voluntary but was executed under duress and desperation, as she acceded to Silver Contract's demands solely to end her ordeal abroad and secure her return to the Philippines.

• Constructive Dismissal vs. Voluntary Resignation: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that respondent voluntarily resigned and was not constructively dismissed.
• Sufficiency of the Repatriation Letter: Whether the letter executed by respondent before her repatriation constituted sufficient proof of voluntary resignation.
• Propriety of Monetary Awards: Whether the monetary awards, including the increased moral and exemplary damages, were proper under the circumstances.
• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officers: Whether the individual petitioners, as corporate officers and directors of Ascent, could be held solidarily liable for the monetary awards.

• Constructive Dismissal vs. Voluntary Resignation: No. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error; respondent was constructively dismissed, as the totality of circumstances — unauthorized reassignment, sexual harassment, and inhumane confinement — rendered her continued employment unbearable.
• Sufficiency of the Repatriation Letter: No. The letter alone was insufficient to prove voluntary resignation, as it was executed under coercive circumstances and the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving voluntariness.
• Propriety of Monetary Awards: Yes. The monetary awards were proper, and the Court increased moral and exemplary damages from ₱10,000.00 each to ₱100,000.00 each due to the petitioners' bad faith.
• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officers: Yes. Under Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022, corporate officers and directors are jointly and solidarily liable with the recruitment agency for all money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers.

• Constructive Dismissal vs. Voluntary Resignation: The Court applied the totality of circumstances test to distinguish constructive dismissal from voluntary resignation. Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who believes personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of service, while constructive dismissal involves a gratuitous, unjustified, or unwarranted employer action that renders continued employment unbearable. The Court found that respondent was deployed to Abha instead of the contractually stipulated Riyadh, constituting a breach of the government-approved employment contract. Her employer sexually harassed her, and when she was returned to Silver Contract, the agency failed to find her appropriate employment in Riyadh, instead confining her at UPC under inhumane conditions — locked in a tiny space without adequate ventilation, food, or water. These circumstances, attributable to the petitioners and their foreign principal, created an unbearable environment that foreclosed any choice except to forego continued employment. The Court relied on Jacob vs. First Step Manpower Int'l Services, Inc., where a similarly situated overseas household helper was subjected to lewd conduct by her employer and found to have been constructively dismissed. The NLRC's contrary finding constituted grave abuse of discretion, as it ignored the totality of circumstances and erroneously held that there was no contract violation because the contract did not specify the city of employment.

• Sufficiency of the Repatriation Letter: The Court applied the principle that the employer bears the burden of proving that an employee voluntarily resigned. Quitclaims, waivers, and releases are looked upon with disfavor as contrary to public policy, because the employer and employee do not stand on the same footing, such that quitclaims usually take the form of contracts of adherence, not of choice. The Court held that the letter alone was insufficient proof of voluntary resignation. The attendant circumstances — respondent's willingness to continue working, Silver Contract's failure to find her work in Riyadh, her confinement at UPC, and her desperate situation — disprove voluntariness. The statement in her position paper that she executed the letter because she wanted to go home after her bad experiences demonstrated helplessness, not free choice. The Court also rejected the argument that respondent should have filed a complaint with the POLO, holding that imposing such a requirement would unduly burden an already hapless overseas worker who was out of work for over two months and deprived of comfort and freedom.

• Propriety of Monetary Awards: The Court found that respondent was entitled to her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her employment contract under Section 7 of RA 10022. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award were proper as recoverable by an employee in actions for indemnity under employer liability laws. The Court increased moral and exemplary damages from ₱10,000.00 each to ₱100,000.00 each, finding that the LA's original award was inadequate. Moral damages are recoverable when termination is attended with bad faith, fraud, oppression, or conduct contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Exemplary damages are recoverable when dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. The petitioners' unauthorized change of respondent's work destination and their absolute indifference toward her plight abroad constituted bad faith justifying the increased awards, which also serve to deter unscrupulous recruitment agencies from similar conduct.

• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officers: The Court applied Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022, which explicitly provides that if the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation for all money claims and damages awarded to workers. The individual petitioners, being corporate officers and members of the board of directors of Ascent, were thus solidarily liable with the corporation.

• Constructive Dismissal — Constructive dismissal does not always entail a forthright dismissal or diminution in rank, compensation, benefit, or privileges. It also occurs where an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer becomes so unbearable that the employee is foreclosed from any choice except to forego continued employment. The Court applied this doctrine by examining the totality of circumstances — unauthorized reassignment, sexual harassment, and inhumane confinement — and concluding that respondent's situation was so intolerable that her repatriation was not a voluntary act but a coerced response to unbearable conditions.

• Burden of Proof in Resignation — In interposing the defense of resignation, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employee voluntarily resigned. Resignation, as a formal pronouncement of relinquishment of an office, must be concurrent with both intent and act. The Court applied this by holding that petitioners failed to discharge their burden, as the repatriation letter was executed under coercive circumstances and was insufficient to establish voluntariness.

• Disfavor Toward Quitclaims and Releases — Quitclaims, waivers, or releases are looked upon with disfavor and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a worker's legal rights, because the employer and employee do not stand on the same footing, such that quitclaims usually take the form of contracts of adherence, not of choice. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that respondent's repatriation letter, functioning as a quitclaim, could not bar her claims given the coercive circumstances under which it was executed.

• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officers under RA 8042, as amended — Under Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022, if the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation for all money claims and damages awarded to the workers. The Court applied this provision to hold the individual petitioners solidarily liable with Ascent.

• "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." — This passage states the allocation of burden of proof in resignation defenses, a principle central to the Court's rejection of the petitioners' claim that respondent voluntarily quit.

• "Given the totality of the circumstances, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter interpretation." — This passage encapsulates the Court's application of the totality of circumstances test in resolving conflicting interpretations of respondent's repatriation letter, tilting in favor of coercion rather than voluntariness.

• "Petitioners' sneaky and underhanded change of respondent's work destination, followed by their absolute indifference toward the latter's plight abroad in the hands of Silver Contract, reeks of bad faith and justifies not only the grant of damages but the increase thereof to a more acceptable amount." — This passage articulates the factual basis for the Court's increase of moral and exemplary damages, linking the specific acts of bad faith to the enhanced award.

• Jacob vs. First Step Manpower Int'l Services, Inc., G.R. No. 229984, 08 July 2020 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court relied on Jacob for the definition of constructive dismissal as encompassing acts of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain that make continued employment unbearable, and drew direct factual parallels between the sexual harassment suffered by the worker in Jacob and respondent's experience.
• Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Viernes, G.R. No. 216132, 22 January 2020 — Cited for the exception allowing the Court to relax the procedural rule against factual issues in Rule 45 petitions when the factual findings of the NLRC conflict with those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA.
• Cokia Industries Holdings Management, Inc. vs. Bug-Os, G.R. No. 236322, 27 November 2019 — Cited for the principle that the employer bears the burden of proving voluntary resignation, while the employee must prove constructive dismissal.
• Pascua vs. Bank Wise, Inc., 824 Phil. 846 (2018) — Cited for the definition of resignation as the voluntary act of an employee who believes personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of service.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Cited for the rule that monetary awards shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality of the decision until full satisfaction.

• Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 — Provides for the joint and solidary liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for all money claims, and explicitly states that if the agency is a juridical being, its corporate officers and directors shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation. The Court applied this provision to hold the individual petitioners solidarily liable with Ascent.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 10022 — Governs the entitlement of overseas workers to salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment contract. The Court applied this provision to uphold the award of unexpired contract wages to respondent.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, limiting review to questions of law. The Court noted the general rule that factual issues are not reviewable under Rule 45 but relaxed this rule under the exception that conflicting factual findings existed between the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter/CA.

Leonen (Chairperson), Carandang, Rosario, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.