Maria Antoniette alleged that she was hired by Thanaya Al-Yaqoot Medical Specialist through its agent, Fil-Expat Placement Agency, to work as an orthodontist specialist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Maria Antoniette narrated that in May 2016, her employer asked her to sign a document written in Arabic and wanted her to agree that only half of the stipulated salary would be declared to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) government for insurance purposes. She claimed to have expressed hesitation, but she eventually signed the document using a different signature.
Maria Antoniette stated that the employer then repeatedly forced her to execute a new employment contract. When she refused, the employer subjected her to varied forms of harassment in that she was given additional duties. Her employer also threatened to deduct 10,000 Saudi Riyal from her salary and force her out of her accommodation. Furthermore, her employer attempted to make sexual advances on her, and showed no concern when she suffered a severe allergic reaction to latex surgical gloves.
After her repatriation on June 24, 2016, she filed a complaint against her employer for constructive dismissal, contract substitution, breach of contract, and damages before the Office of the Labor Arbiter.
The employer denied that Maria Antoniette was maltreated. It pointed out that Maria Antoniette was visited by the Philippine Overseas Labor Office Local Hire together with the employer’s representative. They observed that Maria Antoniette had no swollen hands, bleeding blisters, and evidence of additional duties or sexual abuse. The employer added that it did not receive any complaint from Maria Antoniette. Although Maria Antoniette mentioned an incident when she was shouted at, the employer explained that it was normal for Arab people to talk in a loud voice.
The employer also denied that it committed contract substitution. Although it admitted that Maria Antoniette was asked to sign a new employment contract, this was only due to Maria Antoniette’s refusal to provide a copy of her contract and diploma, which must be submitted to the KSA Ministry of Health.
The employer also stated that Maria Antoniette was not threatened with a salary deduction. Instead, it merely explained to her that it would be fined should it fail to submit a copy of the contracts to the government.
Finally, the employer retorted that Maria Antoniette’s case could hardly be construed as one of constructive dismissal since she could decide to discontinue her contract. That no dismissal occurred could also be gleaned from its request for her to stay for two more months until her replacement arrives.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter declared the employer guilty of breach of contract and constructive dismissal.
This constrained the employer to appeal the Office of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission reversed the Office of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and ruled that there was no breach of contract and constructive dismissal. According to the Commission, no contract substitution happened since the employer never intended to prejudice Maria Antoniette in the execution of a new employment contract. The Commission also ruled that since the execution of the new contract was for the purpose of complying with a foreign law requirement of devising a uniform contract for the protection of the worker and the employer, there could be no contract substitution. Furthermore, the Commission ruled out constructive dismissal because if found no evidence that Maria Antoniette’s continued employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
Aggrieved, Maria Antoniette elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reinstated the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter because there was substantial evidence that the employer attempted to force Maria Antoniette into signing a new employment contract. The Court of Appeals stressed that the employer’s attempt to commit contract substitution should be punished to avoid repetition. The Court of Appeals also held that Maria Antoniette was compelled to seek repatriation because her employment became intolerable as she suffered verbal and psychological abuses after she refused to sign the new contract.
The employer assailed the Decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court.
Did the employer commit contract substitution?
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The Court stated that substitution or alteration of employment contracts is listed as a prohibited practice under Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. The Court further stated that to substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment is considered an act of illegal recruitment under Section 6 (i) of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
In the present case, the Supreme Court noted the admission of the employer that it attempted to make Maria Antoniette sign a new contract.
However, the Supreme Court doubted the claim of the employer that it had no intention of prejudicing Maria Antoniette relative to the supposed second contract.
This was because the employer failed to prove the specific foreign law which required a separate employment contract apart from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved Standard Employment Contract.
In addition, the Supreme Court found it illogical to require Maria Antoniette to sign a second contract for purposes of uniformity if it would only restate the contents of the POEA-approved employment contract, which incidentally, already included an Arabic translation of the agreed terms and conditions between the employee and the employer. The Supreme Court continued that assuming Maria Antoniette failed to provide the employer a copy of the POEA-approved employment contract, the employer could just easily request a copy of the same from its agent.
The Supreme Court also noted the employer’s contention that because Maria Antoniette did not sign another document, there was no second contract, and hence, no contract substitution happened.
The Supreme Court rejected such contention because under prevailing jurisprudence, a refusal of the Overseas Filipino Worker to sign another employment contract does not absolve the employer from liability and the mere intention to commit contract substitution should not be left unpunished.
Was Maria Antoniette constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court likewise ruled in the affirmative.
The Supreme Court discussed that the law recognizes situations wherein the employee must leave his or her work to protect one’s rights from the coercive acts of the employer. The employee is considered to have been illegally terminated because he or she is forced to relinquish the job due to the employer’s unfair or unreasonable treatment. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that despite the seeming benevolence of the employer in providing housing accommodation and other benefits to its employees, evidence, nonetheless, showed that Maria Antoniette was singled out and verbally intimidated after she refused to sign the second employment contract. Record revealed the following facts, which impelled Marie Antoniette to seek assistance from the Philippine Embassy and Consulate Officials in Saudi Arabia, as well as from the media:
- Her employer told her that “she will see hell” if she reports her situation to the Philippine embassy;
- Her employer threatened to reduce her salary for her refusal to sign the new contract;
- She was constantly harassed and pressured into signing the new employment contract even in the middle of work;
- She was humiliated in front of her co-workers and her employer’s relatives and friends; and
- Her employer showed no concern over her severe allergic reaction to latex surgical gloves.
Moreover, the Supreme Court criticized the employer’s assertion of Marie Antoniette being overly sensitive. The Court viewed such assertion to be absurd if not downright insulting. According to the Court, Overseas Filipino Workers, especially medical professionals working abroad, could discern a loud voice from abusive language.
Taken together, the Supreme Court considered the foregoing circumstances as sufficient indications of the employer’s bad faith, hostility, and disdain toward Maria Antoniette. The Court stressed that while there was no formal termination of her services, she was left without any option except to quit her job. Maria Antoniette’s continued employment was rendered unlikely and unbearable, amounting to constructive dismissal.
Further reading:
- Fil-Expat Placement Agency, Inc. v. Lee, G.R. No. 250439, September 22, 2020.
Subscribe to YouTube and Spotify
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
