In early August of 2014, Donna entered into a 2-year employment contract to work as a household service worker with a foreign employer in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through its local agent, FS Manpower. She was deployed overseas on January 11, 2015.
Donna only stayed abroad for less than 3 months before an early repatriation. She narrated that at around noontime on January 31, 2015, she was washing the dishes when she felt a hard object rubbing against her bottom and was surprised to see her male employer attempting to rape her. She went upstairs to report the matter to her female employer, but the latter did not believe her. Instead, the female employer began to ill-treat her. On February 16, 2015, her female employer violently threw a shoe at her.
Donna escaped and went to her agency’s counterpart in the KSA where she met another Overseas Filipino Worker who mentioned that they might be sold to other Arab employers. That fellow OFW suggested that they escape the agency through the window of the second-floor comfort room, since the agency keeps their doors locked at night. The fellow OFW succeeded in escaping the agency. Donna, however, fell and injured her back. The case mentioned a rather unsavory experience they had with a passerby during that time, anyway, an ambulance later took Donna to a hospital where she underwent surgery on February 28, 2015. After a few days, representatives from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration brought them to bahay kalinga where they waited for their ticket exit visas.
On July 2, 2015, Donna filed a case for constructive illegal dismissal before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. She claimed that her working environment abroad allegedly became so intolerable that she was impelled to leave her job. She also assailed the validity of Final Settlement.
On the other hand, FS Manpower countered that Donna was the one who commenced the pre-termination of her contract since she was feeling “homesick.” Donna allegedly requested to be repatriated as soon as possible. When her foreign employer tried convincing her to stay, she repeatedly threatened to run away if she will not be permitted to leave.
Was Donna constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court found that Donna was constructively dismissed.
The Court said that in resolving issues of constructive dismissal, courts do not only weigh the evidence presented by the parties, but also delve into the totality of circumstances in a case.
The Court found that the controversy emanated from the lewd actuations of her male foreign employer on January 31, 2015. To avert a commotion, she reported the matter to her female employer but unfortunately, she was merely discredited and even blamed for the incident. From then on, Donna’s female foreign employer treated her differently. Donna was subjected to physical and verbal harm that she was left with no other choice but to relinquish her employment.
The treatment Donna 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 Donna’s words, to escape (or the Filipino word tumakas).
For the Court, it was clear that there existed a well-grounded fear on her part prompting her to run away despite having been employed overseas for barely 2 months. The cessation of Donna’s employment was not of her own doing but was brought about by unfavorable circumstances created by her foreign employers. If Donna failed to continue her job, it was because she refused to be further subjected to the ordeal caused by the her employers’ conduct.
Donna, the Court added, could not have gone to the counterpart agency and eventually injure herself in the course of escape were it not for the hostile treatment afforded by her foreign employers which made her run away.
The Court concluded that all of these evidently constituted a case of constructive dismissal.
Further reading:
- Jacob v. First Step Manpower Int’l. Services, Inc., G.R. No. 229984, July 8, 2020.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
