Case Digest: Sunace International Management Services, Inc. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 161757             January 25, 2006

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.  vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al

CASTS

Petitioner – Sunace International (sunace for brevity)

Divina A. Montehermozo – Respondent (The Original Complainant; Divina for brevity)

Edmund Wang – Taiwanese Broker, Press a Jet Crown Intl. (wang for brevity)

Hang Rui Xiong – Divina's Taiwanese Employer (Xiong for brevity)

Adelaida Perez- Owner of Sunace (Adelaida for brevity)

FACTS:

Divina was deployed by SUNACE to Taiwan under a 12-year contract with the help of a Taiwanese Broker (Wang).

When Divina returned in the Philippines in 2000, after her 2 year extension, Divina filed a complaint before the NLRC against SUNACE, Adelaida, Xiong, and Wang because she allegedly was jailed and underpaid by her employer.

In her position paper, Divina claimed for refund for tax deduction and savings deduction while employed in Taiwan; that although deductions made for 1997 were returned, the deductions for 1998 and 1999 were not.

SUNACE'S RESPONSE:

1.         Divina is not entitled to her 24 months savings because she already received the same and that there were no more deductions made against her.

         Proof submitted: Fascimile message 

2.         Divina is not entitled to Tax Refund and Attorney's fees...

        Reason: Divina may only claim if she were illegally dismissed and it may only be given to her by way of damages. However, she was not illegally dismissed; instead her contract ended (end of contract). Ergo, she has no cause of action against Sunace for the monetary claims because she was not illegally dismissed and that she was already given all her benefits under her employment contract.

Also, the tax deducted was pursuant to tax law which which is beyond the control of Sunace.

3.         Sunace didn't know of her 2 year extension.

LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION: Divina Won. Sunace and its owner Adelaide are liable as agents of Xiong and Wang

*Sunace knew of the extension because they've been communicating with Edmund Wang. There was implied consent because Sunace was an "Agent of the Foreign principal".

Sunace should have informed POEA and the Taiwanese employer of its (Sunace's) objection to the extension but it did not.

*ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (apparently, there was a settlement agreement), it was contrary to law, morals, and public policy because it should have been 1. Reduced into writing;  2. Signed by parties and  lawyer; 3. in the labor arbiter's presence; and because there was no "consideration"(P.S. Consideration is an essential element of a contract) OR if signed not in the presence of Labor Arbiter (LA):

1.         Labor arbiter should have confronted the parties with the settlement

2.         Explained the terms and conditions

3.         Approved by LA

NLRC- affirmed LA

CA-affirmed LA and NLRC

CA: "Sunace knew because Sunace was  continually communicating with Divina’s foreign employer

ISSUE: Whether or not Sunace is liable to Divina for the monetary claims

RULING: 

Supreme Court- LA, NLRC, CA -WRONG;  "SUNACE NOT LIABLE"

1.         Sunace was communicating with the “broker” Wang, not the foreign employer Xiong

2.         It was wrong to rely on the fascimile message as it contained nothing which would show that Sunace was privy to the new contract (the extension)

3.         Just because Sunace and Wang talked about the withheld savings, it doesn’t mean that Sunace ratified the Contract (extension)

4.         The THEORY OF IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE was misapplied

 -This theory provides that the knowledge of the Agent is the knowledge of the principal (if the agent knows, the principal also knows)... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The knowledge of the principal is not the knowledge of the agent.

5.         There is an implied revocation of the AGENCY RELATIONSHIP with its foreign principal when the foreign principal directly negotiated with Divina.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-year employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its "owner" cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Divina’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. As the New Civil Code provides, “Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law."

Categories: Case digestL sunace vs. nlrc, G.r. 161757, LABOR LAW