G.R. No. 191310 APRIL 11, 2018
PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES, Petitioners vs DESIREE T. MASAGCA, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Desiree T. Masagca was recruited by petitioner Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. (PTCPI), through its president Luchi Singh Moldes, to work as a singer/entertainer in South Korea for its foreign principal, Saem Entertainment Company, Ltd. (SAENCO). An employment contract was executed on February 3, 2003, stipulating a six-month duration extendible by mutual agreement, a monthly salary of at least US$600, and a designated performance venue. Masagca left for South Korea in September 2003. She alleged that she was made to sign two contracts without reading them and was induced by Moldes’s misrepresentations regarding a one-year contract, a different workplace, and a different salary rate. She worked for nine months until her repatriation in June 2004. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of unpaid salaries against PTCPI, Moldes, and SAENCO.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this dismissal, finding Masagca failed to prove illegal dismissal and that her contract had legally expired. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, ruling that Masagca was illegally dismissed. It found the contract was for a fixed term of one year, not six months, based on the visa validity and the parties’ intent. It held the termination before the one-year period was unjustified and ordered petitioners and SAENCO to jointly and severally pay Masagca her unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of the one-year term.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Desiree T. Masagca was illegally dismissed and is entitled to payment of her salaries for the unexpired portion of a one-year contract.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal issue was the proper interpretation of the employment contract’s duration. The Court held that while the contract stated a six-month period “extendible by another six months by mutual agreement,” the factual circumstances demonstrated the parties’ clear intent for a one-year term. This was evidenced by Masagca’s one-year working visa, the standard practice for overseas performing artists, and the consistent position of the Philippine Overseas Labor Office. A contract is not defined solely by its written stipulations but by the parties’ contemporaneous and subsequent acts showing their mutual intent.
Consequently, Masagca’s repatriation after only nine months, without any proven valid or authorized cause for termination under the contract or the law, constituted illegal dismissal. As the local recruitment agency, PTCPI, along with its president Moldes, is jointly and severally liable with the foreign principal, SAENCO, for Masagca’s monetary claims. The award of salaries for the unexpired three months of the one-year contract, in accordance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (The Migrant Workers Act), and attorney’s fees was therefore proper. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s factual and legal conclusions.