GR 167614; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner, vs. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio M. Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. under a POEA-approved Contract of Employment as Chief Officer for 12 months with a basic monthly salary of US$1,400.00. Upon departure on March 19, 1998, petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded contract as Second Officer at US$1,000.00 per month based on respondents’ assurance he would be promoted to Chief Officer by April 1998. Respondents failed to deliver on this promise, leading petitioner to refuse to continue as Second Officer. He was repatriated on May 26, 1998, having served only 2 months and 7 days of his 12-month contract, leaving an unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and awarded salaries for three months of the unexpired portion, applying the subject clause in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (the “subject clause”), which states that in case of illegal dismissal, a migrant worker is entitled to salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.” The NLRC and Court of Appeals affirmed the application of the subject clause, limiting the award to three months’ salary. Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the subject clause.
ISSUE
Whether the subject clause in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, which limits the monetary award for illegally dismissed overseas workers to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their employment contract or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, is unconstitutional.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court declared the subject clause in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 unconstitutional. The clause violates the right of overseas Filipino workers to equal protection of the laws. It creates a prejudicial distinction between two classes of OFWs—those with an unexpired term of less than one year, who are entitled to full backpay for the unexpired portion, and those with an unexpired term of one year or more, whose backpay is limited to three months. This classification is not reasonable or fair, as both classes are similarly situated as fixed-term employees who suffered illegal dismissal. The clause also impairs the terms of the employment contract and denies OFWs the security of tenure and monetary benefits guaranteed by the Constitution. The subject clause is, therefore, declared void, and petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract.