GR 230211; (October, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 230211 . October 06, 2021
JERZON MANPOWER AND TRADING, INC., UNITED TAIWAN CORP., AND CLIFFORD UY TUAZON, PETITIONERS, VS. EMMANUEL B. NATO,* AND COURT OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH (11TH) DIVISION, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondent Emmanuel B. Nato was hired by petitioner Jerzon Manpower and Trading, Inc., for its foreign principal United Taiwan Corp., as a machine operator in Taiwan under a contract with a monthly wage of NT$17,280.00. He was deployed on June 8, 2008. About a year later, he began experiencing stomachaches, which worsened despite medication. He was diagnosed with Chronic Glomerulonephritis Stage V (End Stage) Renal Disease and was hospitalized. On July 16, 2009, his broker discharged him from the hospital, placed him in a hotel for quarantine, and repatriated him to the Philippines on July 18, 2009, without any assistance from petitioners upon his arrival. Respondent filed a complaint for disability and medical benefits, among others. The Labor Arbiter awarded him unpaid salaries for three months and P1,000,000.00 financial assistance. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the illegal dismissal claim but awarding P100,000.00 financial assistance (later modified to include P30,000.00 nominal damages). The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Respondent died during the pendency of the appeal, and his spouse was substituted.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are liable to respondent for disability benefits, unpaid salaries, and other monetary claims arising from his illness and repatriation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision with modifications. Petitioners are solidarily liable to pay respondent’s heirs: (1) NT$51,840.00 as three months’ unpaid salary due to illegal dismissal; (2) P1,000,000.00 as financial assistance equivalent to health insurance benefits he was entitled to under his contract but was denied; (3) P180,000.00 as reimbursement for dialysis sessions; (4) P30,000.00 as nominal damages for procedural due process violation; and (5) attorney’s fees.
The Court held that respondent’s dismissal on the ground of “losing the ability to work” due to his illness was illegal. The illness, which supervened during his employment, is presumed work-related. Petitioners failed to observe the twin notice requirement and due process. The award of three months’ salary for the unexpired portion of the contract is proper under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 , as amended. Furthermore, respondent was contractually entitled to health insurance benefits under Taiwanese law, which petitioners grossly neglected to secure for him, constituting bad faith. This failure rendered them solidarily liable for the equivalent value of those benefits, justified as financial assistance. The Court also awarded actual damages for dialysis expenses substantiated by evidence and nominal damages for the procedural defect in dismissal.