GR 250439; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 250439 . September 22, 2020
FIL-EXPAT PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MARIA ANTONIETTE CUDAL LEE, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Maria Antoniette Cudal Lee was deployed by petitioner Fil-Expat Placement Agency, Inc. to work as an orthodontist in Saudi Arabia. Shortly after her deployment in May 2016, her foreign employer pressured her to sign a document in Arabic, which she later understood would declare only half her salary to Saudi authorities for insurance purposes. She signed using a different signature out of hesitation. Subsequently, the employer repeatedly demanded she execute a new employment contract. Upon her refusal, she was subjected to harassment, including being assigned additional duties, threatened with a substantial salary deduction, ordered to vacate her accommodation, and subjected to unwanted sexual advances. Her employer also showed indifference to a severe allergic reaction she suffered. Compelled by these conditions, she sought assistance from Philippine officials and was repatriated on June 24, 2016.
Fil-Expat denied the allegations, asserting there was no maltreatment or contract substitution. It claimed the request for a new contract was merely to comply with Saudi Ministry of Health requirements for document submission and that the alleged threats were merely explanations of potential government fines. It argued that Lee’s decision to discontinue her contract was voluntary and did not constitute constructive dismissal, noting the employer had even requested she stay until a replacement arrived.
ISSUE
Whether substantial evidence exists to establish contract substitution and constructive dismissal.
RULING
Yes, substantial evidence supports the findings of contract substitution and constructive dismissal. On the issue of contract substitution, the Court affirmed that an attempt to substitute a contract, even if not fully consummated, is a prohibited practice under the Migrant Workers Act ( R.A. No. 8042 , as amended). The employer’s act of coercing Lee to sign a new document altering her official contract terms—specifically concerning salary declaration—constitutes a substitution attempt made in bad faith to circumvent legal protections. This attempt is punishable by law to deter similar acts.
Regarding constructive dismissal, the Court ruled that Lee’s repatriation was not voluntary but a direct result of the intolerable working conditions created by the employer. Constructive dismissal exists when an employee’s continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely due to the employer’s actions, amounting to a forced resignation. The documented harassment—including threats, added duties, sexual advances, and disregard for her medical condition—collectively created a hostile work environment. These acts demonstrated bad faith and disdain, leaving Lee with no choice but to quit. Therefore, her termination was constructive, and she is entitled to appropriate damages and monetary awards as granted by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petition was denied.