GR L 16492; (October,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16492; October 27, 1961
MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTELITA G. BARRERA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff Maria Salao Vda. de Santos engaged the services of the Gloria Employment Agency, owned by defendants, to secure three housemaids. She paid the agency P390.50, covering office fees, government taxes, advances for the maids’ personal debts, and an alleged extra charge. The maids subsequently escaped from her employ. They were located and returned by the agency, but the plaintiff chose not to re-employ them, terminating their contracts. She then demanded a full refund of all amounts paid. The defendants offered only a partial refund. The plaintiff filed an action in the Municipal Court of Manila, which ruled in her favor, ordering a full refund plus attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of First Instance affirmed the judgment. The defendants appealed further, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a full refund of all amounts paid to the employment agency upon the maids’ termination of their contracts.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decision, holding the plaintiff entitled only to a partial refund of P62.50. The ruling is anchored on the specific contract between the parties and the governing administrative rules. The receipts contained a clause, and the Code of Rules under Republic Act No. 761 provided a specific refund schedule for the “office fee” when an employee terminates the contract without being dismissed. Applying this schedule, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of only a portion of the P150.00 total office fee paid for the three maids, calculated based on the time each maid served before termination. The Court disallowed the refund of other components. The tax fees (P4.50) were due to the government, not the agency. The alleged extra charge (P60.00) lacked evidentiary support. Crucially, the sum advanced for the maids’ personal debts (P176.00) was not refundable. The contract indicated this debt was chargeable solely against the maids, and a notation on the receipts explicitly stated the agency did not guarantee such accounts in case of escape. Therefore, the agency incurred no liability for this amount. The award for attorney’s fees was also eliminated.