Global Resource for Outsourced Workers vs Sps.

Velasco GR No 196883 August 22, 2012 Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe Facts: Petitioner GROW is a domestic corporation engaged in the placement of workers for overseas employment January 2008. Respondents Sps. Velasco were hired by MS Retail through GROW as circus performer and circus performer assistant at MS Retails store in Kuwait In the employment contract, Abraham and Nanette were entitled to $2,303 and $531 respectively with work schedule: 4 shows/day, 6 days/week, 48 hours/month Also stipulated that MS Retail may determine hours of work assigned from time to time in accordance with the general and particular requirements of the operation and that they may be asked to carry out duties as the business may require. When the spouses arrived in Kuwait, they were informed that the 48 hours/month was just a typo and the correct number was 48 hours/week, to which they complied August 26, 2008 Sps. Velasco went to Thailand on approved leaved. They sent an email to MS Retail saying that they would not be able to return because of the political protests in Thailand and that they would be back on September 10, 2008. However, contrary to their representation, they returned to the Philippines on September 9, 2008. On September 17, 2008, MS Retail sent an email warning that if they did not return, they would be dismissed Sps. Velasco ignored the email and they were then dismissed on September 23, 2008 Unknown to MS Retail, Sps. Velasco had already filed a case for constructive dismissal, breach of contract, payment of contract and damages. They claimed that they were made to work 48 hours per week without overtime pay and that they were assigned to work not related to circus performers. Hence they were constructively dismissed LA found them to have been constructively dismissed without cause but overtime pay denied because it was just a typo error NLRC dismissed complaint on the ground of abandonment CA= Petitioners failed to follow twin notice rule although respondents were validly terminated. Entitled to overtime pay Issue: WON Sps. Velasco are entitled to overtime pay Ruling: Sps. Velasco are not entitled to overtime pay. Obligations arising from contract, like an employment contract have the force of law between the contracted parties and should be complied with in good faith. However, when the contract is vague like in the case at bar, the Court has to determine the real intention. The respondents were informed of the error and despite working for more than half a year where they could have complained, they did nothing and without any protest. It was only at the LA that they raised this which indicates that it was a mere afterthought. Also, an evaluation of the contract shows that it was the true intention of the parties for 48 hours a week and not a month. Intent and not the text of a contract prevails. To hold otherwise would defeat purpose of agreements Although there was just cause for termination, petitioners are not absolved from liability. They should also have followed procedural due process by giving two notices. One for intention to dismiss and another for actual dismissal. There should have been a written notice of the charge against them indicating the acts and omissions complained of and an opportunity for the respondents to answer the charges against them. Due to the failure to comply, petitioners are liable for nominal damages and attorneys fees.