Under RA 8042 otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act" which was passed on July 15, 1995, an overseas worker who has been terminated from employment without just, valid or authorized cause shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with 12 percent interest per annum "plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for three months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less". Does this mean that if the three months salary is the lesser amount, the overseas worker will get only three months salary even if the unexpired portion of his contract is more than three months? This is answered in this case of Doming.
Doming was hired as Chief Cook Steward on a Greek vessel for a contract period of 10 months with a monthly salary of US$600. Once on board the vessel he was assigned not only as Chief Cook Steward but also as assistant cook and messman in addition to performing various inventory and requisition jobs. Because of his additional assignments he began to feel sick just a little over a month on the job constraining him to request for medical attention. The master of the vessel initially refused his request but subsequently relented and had him examined after the ship's arrival at a port in Europe.
The examining physician did not apprise Doming about the diagnosis. Neither did he issue a medical certificate. Doming was told that he would just forward the results to Doming's superiors.
Upon his return to the vessel he was ordered to prepare for immediate repatriation the following day as he was said to be suffering from a disease of unknown origin. So less than two months on the job, Doming was repatriated to the Philippines. He was handed his Seaman's Service Record Book showing the cause of his discharge as "mutual consent". It was based in the vessel's Deck log wherein an entry was unilaterally made by the master of the vessel purported to show that Doming himself asked for his repatriation. Doming denied this and sued the company for illegal dismissal.
And true enough Doming's dismissal before the expiration of his contract was found to be in violation of the Standard Employment Contract because the mutual consent was not reduced in writing. The Deck log containing the entry unilaterally made by the captain was found to be insufficient as it was only a unilateral act and not a mutual or bilateral document. So the dismissal of Doming was found to be illegal and the shipping company was ordered to pay the unexpired portion of the contract or US$5,100. The company questioned such order of payment. It contended that under RA 8042, they should pay only three months salary of Doming or $1,800 since this is lesser. Was the company correct?
No. The issue of whether the overseas worker is entitled to his salaries for the unexpected portion of his employment contract or for three months salary which ever is less comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one year or more. This is evident from the words "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the words "salaries for three months". In this case, Doming's contract period is less than one year. So he is entitled not only to three months salary but for the unexpired portion of his contract. To follow the company's thinking that Doming is entitled to three months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly (Marsaman Manning Agency Inc. et. al. vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. No. 127195 Aug. 25, 1999).
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org.