CA rules for OFW's illegal dismissal case

An Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), who complained that she was forced to work 18 hours daily and seven days a week to serve 13 members of two families in Saudi Arabia, won her case last week before the Court of Appeals (CA).
 
In a decision written by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, the CA ordered that OFW Mary Ann B. Bancaso be paid US$ 8,400 representing her salary for the unexpired portion of her two-year contract and 10 per cent of the monetary award as attorney’s fees.
 
Ordered to pay Bancaso were her local recruiter Marinduquena International Manpower Services, Inc. and its foreign principal Ibrahim A. Al-Senea Recruitment Office.
 
In its decision, the CA affirmed the Sept. 28, 2018 ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which found that Bancaso “was constructively dismissed from service as a result of the unbearable and unreasonable working conditions imposed by her employer.”
 
Also affirmed by the appellate court was the NLRC’s findings that “the quitclaim was invalid on the ground that it was not voluntarily executed and the consideration therefor is unreasonable” and that “the settlement agreement dubious.”
 
The CA ruled: “… after an assiduous study of the case, the Court finds that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion because its finding of constructive dismissal is supported by substantial evidence.”
 
Case records showed that Bancaso was deployed to Dammam City in Saudi Arabia on June 24, 2017 as a household service worker under a contract that she would work for her employer with only eight family members.
 
On Aug. 8, 2017, she was repatriated to the Philippines and on Sept. 25, 2017, she filed an illegal dismissal case against her local and foreign recruiters.
 
In her complaint, she claimed she was forced to work for 18 hours a day and seven days a week “to clean rooms, do the laundry, iron clothes, and take care of the children and the mother of my employer.”
 
She also complained that she “had no time to rest even for a while” because she was serving 13 family members.
 
She further claimed that she “tried to ask for medical assistance from my employer because my hands suffered numbness due to the heavy work load, but to no avail.”
 
At the same time, she said she informed her local recruiter of her “unbearable working conditions” but her complaint, she added, “made my employer more antagonistic.”
 
She said she was asked to sign a document that she would not file a complaint against her recruiters “otherwise I will not be able to go home.”
 
Thus, she asked that the labor arbiter issue a ruling that she was illegally dismissed and be entitled to her salary equivalent to the unexpired portion of her contract.  Her pleas were granted by the labor arbiter whose ruling was upheld with modification by the NLRC.
 
The local recruiter elevated the case to the CA which denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
 
The CA said: “Significantly, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that private respondent was constructively dismissed because she was compelled to forego her employment due to unbearable working conditions.”
 
“It is worthy to stress the well settled rule that in labor cases, the NLRC's factual findings are accorded respect and even finality by the Court when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by substantial evidence,” it added.