Controlling jurisprudence on illegal dismissals of OFWs

The Supreme Court has declared as unconstitutional not just once but twice two legislative enactments or insertions by Congress limiting backwages for illegally dismissed OFWs to only three months, instead of full pay. The High Court nullified such legislative measures because they violate the equal protection clause. Those surreptitious insertions in Republic Act 8042, the Magna Carta Carta for OFWs, and Republic Act 10022, were designed to favor recruiters and foreign employers and aimed at protecting their interests instead of affording full protection to Filipino migrant workers, which is an explicit mandate of the Philippine Constitution.

In the case of Jimmy S Gallego versus Wallem Maritime Services Inc, GR 218440, decided by the Supreme Court on February 19, 2020, awarded to a sea-borne OFW a total of 8,182 US dollars representing the total salary for the unexpired portion of his overseas contract, plus 12 percent legal interest from August 4, 2000 to June 30, 2013 and to six percent from July 1, 2013 up to the date of finality of the decision. In addition to backwages, the High Court awarded moral damages in the amount of P200,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of also P200,000, plus 10 percent of all monetary awards as attorney's fees. This is another vindication of the hard life that our OFWs have to go through and the sacrifices they constantly offer just to help their families, and become modern heroes for the nation and the Filipino people.

Another case of illegal dismissal of a land-based OFW is Omanfil International Manpower Corporation versus Rolando B Mesina, GR 217169, decided by the Supreme Court on November 4, 2020. Mr Mesina was deployed by Omanfil to Saudi Arabia for a foreign principal on May 4, 2005. After working there for some time, he suffered from a series of physical and medical problems and was diagnosed to have been suffering from heart ailment. On February 22, 2006, he was repatriated. When he filed a case for illegal termination, his case was dismissed by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Court of Appeals however reversed the decision and the Supreme Court agreed. Mesina was awarded the full salary for the total unexpired portion of his overseas work contract, plus the full reimbursement of his placement fee.

These two decisions are living testaments to fidelity to the established doctrines first enunciated in Antonio M Serrano versus Gallant Maritime Services Inc, GR 167614, promulgated on March 24, 2009. It was a decision by the 15-member Supreme Court and penned by Justice Maria Alicia Austria-Martinez. The High Court nullified that section in RA 8042 that limited backwages to three months only, or the unexpired portion, whichever is lesser. But Congress was very insistent in its advocacy to help the recruiters over and above the OFWs, and so, the members of Congress inserted again that nullified section when they passed RA 10022 in 2010. Thus, in the case of Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc versus Joy C Cabiles, GR 170139, promulgated on August 5, 2014, the Supreme Court en banc again nullified this portion of the law again. This time the court en banc's decision was written by Justice Mario Victor F Leonen.

The Supreme Court bewailed the acts of Congress in trying to revive a nullified law. Justice Leonen explained why the OFWs should not be made second class workers, compared to Philippine-based employees, who are granted reinstatement and full backwages which may reach up to many millions of pesos to cover salaries from the date of termination to the finality of decision. In addition, the victim is also usually reinstated or paid separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. There is no reinstatement and separation pay for OFWs. Thus, they are paid their full salary for the total unexpired portion of their usual 24-month overseas work contract. Congress should work for the welfare of the migrant workers and not to protect the recruiters who are making bundles of money out of the blood, seats and tears.

The Supreme Court has remained faithful to the mandates of the Constitution. It is our last bastion for social justice, especially for the poor and the voiceless, forgotten masses of workers, both local and overseas, in a country with a labor-excess economy.