MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) turned down a petition filed by a repatriated overseas Filipino worker (OFW) who sued her recruitment agency for unpaid wages following the pre-termination of her two-year contract.
In a resolution recently posted online, the SC's Second Division upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which said Gemma G. Bilbao "failed to sufficiently show grave abuse in holding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and is therefore not entitled to her monetary claims".
The SC affirmed the CA's September 2020 decision, noting that Bilbao did not substantiate her allegations against Meccaj Manpower International Services.
"Other than photocopies of her contract of employment and of her passport showing her arrival in the Philippines on 24 August 2015, no proof was submitted to support her allegations of having been illegally dismissed, constructive or otherwise, and of having been maltreated, physically or verbally," the CA said.
On Feb. 6, 2014, Bilbao left for Saudi Arabia. After two months, she was transferred to another employer for whom she worked until her repatriation in August 2015.
Bilbao arrived in the Philippines on August 24, 2015 and on Feb. 15, 2017, filed a complaint for underpayment of salaries; unpaid eight months’ salary equivalent to Saudi Riyal 12,000 (about PHP151,000 in 2015); transportation expenses; and maltreatment.
She later amended her complaint to include illegal constructive dismissal.
In March 2017, she again filed an amended complaint, adding the Abddulelah Hamdan Zaid Alhijaryal Sharif Office as respondent.
The first employer was allegedly not satisfied with Bilbao's work attitude and performance. In discontinuing her employment, she was given two options: Pre-termination of the contract with one-month salary and repatriation or a new employer until the completion of her two-year contract.
She chose the second option for more than a year without a complaint from either party. Her employment was interrupted when she requested to go home for medical treatment of a mass around her neck.
"The Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases. The Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible. Generally, the Court may only look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting, which is not the case here," the court said. (PNA)
