G.R. No. 197528 - PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., VS. ARMANDO A. VINUY A. LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S. LUMANTA,. JR., ROBELITO S. ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R. ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY O. ENJAMBRE AND NOEL T. LADEA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 30 April 2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, a new Decision is hereby issued ordering the respondents PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENTS CO., INC., ROMEO NACINO, and MODERN METAL SOLUTIONS, INC. to jointly and severally, pay the complainants the following: Employee Underpaid Salary Placement fee Salary for the unexpired portion of the contract (1350 x 6 months) Exemplary Damages Vinuya, ARMANDO 150 x 6 = 900 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 Alcantara VIRGILIO 150 X 4 = 600 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 Era, MARINO 350 x 4 = 1400 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 adea, NOEL 150 x 5 = 750 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 Ordovez, LOUIE 250 X 3 = 750 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 Anipan, ROBELITO 150 x 4 = 600 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 Enjambre, SANDY 150 x 4 = 600 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 Lumanta, ARSENIO 250 x 5 = 1250 AED USD 400 8100 AED P20,000.00 TOTAL: 6,850 AED US$3,200 64,800 AED P400,000.00 or their peso equivalent at the time of actual payment plus attorney[]s fees equivalent to 10% of the judgment award. [12] The agency moved for reconsideration, contending that the appeal was never perfected and that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reversing the labor arbiters decision. The respondents, on the other hand, moved for partial reconsideration, maintaining that their salaries should have covered the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, pursuant to the Courts ruling in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. [13] The NLRC denied the agencys motion for reconsideration, but granted the respondents motion. [14] It sustained the respondents argument that the award needed to be adjusted, particularly in relation to the payment of their salaries, consistent with the Courts ruling in Serrano . The ruling declared unconstitutional the clause, or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, in Section 10, paragraph 5, of R.A. 8042, limiting the entitlement of illegally dismissed overseas Filipino workers to their salaries for the unexpired term of their contract or three months, whichever is less. Accordingly, it modified its earlier decision and adjusted the respondents salary entitlement based on the following matrix: Employee Duration of Contract Departure date Date dismissed Unexpired portion of contract Vinuya, ARMANDO 2 years 29 March 2007 8 August 2007 19 months and 21 days Alcantara, VIRGILIO 2 years 3 April 2007 8 August 2007 20 months and 5 days Era, MARINO 2 years 12 May 2007 8 August 2007 21 months and 4 days Ladea, NOEL 2 years 29 March 2007 8 August 2007 19 months and 21 days Ordovez, LOUIE 2 years 3 April 2007 26 July 2007 21 months and 23 days Anipan, ROBELITO 2 years 3 April 2007 8 August 2007 20 months and 5 days Enjambre, SANDY 2 years 29 March 2007 26 July 2007 20 months and 3 days Lumanta, ARSENIO 2 years 29 March 2007 8 August 2007 19 months and 21 days15 Again, the agency moved for reconsideration, reiterating its earlier a