Welcome Relief of Illegally Terminated OFWs

In the fairly recent case of Antonio Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc, G.R. 167614, promulgated on 24 March 2009, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

Section 10 of the aforesaid law states in part that

Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

In declaring the said clause unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled emphatically that:

- the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

- the subject clause violates petitioner's right to substantive due process, for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary benefits, without any existing valid governmental purpose

- the subject clause does not state or imply any definitive governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that the clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal protection, but also her right to substantive due process under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.

With this recent ruling of the Supreme Court, ALL illegally terminated or dismissed OFWs (both sea-based or land-based) may sue the recruitment agency and the employer jointly for illegal termination of contract with prayers for:

a.Payment of all unpaid salary for the entire un-expired portion of contract (Antonio Serrano vs. Gallant Mari tim e Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc, G.R. 167614, 24 March 2009);

b.Reimbursement of placement fee plus 12% interest thereof (Section 10 of RA 8042);

c.Moral and Exemplary Damages (Section 10 of RA 8042)

d.Attorney's fees

NOTA BENE: It took almost 14 years from the enactment of RA 8042 on 15 July 1995 before this inequitable clause was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.