ESALYN CHAVEZ v. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, G.R. No. 109808

 G.R. No. 109808 March 1, 1995

ESALYN CHAVEZ v. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, 

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: 

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or 

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be  proved by: 

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or 

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)

FACTS: 

Esalyn Chavez is a dancer who was contracted by Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation to perform in Japan for 6 months. The contract was for $1.5k a month, which was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. After the approval of said contract, Chavez entered into a side contract reducing her salary with her Japanese employer through her local manager-agency (Jaz Talents Promotion). The salary was reduced to $500 and $750 was to go to Jaz Talents. In February 1991 (two years after the expiration of her contract), Chavez sued Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents for underpayment of wages before the POEA.

The POEA ruled against her. POEA stated that the side agreement entered into by Chavez with her Japanese employer superseded the Standard Employment Contract; that POEA had no knowledge of such side agreement being entered into; that Chavez is barred by laches for sleeping on her right for two years. Chavez elevated the issue to the National Labor Relations Commission but the latter, chaired by Edna Bonto-Perez, affirmed the POEA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Chavez is entitled to relief.

RULING:

Yes. The SC ruled that the managerial commission agreement executed by Chavez to authorize her Japanese Employer to deduct her salary is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. It cannot supersede the standard employment contract approved by the POEA with the following stipulation appended thereto:

It is understood that the terms and conditions stated in this Employment Contract are in conformance with the Standard Employment Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the POEA under Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. Any alterations or changes made in any part of this contract without prior approval by the POEA shall be null and void;

The side agreement which reduced Chavez’s basic wage is void for violating the POEA’s minimum employment standards, and for not having been approved by the POEA. Here, both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents are solidarily liable.

Laches does not apply in the case at bar. In this case, Chavez filed her claim well within the three-year prescriptive period for the filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code.  For this reason, laches did not set in.