NLRC dismisses cases filed by nurses vs Sentosa Recruitment

21 February 2008
Reference: ATTY. IBARRO RELAMIDA JR.
Legal Counsel_& Spokesman Sentosa Recruitment Agency
Tel. No. (Office) # 8911 338 & Cell # 09195602835
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) has dismissed the cases filed by 31 nurses against Sentosa Recruitment Agency and its foreign principals.

The cases were filed by 31 immigrant nurses who are working in various long-term care facilities in New York for alleged illegal dismissal, non-payment of and underpayment of salaries and other money claims.

In a 17-page decision penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco, the NLRC ruled that the complainants did not observe the required notice to the employer when they submitted their resignation letters thus they themselves violated the contract and the Labor Code of the Philippines.

The complainants in NLRC OFW Case no. (L) 06-05-01397-00 were Juliet A. Anilao, Marriet S. Avila, Dulce Corazon M. Bayot, Annabelle R. Capulong, Marites Chan, Maricelle M. Dealo, Marie M. de la Cruz, Maritoni S. De La Rosa, Alipio Esguerra, Claudine B. Gamiao, Carlo Conrad Garcia, Eduardo C. Ilagan, Elmer R. Jacinto, Cecille L. Jayo, Jennifer Lampa, Eileem S. Magnaye, James B. Millena, Rizza P. Maulion, Rhean Kissette Montecillo, Mitzi Ann Ong, Noralyn O. Orteza, Louella R. Paglinawan, Ondon Parungao, Ma. Theresa G. Ramos. Ritchel P. Salve and Ranier Sichon.
On the other hand, the complainants under Case. No. (L) 06-12-03784-00 were Archie Buagas, Ma. Consuelo Gonzales, Rosina Medel, Dinah Caluya and Rhoda Lynn San Jose.
Named respondents were Sentosa Recruitment Agency, Francis Luyun, Bent Philipson and seven long-term health care facilities/ centers located in New York.

The NLRC decision which was made last January 24, declared that under contract, at least two (2) weeks notice of intent to resign is required and under the Labor Code of the Philippines, at least one (1) month notice is required. Either of the required notification was not observed by the 31 nurses, thus constituting a clear violation of the Labor Code, the NLRC said. Arbiter Franco said all the complainants tendered their resignation letters, hence they cannot claim illegal dismissal, either actual or constructive.

On money claims, the Labor Arbiter Franco found out that the payslips of the 31 nurses clearly showed that they were paid a salary rate of US$24 even if their contract only states a minimum of US$22. In fact, one nurse --Carlo Conrad Garcia, was even paid US$40 per hour.

Thus, the salary rate being received by the complainants, the NLRC said, negated their claims of underpayment.

The payslips further showed that the complainants were paid all their holiday overtime, overtime pay and vacation leaves, thus, negating their claims of non-payment, the labor arbiter said.

Finally, the the NLRC decision declared that “the claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees being anchored on the charge of illegal (constructive) dismissal must likewise fail. “
The complainants, the NLRC explained, failed to adduce evidence on the fault or malice on the part of the respondents to warrant the award of damages or attorney’s fees in their favor.

On the contrary, the NLRC found that it was the complainants (except for five – Gonzales, Medel, Caluya, San Jose and Chan) who failed to complky with the required prior notice when they tendered their resignation a and left their employment.

Sentosa Recruitment and its principals in the United States employs more than 5,000 employees consisting of doctors, nurses, dieticians and nutririonists, theraphists, pharmacists.office staff etc., Of this number, more than 1,00 are Filipinos. Of its 14 long-term care and rehabilitation and nursing centers, the top nursing positions are held by Filipino nursing directors.

The NLRC decision decision is the third consecutive case lost by the nurses against Sentosa Recruitment Agency in the Philippines which include the following:
First loss was a case filed by bthe nurses with Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA for alleged violation of recruitment rules and regulations; regulations implementing the Labor Code, as amended and circulars. This was dismissed for utter lack of merit last September 4, 2007.

POEA also issued an order last June 8, 2006 which granted the motion filed by Sentosa Recruitment Agency for the lifting of the order preventive suspension dated May 24, 2006.

In the United States, the Filipino nurses have also suffered successive losses in cases they filed against the company, as follows:
Indictment issued by the District Attorney of Suffolk County, New York by way of a Sepacial Grand Jury Proceedings against 10 nurses and their lawyer for violation of penal laws, to wit:
State of New York versus Felix Vinluan, the Filipino nurses lawyer, and Elmer Jacinto, et al. for (10 Conspiracy in the sixthth degree (2) Criminal solicitation in the fifth degree (3) Endangering the welfare of a child (4) Endangeringbthe welfare of a diabled person.

A court order from the Supreme Court-State of New York Criminal Term, Suffolk County issued last September 28, 2007 denied the motion to dismiss the criminal indictment of Elmer Jacinto , et al.

Another order from the same court also denied the motion to dismiss the criminal indictment of Atty. Felix Vinluan last September 28, 2007.

United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division dismissed a case filed against Sentosa Recruitment last August 31, 2007 for alleged discrimination after it determined that there was insufficient evidence of reasonable cause to believe that the injured parties were discriminated against as prohibited by U.S.C. 1324b.
The Supreme Court-State of New York under Justice Stephen A. Bucaria granted the motion filed by Sentosa Care LLC et al., to dismiss the counterclaims of the 26 nurses and lawyer Fleix Vinluan against the company.