Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez

    Uploaded by

    talla aldover
    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez Chavez, a dancer, was contracted by Centrum Placement to perform in Japan for $1.5k per month as approved by POEA. However, after entering Japan, Chavez signed a side agreement reducing her salary to $500 with $750 going to her local manager, Jaz Talents, without POEA approval. In 1991, Chavez sued for underpayment. The POEA ruled against her but the Supreme Court ruled the side agreement was void for violating POEA standards and the original contract remained valid. Both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents were found solidarily liable for the unpaid wages as laches did not apply since the claim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez

    Uploaded by

    talla aldover
    109 views1 page
    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez Chavez, a dancer, was contracted by Centrum Placement to perform in Japan for $1.5k per month as approved by POEA. However, after entering Japan, Chavez signed a side agreement reducing her salary to $500 with $750 going to her local manager, Jaz Talents, without POEA approval. In 1991, Chavez sued for underpayment. The POEA ruled against her but the Supreme Court ruled the side agreement was void for violating POEA standards and the original contract remained valid. Both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents were found solidarily liable for the unpaid wages as laches did not apply since the claim

    Original Description:

    labor law case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez Chavez, a dancer, was contracted by Centrum Placement to perform in Japan for $1.5k per month as approved by POEA. However, after entering Japan, Chavez signed a side agreement reducing her salary to $500 with $750 going to her local manager, Jaz Talents, without POEA approval. In 1991, Chavez sued for underpayment. The POEA ruled against her but the Supreme Court ruled the side agreement was void for violating POEA standards and the original contract remained valid. Both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents were found solidarily liable for the unpaid wages as laches did not apply since the claim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    109 views1 page

    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez

    Uploaded by

    talla aldover
    Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez Chavez, a dancer, was contracted by Centrum Placement to perform in Japan for $1.5k per month as approved by POEA. However, after entering Japan, Chavez signed a side agreement reducing her salary to $500 with $750 going to her local manager, Jaz Talents, without POEA approval. In 1991, Chavez sued for underpayment. The POEA ruled against her but the Supreme Court ruled the side agreement was void for violating POEA standards and the original contract remained valid. Both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents were found solidarily liable for the unpaid wages as laches did not apply since the claim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Isalyn Echavez vs.

    Bonto-Perez
    G.R. No. 109808

    1 March 1995

    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
    POEA. 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.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Chavez is entitled to relief.
    HELD: 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 Chavezs basic wage is null and void for violating the POEAs
    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 threeyear prescriptive period for the filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor
    Code. For this reason, laches is not applicable.

    You might also like