Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 314 views

    Chavez Vs Bonto Perez

    Uploaded by

    Gui Esh
    Esalyn Chavez, an entertainment dancer, signed a standard employment contract through a Philippine agency for work in Japan paying $1,500 per month. However, she also signed a "side agreement" authorizing her employer to deduct $250 per month from her salary and pay her manager, reducing her pay to $750 per month. Chavez sued for unpaid wages. The Court ruled the side agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated Philippine law and policy. While some time had passed, the doctrine of laches did not prevent her claim since she filed within the three-year statutory limit for wage claims. The Court awarded Chavez the unpaid portion of her $1,500 monthly salary for six months or $

    Copyright:

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

    Chavez Vs Bonto Perez

    Uploaded by

    Gui Esh
    314 views1 page
    Esalyn Chavez, an entertainment dancer, signed a standard employment contract through a Philippine agency for work in Japan paying $1,500 per month. However, she also signed a "side agreement" authorizing her employer to deduct $250 per month from her salary and pay her manager, reducing her pay to $750 per month. Chavez sued for unpaid wages. The Court ruled the side agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated Philippine law and policy. While some time had passed, the doctrine of laches did not prevent her claim since she filed within the three-year statutory limit for wage claims. The Court awarded Chavez the unpaid portion of her $1,500 monthly salary for six months or $

    Original Description:

    labor case

    Original Title

    Chavez vs Bonto Perez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Esalyn Chavez, an entertainment dancer, signed a standard employment contract through a Philippine agency for work in Japan paying $1,500 per month. However, she also signed a "side agreement" authorizing her employer to deduct $250 per month from her salary and pay her manager, reducing her pay to $750 per month. Chavez sued for unpaid wages. The Court ruled the side agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated Philippine law and policy. While some time had passed, the doctrine of laches did not prevent her claim since she filed within the three-year statutory limit for wage claims. The Court awarded Chavez the unpaid portion of her $1,500 monthly salary for six months or $

    Copyright:

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

    Chavez Vs Bonto Perez

    Uploaded by

    Gui Esh
    Esalyn Chavez, an entertainment dancer, signed a standard employment contract through a Philippine agency for work in Japan paying $1,500 per month. However, she also signed a "side agreement" authorizing her employer to deduct $250 per month from her salary and pay her manager, reducing her pay to $750 per month. Chavez sued for unpaid wages. The Court ruled the side agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated Philippine law and policy. While some time had passed, the doctrine of laches did not prevent her claim since she filed within the three-year statutory limit for wage claims. The Court awarded Chavez the unpaid portion of her $1,500 monthly salary for six months or $

    Copyright:

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

    196. G.R. No.

    109808 March 1, 1995


    ESALYN CHAVEZ vs. BONTO-PEREZ
    Facts:
    Chavez, an entertainment dancer, entered into a standard employment contract for
    overseas Filipino artists and entertainers through Philippine representative, Centrum
    Placement & Promotions Corporation and was approved by POEA. The contract had a
    duration of two (2) to six (6) months, and petitioner was to be paid a monthly compensation of
    US$1,5000.00. Subsequently, Chavez executed the following side agreement with her
    Japanese employer through her local manager, Jaz Talents Promotion to wit:
    I, ESALYN CHAVEZ, DANCER, do hereby with my own free will and voluntarily have
    the honor to authorize your good office to please deduct the amount of TWO
    HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($250) from my contracted monthly salary of SEVEN
    HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($750) as monthly commission for my Manager, Mr.
    Jose A. Azucena, Jr.
    That, my monthly salary (net) is FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500)
    Chavez instituted the case at bench for underpayment of wages with the. She prayed
    for the payment of Six Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$6,000.00), representing the unpaid portion
    of her basic salary for six months.
    Centrum averred Chavez cannot now demand to pay her the salary based on the
    processed Employment Contract for she is now considered in bad faith and hence, estopped
    from claiming thereto thru her own act of consenting and agreeing to receive a salary not in
    accordance with her contract of employment. Moreover, her self-imposed silence for a long
    period of time worked to her own disadvantage as she allowed laches to prevail.
    Issue:
    WON petitioner can claim her upon her allegation of underpayment of wages.
    Ruling:
    Yes, the Court ruled that the “side agreement” which authorize her Japanese
    Employer to deduct US$250.00 from her monthly basic salary is void because it is against
    our existing laws, morals and public policy. This side agreement is a scheme all too
    frequently resorted to by unscrupulous employers against our helpless overseas workers who
    are compelled to agree to satisfy their basic economic needs. 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.
    Secondly. The doctrine of laches cannot be applied to petitioner. The question of
    laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since it is an equitable doctrine,
    its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice
    or to perpetrate fraud and injustice. Petitioner 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.

    You might also like