eview on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Resolutions dated June 14, 20222 and
October 19, 20223 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 171524, which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by Melba Alcantara Denusta (petitioner) for being filed beyond
the reglementary period.
The Antecedents
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, damages, payment of wages for the unexpired portion of the contract, and
attorney's fees against Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, Inc. (Migrant), a placement and recruitment agency, K&G Manpower Services, Ltd. (K&G),
Migrant's foreign principal, and Theresita M. Ceralde (Ceralde), in her capacity as Migrant's president (collectively, respondents).4
In the complaint, petitioner averred that she was hired as a Kitchen Hand for The Lunch Box Ltd. (Lunch Box) in Rarotonga, Cook Islands under a
two-year employment contract executed with Migrant and K&G. Based on her contract, she would receive a weekly salary of NZ$400.00 or NZ$1,600.00
per month. On May 22, 2019, she arrived in the Cook Islands and started her employment. She was repatriated to the Philippines on November 17,
2019.5
During her employment, petitioner alleged that her employer, Charlene Tairea (Tairea) committed several violations of her contract of employment.
She was paid less than the agreed rate and was not provided with accommodation, transportation, or food allowances. She was considered a part-time
employee and was not paid her salary during holidays. Petitioner likewise averred that she was maltreated by her foreign employer's family members.
Due to her predicaments in the hands of her foreign employer, she claimed that respondents were guilty of illegal dismissal.6
Worse, when petitioner informed Migrant of her situation, Migrant did not act on it. Furthermore, before she was permitted to return home,
respondents forced her to sign a Quitclaim, but she refused. Instead, she executed a Letter of Dispute narrating her ordeal.7
Petitioner, thus, prayed in her complaint that she be reimbursed for her accommodation and transportation expenses while in the Cook Islands, as
well as for the amount she paid for the return ticket, agency fee, and work permit fee.8 She likewise claimed that she was entitled to her salaries and
benefits for the unexpired portion of her contract, as well as her salary differentials in the total amount of PHP 1,379,170.00 based on the prevailing
conversion rate.9
Respondents denied the allegations in the complaint. They countered that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and, therefore, not entitled to her
monetary claims.10
Respondents claimed that petitioner was a "name-hire" worker and that she was not an agency-recruited worker of Migrant. She was engaged but
through the referral of her friend, who sought the help of another friend in securing her employment with Tairea. It was only Migrant who processed her
travel documents.11
Furthermore, respondents contended that petitioner lied in her application as she claimed that she could speak basic English and drive a
motorcycle, which were among the main conditions of her employment. However, when asked to drive a motorcycle by her employer, she refused and
said that she did not know how to drive. Further, during her employment in the Cook Islands, petitioner demonstrated an arrogant attitude towards
Tairea's mother, Vaine Parau Tairea (Vaine).12
After Tairea left with her daughter to New Zealand for the latter's surgery, Vaine took over the management of the restaurant and it was this time
when petitioner's attitude c
