By Vir B. Lumicao
A former domestic helper may have won a chance to be heard by the Labour Tribunal on July 26 despite being absent in a previous hearing, but her victory was short-lived.
Leila Villaluz ended up withdrawing a claim she made against her former employer for unpaid wages after getting a mouthful from presiding officer Isabel Chu.
Villaluz was claiming wages in lieu of notice, arrears in wages, unpaid annual leave, plane ticket, ferry fare and travel allowance, as well as visa processing fee.
Asked by Chu about her absence from the hearing June 1, the helper said she had no fare money at the time.
“The reason you gave last hearing was that you forgot the date,” Chu said angrily.
The presiding officer said the struck out the helper’s claim after she did not show up. Chu said she waited until midday hoping the claimant would appear, but she did not.
She told Villaluz that the defendant, a woman surnamed Tang, took leave from her work and also waited fruitlessly until midday for her former maid to arrive.
The presiding officer said the tribunal would normally dismiss a case if the claimant was 30 minutes late for the hearing, but she was giving Villaluz another chance if she would pay costs to her employer who had come to court again.
The officer also said that if the complainant had a valid reason for being late, such as figuring in an accident, she could withdraw her case without paying the cost to the other side.
Chu also lectured the helper on heeding cost orders. “I have to let you know, you have to be very careful about the cost order. Many domestic helpers do not obey the cost order because they say they have no money. So, the other side can go to the Immigration and complain against the domestic helper about breach of cost order.”
The presiding officer then asked for the form which listed the claims, and after a cursory look, told Villaluz that she would set the case to trial if the two sides did not settle.
But she warned the trial court might reject Villaluz’s claim because records show she had signed a termination letter dated March 23, as well as the receipt for a $2,000 final payment.
After deducting the air ticket expenses, the Filipina would still have to pay the employer $660 for her absence from work to appear in court, Chu said.
The helper said she was forced by the employer to sign the documents, but could not describe how the boss got her to sign them. She added that she was also claiming the visa processing fee she had paid the agent.
The employer said she had paid the employment agency all the fees including the visa cost just to hire Villaluz, but the latter insisted she paid the fee to a certain Ms Antonio.
Again the presiding officer raised her voice, saying there was nothing in the work contract that the employer would refund the money the helper paid for the visa fee.
“This court has nothing to do with your visa fee, you may go to the police or to your Consulate to complain,” Chu told the helper.
Chu also asked why the maid waited two months after being terminated before going to the Labour Department, where she stayed in the meantime, and why nobody told her to approach Labour.
“I stayed with Pastor John (Lalaan) and got no advice to go to Labour,” Villaluz replied.
Chu said the maid must tell the pastor to appear as witness in the trial. “He will have to tell the court why he did not tell you to report to Labour right away if you told him you were forced to sign the termination letter,” Chu said.
She added that the court would investigate why the employer deducted the air ticket cost from the helper’s final payment.
The presiding officer repeated that personally she found Villaluz’s claim to be weak and she would only end up paying for the court cost and reimbursing the defendant’s costs, no matter whether she had money or not.
She then advised the helper and her companion to discuss what to do. Villaluz made a phone call to the pastor then said she was withdrawing the claim.
She refused to talk to The SUN about the case.
Responsive Ad Slot
