After previously rejecting the claim for subsistence allowance of an OFW working in Hong Kong, Philippine based insurance broker has changed its mind and decided to award the said request as mandated by law. The change of mind has been made after insurance company’s attention has been called by Labor Attache Jalilo de la Torre.
According to SUN, Mariel Tadalan, abused Filipina migrant worker who recently won a case against her employer in Hong Kong will now be able to receive a subsistence allowance from PAMIOFW Management Service and Insurance Intermediaries, Inc. Apparently, her claim amounting to US$300 has already been approved and will be sent to her through Western Union’s money remittance service. The good news has reached Tadalan on August 17 through Angelux Employment Agency.
Apparently, the request has been previously rejected by PAMIOFW stating that the claim can only be given to migrant workers with on-going case. But since it was known that at that time Tadalan had already won the case against employer at the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board on July 7 and had received $5,568 as full settlement of the case, the insurer disqualified the OFW’s claim from their office.
Upon the receipt of the letter of the Labor Attache, the chairman of the insurance company allegedly scolded his staff for denying Tadalan’s claim.
Tracing back, it was last April when 36-year-old Tadalan won the case against her abusive employer who forced her to sleep for only 4 hours on the terrace outside his house and was being fed with left overs.
De la Torre felt pissed off with the insurer’s reasoning upon refusal of OFWs claim which he considered “unprecedented and makes no sense”.
“The reason for the benefit is to afford the worker some kind of temporary relief which can bridge her over some difficult times while the case is pending. It is not diminished by the fact that the case had already been settled or had been resolved in favor of either worker or employer,” de la Torre stated.
“There is nothing in the law nor its implementing regulations, which requires the worker to file their claim while the case is pending or while the case has not been settled yet. To impose a requirement that is not called for by the law nor its implementing rules is egregious and must not be tolerated,” he added.
He also noted emphasized that the law was still unknown to the migrant workers as it was not fully disseminated which made them ‘innocent’ about the law.