G.R.

 No.  184058:  March  10,  2010   anexpiredlicense,shall  be  deemedillegal  and  punishable  
PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  Appellee,  v.  MELISSA  CHUA,   under  Article  39  of  the  Labor  Code  of  the  Philippines.And  
Appellant.   illegal  recruitment  is  deemed  committed  inlarge  scale  if  
CARPIO  MORALES,  J.:   committed  against  three  or  more  persons  individually  or  as  a  
  group.  
FACTS:    
  Thus  forillegal  recruitment  in  large  scale  to  prosper,  the  
Appellant  was  indicted  for  Illegal  Recruitment  (Large  Scale)   prosecution  has  to  prove  three  essential  elements,  to  wit:  (1)  
and  for  five  counts  of  Estafa  in  violation  of  Article  38  (a)  of   the  accused  undertook  arecruitment  activity  under  Article  
the  the  New  Labor  Code  of  the  Philippines,  in  relation  to  Art.   13(b)  or  any  prohibited  practice  under  Article  34  of  the  
13  (b)  and  (c  )  thereof,  as  further  amended  by  Sec.  6  (a),  (1)   Labor  Code;  (2)  the  accused  did  not  have  the  license  or  the  
and  (m)  of  RA  8042.   authority  to  lawfully  engage  in  therecruitment  and  placement  
  of  workers;  and  (3)  the  accused  committed  such  illegal  
Appellant  denied  the  charges.Claiming  having  worked  as  a   activity  against  three  or  more  persons  individually  or  as  a  
temporary  cashier  from  January  to  October,  2002  at  the  office   group.  
of  Golden  Gate,  owned  by  one  Marilyn  Calueng,  she    
maintained  that  Golden  Gate  was  a  licensed  recruitment   In  the  present  case,  Golden  Gate,  of  which  appellant  admitted  
agency  and  that  Josie,  who  is  her  godmother,  was  an  agent.   being  a  cashier  from  January  to  October  2002,  was  initially  
  authorized  to  recruit  workers  for  deployment  abroad.Per  the  
Admitting  having  receivedP80,000  each  from  Marilyn  and   certification  from  the  POEA,Golden  Gates  license  only  expired  
Tan,  receipt  of  which  she  issued  but  denying  receiving  any   on  February  23,  2002  and  it  was  delisted  from  the  roster  of  
amount  from  King,  she  claimed  that  she  turned  over  the   licensed  agencies  on  April  2,  2002.  
money  to  the  documentation  officer,  one  Arlene  Vega,  who  in    
turn  remitted  the  money  to  Marilyn  Calueng  whose  present   Appellant  was  positively  pointed  to  as  one  of  the  persons  
whereabouts  she  did  not  know.   who  enticed  the  complainants  to  part  with  their  money  upon  
  the  fraudulent  representation  that  they  would  be  able  to  
The  RTC  convicted  appellant  of  Illegal  Recruitment  (Large   secure  for  them  employment  abroad.In  the  absence  of  any  
Scale)  and  three  counts  of  Estafa.  On  appeal,  the  CA  affirmed   evidence  that  the  complainants  were  motivated  by  improper  
the  RTCs  decision  holding  that  appellants  defense  that,  as   motives,  the  trial  courts  assessment  of  their  credibility  shall  
temporary  cashier  of  Golden  Gate,  she  received  the  money   not  be  interfered  with  by  the  Court.  
which  was  ultimately  remitted  to  Marilyn  Calueng  is    
immaterial,  she  having  failed  to  prove  the  existence  of  an   Even  if  appellant  were  a  mere  temporary  cashier  of  Golden  
employment  relationship  between  her  and  Marilyn,  as  well  as   Gate,  that  did  not  make  her  any  less  an  employee  to  beheld  
the  legitimacy  of  the  operations  of  Golden  Gate  and  the  extent   liable  for  illegal  recruitment  as  principal  by  direct  
of  her  involvement  therein.   participation,  together  with  the  employer,  as  it  was  shown  
  that  she  actively  and  consciously  participated  in  the  
Hence,  this  appeal.   recruitment  process.  
   
ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  the  appellant  is  guilty  of  illegal   Assuming  arguendo  that  appellant  was  unaware  of  the  illegal  
recrtuitment?   nature  of  the  recruitment  business  of  Golden  Gate  that  does  
  not  free  her  of  liability  either.Illegal  Recruitment  in  Large  
HELD:  The  appeal  is  denied.   Scale  penalized  under  Republic  Act  No.  8042,  or  The  Migrant  
  Workers  and  Overseas  Filipinos  Act  of  1995,  is  a  special  law,  
LABOR  LAW   a  violation  of  which  is  malum  prohibitum,not  malum  in  se.  
  Intent  is  thus  immaterial.  And  that  explains  why  appellant  
The  term  recruitment  and  placement  is  defined  under  Article   was,  aside  from  Estafa,  convicted  of  such  offense.  
13(b)  of  the  Labor  Code  of  the  Philippinesas  any  act  of    
canvassing,  enlisting,  contracting,  transporting,  utilizing,   DENIED  
hiring,  or  procuring  workers,  and  includes  referrals,  contract    
services,  promising  or  advertising  for  employment,  locally  or   G.R.  No.  187730:  June  29,  2010  
abroad,  whether  for  profit  or  not.Provided,  That  any  person    
or  entity  which,  in  any  manner,  offers  or  promises  for  a  fee   PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  Petitioner,  v.  RODOLFO  
employment  to  two  or  more  persons  shall  be  deemed   GALLO  y  GADOT,  Accused-­‐Appellant.  
engaged  inrecruitment  and  placement.  On  the  other  hand,    
illegal  recruitment  is  defined  under  Article  38,  paragraph  (a)   VELASCO,  JR.,  J.:  
of  the  Labor  Code,  as  amended.    
  FACTS:  
From  the  foregoing  provisions,  it  is  clear  that  anyrecruitment    
activities  to  be  undertaken  by  non-­‐licensee  or  non-­‐holder  of   Accused-­‐appellant  Gallo  and  accused  Pacardo  and  Manta  
contracts,  or  as  in  the  present  case,  an  agency  with   together  with  Mardeolyn  and  9  others,  were  charged  with  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    1  
 
syndicated  illegal  recruitment  and  18  counts  of   or  advertising  for  employment,  locally  or  abroad,  whether  for  
estafacommitted  against  eighteen  complainants,  including   profit  or  not.  SC  believes  that  the  prosecution  was  able  to  
Dela  Caza,  Guantero  and  Sare.  The  present  appeal  concerns   establish  the  elements  of  the  offense  sufficiently.  The  
solely  accused-­‐appellants  conviction  for  syndicated  illegal   evidence  readily  reveals  that  MPM  Agency  was  never  
recruitment  in  Criminal  Case  No.  02-­‐206293  and  for  estafain   licensed  by  the  POEA  to  recruit  workers  for  overseas  
Criminal  Case  No.  02-­‐206297.  According  to  the  prosecution,   employment.  In  the  instant  case,  accused-­‐appellant  
Dela  Caza  was  introduced  by  Panuncio  to  accused-­‐appellant   committed  the  acts  enumerated  in  Sec.  6  of  R.A.  8042.  
Gallo,  Pacardo,  Manta,  Mardeolyn,  Lulu  Mendanes,  Yeo  Sin   Testimonial  evidence  presented  by  the  prosecution  clearly  
Ung  and  another  Korean  national  at  the  office  of  MPM  Agency   shows  that,  in  consideration  of  a  promise  of  foreign  
located  in  Malate,  Manila.  Accused-­‐appellant  Gallo  then   employment,  accused-­‐appellant  received  the  amount  of  Php  
introduced  himself  as  a  relative  of  Mardeolyn  and  informed   45,000.00  from  Dela  Caza.  When  accused-­‐appellant  made  
Dela  Caza  that  the  agency  was  able  to  send  many  workers   misrepresentations  concerning  the  agencys  purported  power  
abroad.  Together  with  Pacardo  and  Manta,  he  also  told  Dela   and  authority  to  recruit  for  overseas  employment,  and  in  the  
Caza  about  the  placement  fee  of  PhP150,000  with  a  down   process,  collected  money  in  the  guise  of  placement  fees,  the  
payment  of  PhP45,000  and  the  balance  to  be  paid  through   former  clearly  committed  acts  constitutive  of  illegal  
salary  deduction.  With  accused-­‐appellants  assurance  that   recruitment.  
many  workers  have  been  sent  abroad,  as  well  as  the  presence    
of  the  2  Korean  nationals  and  upon  being  shown  the  visas    
procured  for  the  deployed  workers,  Dela  Caza  was  convinced   G.R.  No.  179532:  May  30,  2011  
to  part  with  his  money  and  paid  the  agency.  After  2  weeks,    
the  said  agency  moved  and  changed  their  name.  After  2  more   CLAUDIA  S.  YAP,  Petitioner,  v.  THENAMARIS  SHIPS  
months  of  waiting  in  vain  to  be  deployed,  Dela  Caza  and  the   MANAGEMENT  and  INTERMARE  MARITIME  AGENCIES,  
other  applicants  decided  to  take  action.  The  first  attempt  was   INC.,Respondents.  
unsuccessful  because  the  agency  again  moved  to  another    
place.  However,  with  the  help  of  the  Office  of  Ambassador   NACHURA,  J.:  
Seres  and  the  Western  Police  District,  they  were  able  to    
locate  the  new  address  at  Carriedo,  Manila.  The  agency   FACTS:  
explained  that  it  had  to  move  in  order  to  separate  those  who    
are  applying  as  entertainers  from  those  applying  as  factory   Petitioner  was  employed  as  an  electrician  of  the  vessel,  M/T  
workers.  Accused-­‐appellant  Gallo,  together  with  Pacardo  and   SEASCOUT  by  Intermare  Maritime  Agencies,  Inc.  in  behalf  of  
Manta,  were  then  arrested.  For  his  defense,  accused-­‐ its  principal,  Vulture  Shipping  Limited.The  contract  was  for  
appellant  denied  having  any  part  in  the  recruitment  of  Dela   12  months.On  23  August  2001,Yapboarded  M/T  SEASCOUT  
Caza.  In  fact,  he  testified  that  he  also  applied  with  MPM   and  commenced  his  job  as  electrician.  However,  on  or  about  
Agency  for  deployment  to  Koreaas  a  factory  worker.  RTC  and   08  November  2001,  the  vessel  was  sold.  
CA  convicted  the  appellants.    
  Yap  received  his  seniority  bonus,  vacation  bonus,  extra  bonus  
ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  accused-­‐appellant  is  guilty  of  illegal   along  with  the  scrapping  bonus.However,  he  insisted  that  he  
was  entitled  to  the  payment  of  the  unexpired  portion  of  his  
recruitment  committed  by  a  syndicate.   contract  since  he  was  illegally  dismissed  from  
HELD:  Yes.   employment.He  alleged  that  he  opted  for  immediate  transfer  
  but  none  was  made.  
LABOR  LAW    
  Respondents  contended  that  Yap  was  not  illegally  
To  commit  syndicated  illegal  recruitment,  three  elements   dismissed.They  further  alleged  that  Yaps  contract  was  validly  
must  be  established:  (1)  the  offender  undertakes  either  any   terminated  due  to  the  sale  of  the  vessel  and  no  arrangement  
activity  within  the  meaning  of  recruitment  and  placement   was  made  for  Yaps  transfer  to  Thenamaris  other  vessels.  
defined  under  Article  13(b),  or  any  of  the  prohibited    
practices  enumerated  under  Art.  34  of  the  Labor  Code;  (2)  he   Thus,  Yap  brought  the  issue  before  the  Labor  Arbiter  (LA)  
has  no  valid  license  or  authority  required  by  law  to  enable   which  ruled  that  petitioner  was  illegally  dismissed;  that  
one  to  lawfully  engage  in  recruitment  and  placement  of   respondents  acted  in  bad  faith  when  they  assured  petitioner  
workers;  and  (3)  the  illegal  recruitment  is  committed  by  a   of  re-­‐embarkation  but  he  was  not  able  to  board;  and  that  
group  of  three  (3)  or  more  persons  conspiring  or   petitioner  was  entitled  to  his  salaries  for  the  unexpired  
confederating  with  one  another.  When  illegal  recruitment  is   portion  of  his  contract  for  a  period  of  nine  months  
committed  by  a  syndicate  or  in  large  scale,  i.e.,  if  it  is   (US$12,870.00),  P100,000  for  moral  damages,  and  P50,000  
committed  against  three  (3)  or  more  persons  individually  or   for  exemplary  damages  with  10%  of  the  same  for  Attys  fees.  
as  a  group,  it  is  considered  an  offense  involving  economic    
sabotage.Under  Art.  13(b)  of  the  Labor  Code,  recruitment  and   Respondents  sought  recourse  from  the  NLRC  which  modified  
placement  refers  to  any  act  of  canvassing,  enlisting,   the  award  of  salaries  from  that  corresponding  to  nine  months  
contracting,  transporting,  utilizing,  hiring  or  procuring   to  only  three  months  (US$4,290.00)  pursuant  to  Section  10  
workers,  and  includes  referrals,  contract  services,  promising   R.A.  No.  8042.  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    2  
 
   burden  on  those  who  have  relied  on  the  invalid  law.  This  case  
Respondents  and  petitioner  both  filed  a  Motion  for  Partial  
Reconsideration.   should  not  be  included  in  the  exception.  It  was  not  the  fault  of  
  petitioner  that  he  lost  his  job  due  to  an  act  of  illegal  dismissal  
NLRC  affirmed  the  finding  of  Illegal  Dismissal  and  Bad  Faith  
committed  by  respondents.  
on  the  part  of  respondent.  However,  the  NLRC  reversed  its  
earlier  Decision,  holding  that  "there  can  be  no  choice  to  grant    
only  3  months  salary  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired  term   Also,  we  cannot  subscribe  to  respondents  postulation  that  
because  there  is  no  full  year  of  unexpired  term  which  this  can  
be  applied."   the  tanker  allowance  of  US$130.00  should  not  be  included  in  
  the  computation  of  the  lump-­‐sum  salary.  First,  fair  play,  
Respondents  filed  an  MR,  which  the  NLRC  denied.   justice,  and  due  process  dictate  that  this  Court  cannot  now,  
Undaunted,  respondents  filed  a  petition  forcertiorariunder  
Rule  65  before  the  CA.   for  the  first  time  on  appeal,  pass  upon  this  question.  Second,  
  the  allowance  was  encapsulated  in  the  basic  salary  clause.  
The  CA  affirmed  the  findings  and  ruling  of  the  LA  and  the    
NLRC.  However,  the  CA  ruled  that  the  NLRC  erred  in    
sustaining  the  LAs  interpretation  of  Section  10  of  R.A.  No.   People  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Domingo  Panis    
8042.  The  CA  relied  on  the  clause  "or  for  three  months  for   GR  No.  L–58674–77,  July  11,  1990  
every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  whichever  is  less"  provided    
in  the  5th  paragraph  of  Section  10  of  R.A.  No.  8042.   FACTS:    
   
Both  parties  filed  their  respective  MRs  which  the  CA  denied.   On  January  9,  1981,  four  information  were  filed  in  the  in  the  
Thus,  this  petition.   Court  of  First  Instance  (CFI)  of  Zambales  and  Olongapo  City  
  alleging  that  herein  private  respondent  Serapio  Abug,  
ISSUE:   "without  first  securing  a  license  from  the  Ministry  of  Labor  as  
  a  holder  of  authority  to  operate  a  fee-­‐charging  employment  
agency,  did  then  and  there  wilfully,  unlawfully  and  criminally  
[1]  Whether  Section  10  of  R.A.  8042,  to  the  extent  that  it   operate  a  private  fee  charging  employment  agency  by  
affords  an  illegally  dismissed  migrant  worker  the  lesser  benefit   charging  fees  and  expenses  (from)  and  promising  
of  "salaries  for  [the]  unexpired  portion  of  his  employment   employment  in  Saudi  Arabia"  to  four  separate  individuals.  
Abug  filed  a  motion  to  quash  contending  that  he  cannot  be  
contract  for  three  (3)  months  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired   charged  for  illegal  recruitment  because  according  to  him,  
term,whichever  is  less"  is  constitutional;   Article  13(b)  of  the  Labor  Code  says  there  would  be  illegal  
recruitment  only  "whenever  two  or  more  persons  are  in  any  
 
manner  promised  or  offered  any  employment  for  a  fee.”    
[2]  Assuming  that  it  is,  whether  the  CA  gravely  erred  in    
granting  petitioner  only  three  (3)  months  backwages  when  his   Denied  at  first,  the  motion  to  quash  was  reconsidered  and  
granted  by  the  Trial  Court  in  its  Orders  dated  June  24,  1981,  
unexpired  term  of  9  months  is  far  short  of  the  "every  year  of  the   and  September  17,  1981.  In  the  instant  case,  the  view  of  the  
unexpired  term"  threshold.   private  respondents  is  that  to  constitute  recruitment  and  
  placement,  all  the  acts  mentioned  in  this  article  should  
involve  dealings  with  two  or  more  persons  as  an  
HELD:  The  petition  is  impressed  with  merit.   indispensable  requirement.  On  the  other  hand,  the  petitioner  
  argues  that  the  requirement  of  two  or  more  persons  is  
imposed  only  where  the  recruitment  and  placement  consists  
We  have  previously  declared  that  the  clause  "or  for  three  
of  an  offer  or  promise  of  employment  to  such  persons  and  
months  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  whichever  is   always  in  consideration  of  a  fee.    
less"  is  unconstitutional  for  being  violative  of  the  rights  of    
ISSUE:    
(OFWs)  to  equal  protection.  Moreover,  the  subject  clause    
does  not  state  any  definitive  governmental  purpose,  hence,  it   Whether  or  not  Article  13(b)  of  the  Labor  Code  provides  for  
also  violates  petitioner's  right  to  substantive  due  process.   the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  private  respondent  of  the  crime  
of  illegal  recruitment    
   
Generally,  an  unconstitutional  act  is  not  a  law.  An  exception   COURT  RULING:    
 
to  this  is  the  doctrine  of  operative  fact  applied  when  a  
The  Supreme  Court  reversed  the  CFI’s  Orders  and  reinstated  
declaration  of  unconstitutionality  will  impose  an  undue   all  four  information  filed  against  private  respondent.    

 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    3  
 
   of   license   or   authority   are   prescribed   for   violations   of   the  
The  Article  13(b)  of  the  Labor  Code  was  merely  intended  to   abovequoted   provisions,   among   others.   And   the  Secretary  of  
create  a  presumption,  and  not  to  impose  a  condition  on  the   Labor  has  the  power  under  Section  35  of  the  law  to  apply  these  
basic  rule  nor  to  provide  an  exception  thereto.     sanctions,  as   well   as   the   authority,   conferred   by   Section   36,  
  not   only   to   'restrict   and   regulate   the   recruitment   and  
Where  a  fee  is  collected  in  consideration  of  a  promise  or  offer   placement   activities   of   all   agencies,'   but   also   to   'promulgate  
of  employment  to  two  or  more  prospective  workers,  the   rules   and   regulations   to   carry   out   the   objectives   and  
individual  or  entity  dealing  with  them  shall  be  deemed  to  be   implement  the  provisions  governing  said  activities.  Pursuant  
engaged  in  the  act  of  recruitment  and  placement.  The  words   to   this   rule-­‐making   power   thus   granted,   the   Secretary   of  
"shall  be  deemed"  create  the  said  presumption.   Labor   gave   the   POEA,   'on   its   own   initiative   or   upon   filing   of   a  
  complaint  or  report  or  upon  request  for  investigation  by  any  
[G.R.  No.  109583.  September  5,  1997.]   aggrieved   person,   .   .   .   (authority   to)   conduct   the   necessary  
TRANS  ACTION  OVERSEAS  CORPORATION,  petitioner,  vs.   proceedings  for  the  suspension  or  cancellation  of  the  license  
THE  HONORABLE  SECRETARY  OF  LABOR   or   authority   of  any   agency   or   entity'   for   certain   enumerated  
  offenses   including   —   1)   the   imposition   or   acceptance,  
FACTS:   directly   or   indirectly,   of   any   amount   of   money,   goods   or  
  services,  or  any  fee  or  bond  in  excess  of  what  is  prescribed  by  
Private   respondents   sought   employment   as   domestic   helpers   the   Administration,   and   2)   any   other   violation   of   pertinent  
through   petitioner's   employees.   The   applicants   paid   provisions   of   the   Labor   Code   and   other   relevant   laws,   rules  
placement   fees   ranging   from   P1,000.00   to   P14,000.00,   but   and   regulations.   The   Administrator   was   also   given   the   power  
petitioner   failed   to   deploy   them.   Their   demand   for   refund   to   'order   the   dismissal   of   the   case   or   the   suspension   of   the  
proved   unavailing;   thus,   they   were   constrained   to   institute   license   or   authority   of   the   respondent   agency   or   contractor  
complaints  against  petitioner  for  violation  of  Articles  32  and   or  recommend  to  the  Minister  the  cancellation  thereof."  This  
34(a)  of  the  Labor  Code,  as  amended.  The  Undersecretary  of   power   conferred   upon   the   Secretary   of   Labor   and  
Labor   found   that   the   petitioner   is   liable   for   28   counts   of   Employment   was   echoed   in  People   vs.  Diaz,   259   SCRA   441  
violation  of  Article  32  and  5  counts  of  Art.  34(a)  and  ordered   (1996),  viz.:   "A   non-­‐licensee   or   non-­‐holder   of   authority  
the   cancellation   of   its   license   to   participate   in   means  any  person,  corporation  or  entity  which  has  not  been  
the  overseas  placement   and   recruitment   of   workers.   The   issued   a   valid   license   or   authority   to   engage   in   recruitment  
cancellation  of  petitioner's  license  was  temporarily  lifted  but   and  placement  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  or  whose  license  or  
the   order   revoking   its   license   was   reinstated   when   the   authority   has   been   suspended,   revoked   or   cancelled   by   the  
petitioner's   motion   for   reconsideration   was   eventually   POEA  or  the  Secretary."   In   view   of   the   Court's   disposition   on  
denied   for   lack   of   merit.   The   issue   presented   in   the   case   at   the  matter,  we  rule  that  the  power  to  suspend  or  cancel  any  
bar  is  whether  or  not  the  Secretary  of  Labor  and  Employment   license   or   authority   to   recruit   employees  
has  jurisdiction  to  cancel  or  revoke  the  license  of  a  private  fee   foroverseas  employment   is   concurrently   vested   with   the  
charging  employment  agency.  LibLex   POEA  and  the  Secretary  of  Labor.  prLL  
The  Supreme  Court  ruled  that  the  power  to  suspend  or  cancel    
any   license   or   authority   to   recruit   employees    
for  overseas  employment   is   concurrently   vested   with   the   [G.R.  No.  167639.  April  19,  2006.]  
Philippine  Overseas  Employment   Authority   (POEA)   and   the   REPUBLIC  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  represented  by  the  
Secretary  of  Labor.   ADMINISTRATOR  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  OVERSEAS  
  EMPLOYMENT  ADMINISTRATION  
ISSUE:   whether   or   not   the   Secretary   of   Labor   and   (POEA),  petitioner,  vs.  PRINCIPALIA  MANAGEMENT  AND  
Employment   has   jurisdiction   to   cancel   or   revoke   the   license   PERSONNEL  CONSULTANTS,  INCORPORATED,    
of  a  private  fee-­‐charging  employment  agency.   YNARES-­‐SANTIAGO,  J  p:  
   
HELD:     FACTS:  
  Two  separate  complaints  filed  before  the  Philippine  Overseas  
 LABOR   AND   SOCIAL   LEGISLATION;   LABOR   CODE;   ILLEGAL   Employment  Administration  (POEA)  
RECRUITMENT;   POWER   TO   SUSPEND   OR   CANCEL   ANY   against  Principalia  Management  and  Personnel  Consultants,  
LICENSE   OR   AUTHORITY   TO   RECRUIT   Incorporated  (Principalia)  for  violation  of  the  2002  POEA  
FOR  OVERSEAS  EMPLOYMENT;   CONCURRENTLY   VESTED   Rules  and  Regulations.  
WITH   THE   PHILIPPINE  OVERSEAS  EMPLOYMENT   Concha  alleged  that  in  August  2002,  she  applied  
ADMINISTRATION  (POEA)  AND  THE  SECRETARY  OF  LABOR.   with  Principalia  for  placement  and  employment  as  caregiver  
—  The  power  to  suspend  or  cancel  any  license  or  authority  to   or  physical  therapist  in  the  USA  or  Canada.  Despite  paying  
recruit   employees   for  overseas  employment   is   vested   upon   P20,000.00  out  of  the  P150,000.00  fee  required  
the   Secretary   of   Labor   and   Employment   under   Article   35   of   by  Principalia  which  was  not  properly  
the  Labor  Code,  as  amended.  In  the  case  of  Eastern  Assurance   receipted,  Principalia  failed  to  deploy  Concha  for  
and  Surety  Corp.  vs.  Secretary  of  Labor,  181  SCRA  110  (1990),   employment  abroad.  In  its  March  15,  2004  Order,  4  the  
we   held   that:   "The   penalties   .of   suspension   and   cancellation  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    4  
 
Adjudication  Office  of  the  POEA  found  Principalia  liable  for   computation,   as   alleged   by   POEA.   Moreover,   POEA   would  
violations  of  the  2002  POEA  Rules  and  Regulations   have   no   authority   to   exercise   its   regulatory   functions  
Principalia  moved   for   reconsideration   which   the   POEA   over  Principalia  because   the   matter   had   already   been  
granted   on   June   25,   2004.  7  The   latter   lifted   its   order   brought   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the   DOLE.  Principalia  has   been  
suspending   the   documentary   processing   byPrincipalia  after   granted   the   license   to   recruit   and   process   documents   for  
noting  that  it  exerted  efforts  to  obtain  overseas  employment   Filipinos   interested   to   work   abroad.   Thus,   POEA's   action   of  
for   Baldoza   within   the   period   stipulated   in   the   settlement   suspending  Principalia's   license   before   final   adjudication   by  
agreement   but   due   to   Baldoza's   lack   of   qualification,   his   the   DOLE   would   be   premature   and   would   amount   to   a  
application  was  declined  by  its  foreign  principal.   violation  of  the  latter's  right  to  recruit  and  deploy  workers.  
Meanwhile,  on  June  14,  2004,  or  before  the  promulgation  of   Finally,  the  presumption  of  regular  performance  of  duty  by  
POEA's  order  lifting  the  suspension,  Principalia  filed  a   the  POEA  under  Section  3  (m),  Rule  131  of  the  Rules  of  Court,  
Complaint  8  (Complaint)  against  Rosalinda  D.  Baldoz  in  her   finds  no  application  in  the  case  at  bar,  as  it  applies  only  
capacity  as  Administrator  of  POEA  and  Atty.  Jovencio  R.   where  a  duty  is  imposed  on  an  official  to  act  in  a  certain  way,  
Abara  in  his  capacity  as  POEA  Conciliator,  before  the   and  assumes  that  the  law  tells  him  what  his  duties  are.  
Regional  Trial  Court  (RTC)  of  Mandaluyong  City  for   The  issue  threshed  out  before  the  trial  court  was  whether  the  
"Annulment  of  Order  for  Suspension  of  Documentation   order  of  suspension  should  be  implemented  pending  appeal.  
Processing  with  Damages  and  Application  for  Issuance  of  a   It  did  not  correct  a  ministerial  duty  of  the  POEA.  As  such,  the  
Temporary  Restraining  Order  and/or  Writ  of  Preliminary   presumption   on   the   regularity   of   performance   of   duty   does  
Injunction,  and  a  Writ  of  Preliminary  Mandatory   not  apply.  
Injunction."  Principalia  claimed  that  the  suspension  of  its      
documentary  processing  would  ruin  its  reputation  and   WHEREFORE,  in  light  of  the  foregoing,  the  petition  is  DENIED  
goodwill  and  would  cause  the  loss  of  its  applicants,   for  lack  of  merit.  
employers  and  principals.  Judge  Paulita  B.  Acosta-­‐Villarante    
of  the  RTC  of  Mandaluyong  City,  Branch  211,  granted  a  72-­‐ [G.R.  No.  156029.  November  14,  2008.]  
hour  restraining  order  enjoining  Administrator  Baldoz  and   SANTOSA  
Atty.  Abara  to  refrain  from  imposing  the  suspension  orders   B.  DATUMAN,  petitioner,  vs.  FIRST  COSMOPOLITAN  MANPO
before  the  matter  can  be  heard  in  full   WER  AND  PROMOTION  SERVICES,  INC.,  
Petitioner   assails   the   September   20,   2004   Resolution  1  of   the    
Court  of  Appeals  in  CA-­‐G.R.  SP  No.  86170,  dismissing  outright   LEONARDO-­‐DE  CASTRO,  J  p:  
the   petition   for  certiorari  for   failure   to   attach   copies   of   all    
relevant  pleadings  and  transcripts  of  the  hearings,  as  well  as   FACTS:  
the   March   29,   2005   Resolution  2  denying   the   motion   for   Sometime  in  1989,  
reconsideration.   respondent  First  Cosmopolitan  Manpower  &  Promotion  
  Services,  Inc.  recruited  petitioner  Santosa  B.  Datuman  to  
ISSUES   work  abroad  as  a  Saleslady  in  Bahrain  with  a  salary  of  
core  issues  for  resolution  are  as  follows:  (1)  whether  the   $370.00  for  a  period  of  1  year  as  stipulated  in  the  contract.  
Court  of  Appeals  erred  in  dismissing  the  Petition   However,  her  employer  Mohammed  Hussain  took  her  
for  Certiorari  based  on  purely  technical  grounds;  and  (2)   passport  when  she  arrived  there;  and  instead  of  working  as  a  
whether  the  trial  court  erred  in  issuing  the  writ  of   saleslady,  she  was  forced  to  work  as  a  domestic  helper  with  a  
preliminary  injunction   salary  of  Forty  Bahrain  Dinar  (BD40.00),  equivalent  only  to  
  One  Hundred  US  Dollars  (US$100.00).  This  was  contrary  to  
HELD:   the  agreed  salary  of  US$370.00  indicated  in  her  Contract  of  
In  the  case  at  bar,  the  Court  of  Appeals  dismissed  the  petition   Employment  signed  in  the  Philippines  and  approved  by  the  
for  certiorari  due   to   POEA's   failure   to   attach   the   following   Philippine  Overseas  Employment  Administration  (POEA).  
relevant   documents.   The   trial   court   did   not   decree   that   the   On   September   1,   1989,   her   employer   compelled   her   to   sign  
POEA,   as   the   granting   authority   of  Principalia's   license   to   another   contract,   transferring   her   to   another   employer   as  
recruit,   is   not   allowed   to   determine  Principalia's   compliance   housemaid   with   a   salary   of   BD40.00   for   the   duration   of   two  
with   the   conditions   for   the   grant,   as   POEA   would   have   us   (2)  years.  4  She  pleaded  with  him  to  give  her  a  release  paper  
believe.   For   all   intents   and   purposes,   POEA   can   determine   and  to   return   her   passport   but   her   pleas   were   unheeded.   Left  
whether  the  licensee  has  complied  with  the  requirements.  In   with   no   choice,   she   continued   working   against   her   will.  
this   instance,   the   trial   court   observed   that   the   Order   of   Worse,   she   even   worked   without   compensation   from  
Suspension   dated   March   15,   2004   was   pending   appeal   with   September   1991   to   April   1993   because   of   her   employer's  
the   Secretary   of   the   Department   of   Labor   and   Employment   continued   failure   and   refusal   to   pay   her   salary   despite  
(DOLE).  Thus,  until  such  time  that  the  appeal  is  resolved  with   demand.   In   May   1993,   she   was   able   to   finally   return   to   the  
finality   by   the   DOLE,  Principalia  has   a   clear   and   convincing   Philippines   through   the   help   of   the   Bahrain   Passport   and  
right  to  operate  as  a  recruitment  agency.   Immigration  Department.  5  
Furthermore,   irreparable   damage   was   duly   proven    
by  Principalia.   Suspension   of   its   license   is   not   easily   In   May   1995,   petitioner   filed   a   complaint   before   the   POEA  
quantifiable   nor   is   it   susceptible   to   simple   mathematical   Adjudication   Office   against   respondent   for   underpayment  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    5  
 
and   nonpayment   of   salary,   vacation   leave   pay   and   refund   of   of  until  April  1990).  The  signing  of  the  "substitute"  contracts  
her   plane   fare.   While   the   case   was   pending,   she   filed   the   with  the  foreign  employer/principal  before  the  expiration  of  
instant  case  before  the  NLRC  for  underpayment  of  salary  for   the   POEA-­‐approved   contract   and   any   continuation   of  
a   period   of   one   year   and   six   months,   nonpayment   of   vacation   petitioner's   employment   beyond   the   original   one-­‐year   term,  
pay  and  reimbursement  of  return  airfare.  EHSITc   against   the   will   of   petitioner,   are   continuing   breaches   of   the  
respondent  countered  that  petitioner  actually  agreed  to  work   original   POEA-­‐approved   contract.   To   accept   the   CA's  
in  Bahrain  as  a  housemaid  for  one  (1)  year  because  it  was  the   reasoning   will   open   the   floodgates   to   even   more   abuse   of   our  
only  position  available  then.  However,  since  such  position   overseas  workers  at  the  hands  of  their  foreign  employers  and  
was  not  yet  allowed  by  the  POEA  at  that  time,  they  mutually   local   recruiters,   since   the   recruitment   agency   could   easily  
agreed  to  submit  the  contract  to  the  POEA  indicating   escape   its   mandated   solidary   liability   for   breaches   of   the  
petitioner's  position  as  saleslady.  Respondent  added  that  it   POEA-­‐approved   contract   by   colluding   with   their   foreign  
was  actually  petitioner  herself  who  violated  the  terms  of   principals  in  substituting  the  approved  contract  with  another  
their  contract  when  she  allegedly  transferred  to  another   upon  the  worker's  arrival  in  the  country  of  employment.  Such  
employer  without  respondent's  knowledge  and  approval.   outcome   is   certainly   contrary   to   the   State's   policy   of  
Lastly,  respondent  raised  the  defense  of  prescription  of  cause   extending   protection   and   support   to   our   overseas   workers.  
of  action  since  the  claim  was  filed  beyond  the  three  (3)-­‐year   To   be   sure,  Republic   Act   No.   8042  explicitly   prohibits   the  
period  from  the  time  the  right  accrued,  reckoned  from  either   substitution   or   alteration   to   the   prejudice   of   the   worker   of  
1990  or  1991.   employment   contracts   already   approved   and   verified   by   the  
  Department  of  Labor  and  Employment  (DOLE)  from  the  time  
On  April  29,  1998,  Labor  Arbiter  Jovencio  Mayor,  Jr.  rendered   of   actual   signing   thereof   by   the   parties   up   to   and   including  
a  Decision  finding  respondent  liable  for  violating  the  terms  of   the  period  of  the  expiration  of  the   same  without  the  approval  
the   Employment   Contract   and   ordering   it   to   pay   petitioner.   of  the  DOLE.    
On   appeal,   the   NLRC,   Second   Division,   issued   a   Hence,   in   the   present   case,   the   diminution   in   the   salary   of  
Decision  10  affirming   with   modification   the   Decision   of   petitioner   from   US$370.00   to   US$100   (BD40.00)   per   month  
Labor   Arbiter   Mayor,   Jr.,   by   reducing   the   award   of   salary   is   void   for   violating   the   POEA-­‐approved   contract   which   set  
differentials   from   US$4,050.00   to   US$2,970.00.   On   August   7,   the   minimum   standards,   terms,   and   conditions   of   her  
2002,   the   CA   issued   the   assailed   Decision  15  granting   the   employment.   Consequently,   the   solidary   liability   of  
petition  and  reversing  the  NLRC  and  the  Labor  Arbiter.   respondent   with   petitioner's   foreign   employer   for  
  petitioner's  money  claims  continues  although  she  was  forced  
ISSUE:   to   whether   the   CA   erred   in   not   holding   respondent   to   sign   another   contract   in   Bahrain.   It   is   the   terms   of   the  
liable   for   petitioner's   money   claims   pursuant   to   their   original   POEA-­‐approved   employment   contract   that   shall  
Contract  of  Employment.   govern   the   relationship   of   petitioner   with   the   respondent  
  recruitment  agency  and  the  foreign  employer.  We  agree  with  
HELD:     the   Labor   Arbiter   and   the   NLRC   that   the   precepts   of   justice  
 
and   fairness   dictate   that   petitioner   must   be   compensated  
Section  1  of  Rule  II  of  the  POEA  Rules  and  Regulations  is  clear  
for  allmonths  worked  regardless  of  the  supposed  termination  
that   the   private   employment   agency   shall   assume   joint   and  
of   the   original   contract   in   April   1990.   It   is   undisputed   that  
solidary   liability   with   the   employer.  19  This   Court   has,   time  
petitioner   was   compelled   to   render   service   until   April   1993  
and   again,   ruled   that   private   employment   agencies   are   held  
and   for   the   entire   period   that   she   worked   for   the   foreign  
jointly   and   severally   liable   with   the   foreign-­‐based  
employer  or  his  unilaterally  appointed  successor,  she  should  
employer  for   any   violation   of   the   recruitment   agreement   or  
have   been   paid   US$370/month   for   every   month   worked   in  
contract   of   employment.  20  This   joint   and   solidary   liability  
accordance  with  her  original  contract.  HTSIEa  
imposed   by   law   against   recruitment   agencies   and   foreign  
This  Court  reminds  local  recruitment  agencies  that  it  is  their  
employers   is   meant   to   assure   the   aggrieved   worker  
bounden   duty   to   guarantee   our   overseas   workers   that   they  
of  immediate   and   sufficient   payment  of   what   is   due  
are   being   recruited   for  bona   fidejobs   with  bona  
him.  21  This   is   in   line   with   the   policy   of   the   state   to   protect  
fide  employers.  Local  agencies  should  never  allow  themselves  
and  alleviate  the  plight  of  the  working  class.  
to   be   instruments   of   exploitation   or   oppression   of   their  
In   the   assailed   Decision,   the   CA   disregarded   the   aforecited  
compatriots  at  the  hands  of  foreign  employers.  Indeed,  being  
provision   of   the   law   and   the   policy   of   the   state   when   it  
the  ones  who  profit  most  from  the  exodus  of  Filipino  workers  
reversed   the   findings   of   the   NLRC   and   the   Labor   Arbiter.   As  
to  find  greener  pastures  abroad,  recruiters  should  be  first  to  
the   agency   which   recruited   petitioner,   respondent   is   jointly  
ensure  the  welfare  of  the  very  people  that  keep  their  industry  
and   solidarily   liable   with   the   latter's   principal   employer  
alive.  CAaSHI  
abroad   for   her   (petitioner's)   money   claims.   Respondent  
WHEREFORE,  the  petition  is  GRANTED.  The  assailed  Decision  
cannot,   therefore,   exempt   itself   from   all   the   claims   and  
of  the  Court  of  Appeals  dated  August  7,  2002  and  Resolution  
liabilities   arising   from   the   implementation   of   their   POEA-­‐
dated   November   14,   2002   in   CA-­‐G.R.   SP   No.   59825   are  
approved  Contract  of  Employment.  
REVERSED   AND   SET   ASIDE.   The   Decision   of   the   National  
We   cannot   agree   with   the   view   of   the   CA   that   the   solidary  
Labor   Relations   Commission   dated   February   24,   2000   is  
liability   of   respondent   extends   only   to   the  first  contract  
REINSTATED   with   a   qualification   with   respect   to   the   award  
(i.e.  the   original,   POEA-­‐approved   contract   which   had   a   term  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    6  
 
of  salary  differentials,  which  should  be  granted  for  the  period   [G.R.  No.  121777.  January  24,  2001.]  
May  31,  1992  to  April  1993  and  not  May  1993  to  April  1994.   THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  plaintiff-­‐appellee,  vs.  
  CAROL  M.  DELA  PIEDRA  
[G.R.  No.  177498.  January  18,  2012.]    
  FACTS:    
STOLT-­‐NIELSEN  TRANSPORTATION   Erlie   Ramos,   an   attorney   of   the   POEA,   received   a   call   from   an  
GROUP,  INC.  AND  CHUNG  GAI  SHIP   unidentified   woman   inquiring   about   the   legitimacy   of   the  
MANAGEMENT,  petitioners,vs.  SULPECIO   recruitment   conducted   by   Mrs.   Carol   Figueroa.   Ramos  
MEDEQUILLO,  JR.,  respondent.   conferred   with   the   CIS   to   organize   the   arrest   of   the   alleged  
  illegal  recruiter.  The  group  planned  the  entrapment  the  next  
The  most  recent  case  of  Stolt-­‐Nielsen  Transportation  Group,   day   with   Eileen   Fermindoza   to   pose   as   an   applicant.   The   plan  
Inc.  and  Chung  Gai  Ship  Management  vs.  Sulpecio  Medequillo,   materialized  the  next  day,  which  caused  the  CIS  team  to  bring  
Jr.  (G.R.  No.  177498,  January  18,  2012)  confirms  the  standing   Figueroa,   a   certain   Jasmine   Alejandro,   and   three   women  
rule  that  a  seafarer  must  indeed  be  compensated  as  a  result   applicants  to  the  office  for  investigation.  In  the  course  of  the  
of  the  unreasonable  failure  of  his  employer  to  deploy  him   investigation,   it   turned   out   that   Figueroa   had   many   aliases,  
notwithstanding  his  execution  of  an  employment  contract   among   them   Carol   Llena   and   Carol   de   la  Piedra.   A   check   by  
duly  approved  by  the  POEA.   Ramos  with  the  POEA  revealed  that  she  was  not  licensed  nor  
  authorized   to   conduct   recruitment.   Figueroa   was   charged  
In  the  above-­‐cited  case,  the  seafarer  was  initially  hired  by  his   before  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of  illegal  recruitment  in  Large  
employers  as  Third  Assistant  Engineer  on  board  an  ocean-­‐ Scale.   Denial   comprised   the   accuseds'   defense.   The   trial   court  
going  vessel  for  nine  (9)  months.  After  barely  three  (3)   convicted   the   accused   and   sentenced   her   to   life  
months  of  service,  he  was  ordered  to  be  repatriated  by  the   imprisonment.   Accused-­‐appellant   questioned   her   conviction  
ship  master.  Upon  his  return  to  Manila,  he  was  transferred   for   illegal   recruitment   in   large   scale   and   assailed   the  
employment  by  his  employers  with  another  vessel  for  the   constitutionality  of  the  law.  
same  period  of  nine  (9)  months  under  the  first  contract.  His   The   Supreme   Court   affirmed   the   constitutionality   of   the   law  
second  contract  was  approved  by  the  POEA.  Despite  the   and   the   conviction   of   the   accused,   but   reduced   the   penalty  
commencement  of  his  second  contract  however,  his   imposed   upon   her.   According   to   the   Court,   considering   that  
employers  refused  to  deploy  him  for  no  apparent  reason.  Left   the   two   elements   of   lack   of   license   or   authority   and   the  
with  no  other  choice,  the  seafarer  filed  a  case  for  illegal  
undertaking   of   the   activity   constituting   recruitment   and  
dismissal  for  the  first  contract  and  for  failure  to  deploy  under  
placement  are  present,  appellant,  at  the  very  least,  was  liable  
the  second  contract.  The  arbiter,  the  NLRC,  and  the  Court  of  
for   simple   illegal   recruitment.   A   conviction   for   large-­‐scale  
Appeals  all  ruled  for  the  seafarer,  agreeing  that  while  the  
illegal   recruitment   must   be   based   on   a   finding   in   each   case   of  
employers  cannot  be  held  liable  under  the  first  contract  since  
illegal   recruitment   of   three   or   more   persons   whether  
the  second  contract  novated  it,  the  employers  are  liable  for  
individually  or  as  a  group.  In  this  case,  only  two  persons  were  
breach  of  the  second  contract.  
proven   to   have   been   recruited   by   the   appellant.   Hence,   the  
 
The  Supreme  Court  likewise  sided  with  the  seafarer,  finding   decision  of  the  Regional  Trial  Court  was  modified.  Appellant  
that  there  was  a  novation  of  the  first  contract.  On  the  matter   was  found  guilty  of  illegal  recruitment  on  two  counts  and  was  
of  the  non-­‐deployment  of  the  seafarer  without  any  valid   sentenced  to  4  years  to  6  years  imprisonment  on  each  count.  
reason,  the  High  Court  explained  that  the  seafarer  has  a    
remedy  in  such  a  case  even  if  the  employment  contract  has   w/n  there  was  illegal  recruitment  
not  yet  commenced  and  he  has  yet  to  actually  depart  from    
the  airport  or  seaport  in  the  port  of  hire.  For  clarity,  the  Court   HELD:    
distinguished  between  the  ‘perfection  of  contract’  on  the  one   In   this   case,   the   first   element   is   present.   The   certification   of  
hand,  which  took  place  when  the  parties  agreed  on  the  object   POEA  Officer-­‐in-­‐Charge  Macarulay  states  that  appellant  is  not  
and  the  cause  as  well  as  the  terms  of  the  contract,  and   licensed   or   authorized   to   engage   in   recruitment   and  
‘commencement  of  the  employer-­‐employee  relationship’  on   placement.   The   second   element   is   also   present.   Appellant   is  
the  other  hand,  when  the  seafarer  would  have  been  actually   presumed   engaged   in   recruitment   and   placement   under  
deployed.  The  ‘perfection  of  contract’  brings  about  certain   Article   13   (b)   of   the  Labor   Code.   Both   Nancy   Araneta   and  
rights,  the  breach  of  which  may  give  rise  to  a  cause  of  action.   Lourdes   Modesto   testified   that   appellant   promised   them  
Ta-­‐king  note  of  the  case  of  Santiago  v.  CF  Sharp  Crew   employment   for   a   fee.   Their   testimonies   corroborate   each  
Management,  Inc.  (G.R.  No.  162419,  July  10,  2007),  the  Court   other  on  material  points:  the  briefing  conducted  by  appellant,  
observed  that  since  there  was  non-­‐deployment  of  the   the   time   and   place   thereof,   the   fees   involved.   Appellant   has  
seafarer  herein  which  constituted  as  a  breach  by  the   not  shown  that  these  witnesses  were  incited  by  any  motive  to  
employers  of  the  parties’  agreement,  the  employers  are  liable   testify   falsely   against   her.   The   absence   of   evidence   as   to   an  
to  pay  the  seafarer  actual  damages  in  the  form  of  the  loss  of   improper   motive   actuating   the   principal   witnesses   of   the  
nine  (9)  months’  worth  of  salary  as  stated  in  the  employment   prosecution   strongly   tends   to   sustain   that   no   improper  
contract.   motive   existed   and   that   their   testimony   is   worthy   of   full   faith  
  and  credence.  

 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    7  
 
    
Appellant's   denials   cannot   prevail   over   the   positive   On  appeal,  the  Court  of  Appeals  (CA)  reversed  the  decision  of  
declaration   of   the   prosecution   witnesses.   Affirmative   the  NLRC  and  referred  the  claim  to  the  National  Conciliation  
testimony   of   persons   who   are   eyewitnesses   of   the   fact   and  Mediation  Board  (NCMB)  for  the  designation  of  the  
asserted   easily   overrides   negative   testimony.   That   appellant   voluntary  arbitrator  or  constitution  of  a  panel  of  voluntary  
did   not   receive   any   payment   for   the   promised   or   offered   arbitrators  for  appropriate  resolution  on  the  applicable  CBA  
employment   is   of   no   moment.   From   the   language   of   the   provision  to  be  applied  insofar  as  death  benefits  due  to  the  
statute,   the   act   of   recruitment   may   be   "for   profit   or   not";   it   heirs  of  the  seafarer  are  concerned.  
suffices   that   the   accused   "promises   or   offers   for   a   fee    
employment"  to  warrant  conviction  for  illegal  recruitment.  .  .   The  Supreme  Court  affirmed  the  CA  ruling,  finding  that  
The   claim   of   "frameup,"   like   alibi,   is   a   defense   that   has   been   Republic  Act  (RA)  No.  8042,  the  special  law  governing  
invariably  viewed  by  the  Court  with  disfavor  for  it  can  easily   overseas  Filipino  workers,  does  not  provide  for  any  provision  
be   concocted   but   difficult   to   prove.   Apart   from   her   self-­‐ regarding  jurisdiction  over  disputes  or  unresolved  
serving   testimony,   appellant   has   not   offered   any   evidence   grievances  on  the  interpretation  or  implementation  of  a  CBA.  
that   she   was   indeed   framed   by   Ramos.   She   has   not   even   Section  10  of  R.A.  8042  simply  speaks  in  general  of  law  or  
hinted  at  any  motive  for  Ramos  to  frame  her.  Law  enforcers   contract  involving  Filipino  workers  for  overseas  deployment  
are   presumed   to   have   performed   their   duties   regularly   in   the   including  claims  for  actual,  moral,  exemplary  and  other  forms  
of  damages.  On  the  other  hand,  Articles  217  (c)  and  261  of  
absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary.  
the  Labor  Code,  a  general  statute,  are  clear  and  particular  in  
 
expressing  that  voluntary  arbitrators  have  jurisdiction  over  
[G.R.  No.  172642.  June  13,  2012.]  
case  arising  from  the  interpretation  or  implementation  of  
ESTATE  OF  NELSON  R.  DULAY,  represented  by  his  wife  
CBA’s..  As  such,  the  specific  or  special  provisions  of  the  Labor  
MERRIDY  JANE  P.  DULAY,  petitioner,  vs.  ABOITIZ  JEBSEN  
Code  govern  and  not  those  of  R.A.  8042.  
MARITIME,  INC.  and  GENERAL  CHARTERERS,  INC  
 
 
The  High  Court,  upon  review  of  the  CBA  which  the  seafarer’s  
Who  has  jurisdiction  over  a  case  involving  the  interpretation  
widow  considers  to  be  the  law  between  the  parties,  likewise  
or  implementation  of  the  collective  bargaining  agreement:  
concluded  that  the  parties  really  intended  to  bring  to  
the  labor  arbiter  or  the  voluntary  arbitrator?  
conciliation  or  voluntary  arbitration  any  dispute  or  conflict  in  
 
the  interpretation  or  application  of  the  provisions  of  their  
The  recent  case  of  “Estate  of  Nelson  R.  Dulay  represented  by  
CBA.  
his  wife  Merridy  Jane  P.  Dulay  vs.  Aboitiz  Jebsen  Maritime,  
 
Inc.  &  General  Charterers,  Inc.”  (G.R.  No.  172642)  decided  by  
It  noted  that  Section  7  of  the  Omnibus  Rules  and  Regulations,  
the  Supreme  Court  on  June  13,  2012  answered  the  above  
as  amended  by  R.S.  10022,  promulgated  by  the  Department  
question  by  holding  that  the  voluntary  arbitrator  should  take  
of  Labor  and  Employment  and  the  Department  of  Foreign  
cognizance  of  such  an  issue.  
Affairs,  which  implement  R.A.  8042,  so  provides  that  for  
 
Overseas  Filipino  Workers  with  CBA’s  the  case  shall  be  
In  the  said  Dulay  case,  a  veteran  seafarer,  after  completion  of  
submitted  for  voluntary  arbitration  following  Articles  261  
his  employment  contract,  and  while  still  a  bona  fide  member  
and  262  of  the  Labor  Code.  Such  is  the  same  idea  invoked  in  
of  a  union  which  was  the  collective  bargaining  agent  of  his  
Section  29  of  the  POEA  Standard  Employment  contract.  
employer,  died  of  acute  renal  failure  secondary  to  septicemia.  
 
The  widow  claimed  for  death  benefits  through  the  grievance  
The  Court  made  it  clear  that  with  respect  to  disputes  
procedure  of  the  Collective  Bargaining  Agreement  (CBA)  
involving  claims  of  Filipino  seafarers  where  the  parties  are  
between  the  seafarer’s  union  and  his  employer  but  the  
covered  by  a  CBA,  the  dispute  or  claim  should  be  submitted  
procedure  was  declared  deadlocked.  Pursuant  to  a  provision  
to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  voluntary  arbitrator  or  panel  of  
in  the  CBA,  the  widow  then  filed  a  claim  against  the  employer  
arbitrators.  In  the  absence  of  a  CBA,  the  parties  may  opt  to  
for  death  and  medical  benefits  and  damages  amounting  to  US  
submit  the  dispute  to  either  to  the  NLRC  or  to  voluntary  
90,000  dollars  before  the  National  Labor  Relations  
arbitration.  
Commission  (NLRC)  –  Arbitration  Board.  
 
 
This  position  is  consistent  with  the  policy  of  the  state  and  
A  few  days  later,  the  deceased  seafarer’s  brother  received  
Section  3,  Article  13  of  the  Constitution  to  promote  voluntary  
20,000  Pesos  from  the  employer  pursuant  to  a  different  and  
arbitration  as  a  mode  of  settling  labor  disputes.  
separate  provision  of  the  same  CBA  and  released  the  union  
 
from  further  liability.  The  employer  insisted  that  the  NLRC  
PAUL  V.  SANTIAGO,  petitioner,  vs.  CF  SHARP  CREW  
has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  wido’s  claim  due  to  the  absence  
MANAGEMENT,  INC.,  respondent.  
of  an  employer-­‐employee  relationship  at  the  time  of  the  
G.R.  No.  162419  
seafarer’s  death  and  the  fact  that  the  seafarer’s  contract  was  
July  10,  2007  
already  completed  prior  to  his  demise.  The  labor  arbiter  and  
 
the  NLRC  both  recognized  the  claim  and  ruled  in  favor  of  the  
TINGA,  J.:  
widow,  ordering  the  claims  arising  out  of  an  employer-­‐
 
employee  relationship  or  by  virtue  of  any  employer  to  pay.  
FACTS:  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    8  
 
Petitioner  had  been  working  as  a  seafarer  for  Smith  Bell    
Management,  Inc.  (respondent)  for  about  five  (5)  years.  He   In  G.R.  No.  152642,  in  2002,  Rey  Salac  et  al,  who  are  
signed  a  new  contract  of  employment  with  the  duration  of  9   recruiters  deploying  workers  abroad,  sought  to  enjoin  the  
months  on  Feb  3  1998  and  he  was  to  be  deployed  10  days   Secretary  of  Labor,  Patricia  Sto.  Tomas,  the  POEA,  and  
after.  This  contract  was  approved  by  POEA.  A  week  before   TESDA,  from  regulating  the  activities  of  private  recruiters.  
the  date  of  departure,  the  respondent  received  a  phone  call   Salac  et  al  invoked  Sections  29  and  30  of  the  Republic  Act  
from  petitioner’s  wife  and  some  unknown  callers  asking  not   8042  or  the  Migrant  Workers  Act  which  provides  that  
to  send  the  latter  off  because  if  allowed,  he  will  jump  ship  in   recruitment  agency  in  the  Philippines  shall  be  deregulated  
Canada.   one  year  from  the  passage  of  the  said  law;  that  5  years  
  thereafter,  recruitment  should  be  fully  deregulated.  RA  8042  
Because  of  the  said  information,  petitioner  was  told  that  he   was  passed  in  1995,  hence,  Salac  et  al  insisted  that  as  early  as  
would  not  be  leaving  for  Canada  anymore.  This  prompted   2000,  the  aforementioned  government  agencies  should  have  
him  to  file  a  complaint  for  illegal  dismissal  against  the   stopped  issuing  memorandums  and  circulars  regulating  the  
respondent.  The  LA  held  the  latter  responsible.  On  appeal,   recruitment  of  workers  abroad.  
the  NLRC  ruled  that  there  is  no  employer-­‐employee    
relationship  between  petitioner  and  respondent,  hence,  the   Sto.  Tomas  then  questioned  the  validity  of  Sections  29  and  
claims  should  be  dismissed.  The  CA  agreed  with  the  NLRC’s   30.  
finding  that  since  petitioner  had  not  departed  from  the  Port    
of  Manila,  no  employer-­‐employee  relationship  between  the   ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  Sections  29  and  30  are  valid.  
parties  arose  and  any  claim  for  damages  against  the  so-­‐called    
employer  could  have  no  leg  to  stand  on.   HELD:  The  issue  became  moot  and  academic.  It  appears  that  
  during  the  pendency  of  this  case  in  2007,  RA  9422  (An  Act  to  
ISSUE:  When  does  the  employer-­‐employee  relationship   Strengthen  the  Regulatory  Functions  of  the  POEA)  was  
involving  seafarers  commence?   passed  which  repealed  Sections  29  and  30  of  RA  8042.  
   
RULING:   G.R.  167590  
   
A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  perfection  of  the   In  this  case,  the  Philippine  Association  of  Service  Exporters,  
employment  contract  and  the  commencement  of  the   Inc.  (PASEI)  questioned  the  validity  of  the  following  
employer-­‐employee  relationship.  The  perfection  of  the   provisions  of  RA  8042:  
contract,  which  in  this  case  coincided  with  the  date  of    
execution  thereof,  occurred  when  petitioner  and  respondent   a.  Section  6,  which  defines  the  term  “illegal  recruitment”.  
agreed  on  the  object  and  the  cause,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the   PASEI  claims  that  the  definition  by  the  law  is  vague  as  it  fails  
terms  and  conditions  therein.  The  commencement  of  the   to  distinguish  between  licensed  and  non-­‐licensed  recruiters;  
employer-­‐employee  relationship,  as  earlier  discussed,  would    
have  taken  place  had  petitioner  been  actually  deployed  from   b.  Section  7,  which  penalizes  violations  against  RA  8042.  
the  point  of  hire.  Thus,  even  before  the  start  of  any  employer-­‐ PASEI  argues  that  the  penalties  for  simple  violations  against  
employee  relationship,  contemporaneous  with  the  perfection   RA  8042,  i.e.,  mere  failure  to  render  report  or  obstructing  
of  the  employment  contract  was  the  birth  of  certain  rights   inspection  are  already  punishable  for  at  least  6  years  and  1  
and  obligations,  the  breach  of  which  may  give  rise  to  a  cause   day  imprisonment  an  a  fine  of  at  least  P200k.  PASEI  argues  
of  action  against  the  erring  party.  Thus,  if  the  reverse  had   that  such  is  unreasonable;  
happened,  that  is  the  seafarer  failed  or  refused  to  be    
deployed  as  agreed  upon,  he  would  be  liable  for  damages.   c.  Section  9,  which  allows  the  victims  of  illegal  recruitment  to  
  have  the  option  to  either  file  the  criminal  case  where  he  or  
Respondent’s  act  of  preventing  petitioner  from  departing  the   she  resides  or  at  the  place  where  the  crime  was  committed.  
port  of  Manila  and  boarding  "MSV  Seaspread"  constitutes  a   PASEI  argues  that  this  provision  is  void  for  being  contrary  to  
breach  of  contract,  giving  rise  to  petitioner’s  cause  of  action.   the  Rules  of  Court  which  provides  that  criminal  cases  must  be  
Respondent  unilaterally  and  unreasonably  reneged  on  its   prosecuted  in  the  place  where  the  crime  or  any  of  its  
obligation  to  deploy  petitioner  and  must  therefore  answer   essential  elements  were  committed;  
for  the  actual  damages  he  suffered.    
  d.  Section  10,  which  provides  that  corporate  officers  and  
685  SCRA  245  –  Labor  Law  –  Labor  Standards  –   directors  of  a  company  found  to  be  in  violation  of  RA  8042  
Constitutionality  of  Sections  6,  7,  9,  10,  29,  and  30  of  the   shall  be  themselves  be  jointly  and  solidarily  liable  with  the  
Migrant  Workers  Act  or  R.A.  No.  8042   corporation  or  partnership  for  the  aforesaid  claims  and  
  damages.  PASEI  claims  that  this  automatic  liability  imposed  
This  case  is  a  consolidation  of  the  following  cases:  G.R.  No.   upon  corporate  officers  and  directors  is  void  for  being  
152642,  G.R.  No.  152710,  G.R.  No.  167590,  G.R.  Nos.  182978-­‐ violative  of  due  process.  
79,  and  G.R.  Nos.  184298-­‐99.    
  RTC  Judge  Jose  Paneda  of  Quezon  City  agreed  with  PASEI  and  
G.R.  No.  152642  and  G.R.  No.  152710   he  declared  the  said  provisions  of  RA  8042  as  void.  Secretary  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    9  
 
Sto.  Tomas  petitioned  for  the  annulment  of  the  RTC   Eufrocina  Gumabay  and  the  other  officers  of  Becmen  filed  a  
judgment.   motion  for  leave  to  intervene.  They  aver  that  Section  10  is  
  invalid.  
ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  Sections  6,  7,  9,  and  10  of  RA  8042  are    
void.   ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  Section  is  invalid.  
   
HELD:  No,  they  are  valid  provisions.   HELD:  No.  As  earlier  discussed,  Section  10  is  valid.  The  
  liability  of  Gumabay  et  al  is  not  automatic.  However,  the  SC  
a.  Section  6:  The  law  clearly  and  unambiguously   reconsidered  its  earlier  ruling  that  Gumabay  et  al  are  
distinguished  between  licensed  and  non-­‐licensed  recruiters.   solidarily  and  jointly  liable  with  Becmen  there  being  no  
By  its  terms,  persons  who  engage  in  “canvassing,  enlisting,   evidence  on  record  which  shows  that  they  were  personally  
contracting,  transporting,  utilizing,  hiring,  or  procuring   involved  in  their  company’s  particular  actions  or  omissions  
workers”  without  the  appropriate  government  license  or   in  Jasmin’s  case.  
authority  are  guilty  of  illegal  recruitment  whether  or  not  they    
commit  the  wrongful  acts  enumerated  in  that  section.  On  the    
other  hand,  recruiters  who  engage  in  the  canvassing,   [G.R.  No.  170139.  August  5,  2014.]  
enlisting,  etc.  of  OFWs,  although  with  the  appropriate   SAMEER  OVERSEAS  PLACEMENT  AGENCY,  
government  license  or  authority,  are  guilty  of  illegal   INC.,  petitioner,  vs.  JOY  C.  CABILES,  respondent.  
recruitment  only  if  they  commit  any  of  the  wrongful  acts   J.  LEONEN  
enumerated  in  Section  6.    
  Petitioner,  Sameer  Overseas  Placement  Agency,  Inc.,  is  a  
b.  Section  7:  The  penalties  are  valid.  Congress  is  well  within   recruitment  and  placement  agency.  
its  right  to  prescribed  the  said  penalties.  Besides,  it  is  not  the    
duty  of  the  courts  to  inquire  into  the  wisdom  behind  the  law.                                  Respondent  Joy  Cabiles  was  hired  thus  signed  a  one-­‐
  year  employment  contract  for  a  monthly  salary  of  
c.  Section  9:  The  Rules  on  Criminal  Procedure,  particularly   NT$15,360.00.  Joy  was  deployed  to  work  for  Taiwan  Wacoal,  
Section  15(a)  of  Rule  110,  itself,  provides  that  the  rule  on   Co.  Ltd.  (Wacoal)  on  June  26,  1997.  She  alleged  that  in  her  
venue  when  it  comes  to  criminal  cases  is  subject  to  existing   employment  contract,  she  agreed  to  work  as  quality  control  
laws.  Therefore,  there  is  nothing  arbitrary  when  Congress   for  one  year.  In  Taiwan,  she  was  asked  to  work  as  a  cutter.  
provided  an  alternative  venue  for  violations  of  a  special  penal    
law  like  RA  8042.                                  Sameer  claims  that  on  July  14,  1997,  a  certain  Mr.  
  Huwang  from  Wacoal  informed  Joy,  without  prior  notice,  that  
d.  Section  10:  The  liability  of  corporate  officers  and  directors   she  was  terminated  and  that  “she  should  immediately  report  
is  not  automatic.  To  make  them  jointly  and  solidarily  liable   to  their  office  to  get  her  salary  and  passport.”  She  was  asked  
with  their  company,  there  must  be  a  finding  that  they  were   to  “prepare  for  immediate  repatriation.”  Joy  claims  that  she  
remiss  in  directing  the  affairs  of  that  company,  such  as   was  told  that  from  June  26  to  July  14,  1997,  she  only  earned  a  
sponsoring  or  tolerating  the  conduct  of  illegal  activities.   total  of  NT$9,000.15  According  to  her,  Wacoal  deducted  
  NT$3,000  to  cover  her  plane  ticket  to  Manila.  
G.R.  182978-­‐79,  and  G.R.  184298-­‐99    
                                 On  October  15,  1997,  Joy  filed  a  complaint  for  illegal  
In  this  case,  Jasmin  Cuaresma,  a  nurse  working  in  Saudi   dismissal  with  the  NLRC  against  petitioner  and  Wacoal.  LA  
Arabia  was  found  dead.  Her  parents  received  insurance   dismissed  the  complaint.  NLRC  reversed  LA’s  decision.  CA  
benefits  from  the  OWWA  (Overseas  Workers  Welfare   affirmed  the  ruling  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  
Administration).  But  when  they  found  out  based  on  an   Commission  finding  respondent  illegally  dismissed  and  
autopsy  conducted  in  the  Philippines  that  Jasmin  was  raped   awarding  her  three  months’  worth  of  salary,  the  
and  thereafter  killed,  her  parents  (Simplicio  and  Mila   reimbursement  of  the  cost  of  her  repatriation,  and  attorney’s  
Cuaresma)  filed  for  death  and  insurance  benefits  with   fees  
damages  from  the  recruitment  and  placement  agency  which    
handled  Jasmin  (Becmen  Service  Exporter  and  Promotion,   ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  Cabiles  was  entitled  to  the  unexpired  
Inc.).   portion  of  her  salary  due  to  illegal  dismissal.  
   
The  case  reached  the  Supreme  Court  where  the  Supreme   HELD:  
Court  ruled  that  since  Becmen  was  negligent  in  investigating    YES.  The  Court  held  that  the  award  of  the  three-­‐month  
the  true  cause  of  death  of  Jasmin  (  a  violation  of  RA  8042),  it   equivalent  of  respondent’s  salary  should  be  increased  to  the  
shall  be  liable  for  damages.  The  Supreme  Court  also  ruled   amount  equivalent  to  the  unexpired  term  of  the  employment  
that  pursuant  to  Section  10  of  RA  8042,  the  directors  and   contract.  
officers  of  Becmen  are  themselves  jointly  and  solidarily  liable    
with  Becmen.                                  In  Serrano  v.  Gallant  Maritime  Services,  Inc.  and  
  Marlow  Navigation  Co.,  Inc.,  this  court  ruled  that  the  clause  
“or  for  three  (3)  months  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  
 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    10  
 
whichever  is  less”  is  unconstitutional  for  violating  the  equal  
protection  clause  and  substantive  due  process.  
 
                               A  statute  or  provision  which  was  declared  
unconstitutional  is  not  a  law.  It  “confers  no  rights;  it  imposes  
no  duties;  it  affords  no  protection;  it  creates  no  office;  it  is  
inoperative  as  if  it  has  not  been  passed  at  all.”  
 
                               The  Court  said  that  they  are  aware  that  the  clause  “or  
for  three  (3)  months  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  
whichever  is  less”  was  reinstated  in  Republic  Act  No.  8042  
upon  promulgation  of  Republic  Act  No.  10022  in  2010.  
 
Ruling  on  the  constitutional  issue  
 
                               In  the  hierarchy  of  laws,  the  Constitution  is  supreme.  
No  branch  or  office  of  the  government  may  exercise  its  
powers  in  any  manner  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution,  
regardless  of  the  existence  of  any  law  that  supports  such  
exercise.  The  Constitution  cannot  be  trumped  by  any  other  
law.  All  laws  must  be  read  in  light  of  the  Constitution.  Any  
law  that  is  inconsistent  with  it  is  a  nullity.  
 
                               Thus,  when  a  law  or  a  provision  of  law  is  null  
because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution,  the  nullity  
cannot  be  cured  by  reincorporation  or  reenactment  of  the  
same  or  a  similar  law  or  provision.  A  law  or  provision  of  law  
that  was  already  declared  unconstitutional  remains  as  such  
unless  circumstances  have  so  changed  as  to  warrant  a  
reverse  conclusion.  
 
                               The  Court  observed  that  the  reinstated  clause,  this  
time  as  provided  in  Republic  Act.  No.  10022,  violates  the  
constitutional  rights  to  equal  protection  and  due  process.96  
Petitioner  as  well  as  the  Solicitor  General  have  failed  to  show  
any  compelling  change  in  the  circumstances  that  would  
warrant  us  to  revisit  the  precedent.  
 
                               The  Court  declared,  once  again,  the  clause,  “or  for  
three  (3)  months  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  
whichever  is  less”  in  Section  7  of  Republic  Act  No.  10022  
amending  Section  10  of  Republic  Act  No.  8042  is  declared  
unconstitutional  and,  therefore,  null  and  void.  
 
 

 
SBCA  2nd  Sem  SY  15-­‐16   LABSTAN  –  ATTY  RESURRECION   AKD  Digests    11