Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

1.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS MELISSSA CHUA [Golden Gate : mere cashier : illegal recruitment]
> Elements of large scale illegal recruitment (see below) : illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons whether individually or as
a group
> Person found guilty of illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa

Chua (and another: Campos, Josie) was indicted for large scale illegal recruitment and convicted thereof by RTC Manila ; also indicted for 5
counts of estafa but convicted only for three.
- Without license charged and received from:
o ERIK DE GUIA TAN - P73,000.00 ; MARILYN D. MACARANAS - 83,000.00 ; NAPOLEON H. YU, JR. - 23,000.00 ; HARRY
JAMES P. KING - 23,000.00 ; ROBERTO C. ANGELES - 23,000.00
- Charges exceeded allowable fees prescribed by the POEA and failed to actually deploy them (as factory workers in Taiwan)
- Campos remained at large ; only three testified : Marilyn, Erik and Harry.

claimed that she only worked as temporary cashier, that Golden Gate was a licensed recruitment agency(owned by a certain Marilyn
Calueng) and Campos (her godmother) was an agent. She averred that she turned over the amount to the document officer Arlene Vega who
latter turned over the sum to Marilyn Calueng

RTC Manila, convicted as per the three mentioned complainants, rest was dismissed for lack of interest.
CA: affirmed ; s defense of receiving money but turning it over ultimately to Calueng is immaterial for failure to prove employment
relationship between her and Calueng as well as the legitimacy of the operations of Golden Gate.
- People v Sagayaga : employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held as principal together with the employer if it
is shown that he (she) actively and consciously participated therein.
- CA: estafa sufficiently proven. Person convicted of illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa. Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code, to wit: (1) that appellant deceived the complainants by assuring them of employment in Taiwan provided they pay
the required placement fee; (2) that relying on such representation, the complainants paid appellant the amount demanded; (3) that her
representation turned out to be false because she failed to deploy them as promised; (4) and that the complainants suffered damages
when they failed to be reimbursed the amounts they paid.

I. WON can be held liable for large scale illegal recruitment despite her claim that she was merely a cashier? YES ; AGENCY HAD
EXPIRED LICENSE, RECRUITMENT IS ILLEGAL AND THUS PUNISHABLE UNDER LABOR CODE A38 ; IT IS LARGE SCALE SINCE
THREE OR MORE PERSONS WERE RECRUITED INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP UNDER RA8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act) MAKING IT MALUM PROHIBITUM, THUS LACK OF INTENT ON DOES NOT AFFECT HER LIABILITY

LC A13(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not. Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

LC A38(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-
licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and
Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be
penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
- Large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group
- Expired license (as in present case)= non-licensed = illegal recruitment
-
Thus, the elements of large scale illegal recruitment are:
1. Accused undertook recruitment under A13(b) or any prohibited practice under A34
2. Accused did not have the license / authority to lawfully engage in recruitment
3. Accused committed the same against three or more persons whether individually or as a group

accused recruited persons ; golden gates had an expired license = no license ; recruits were above three persons (5)
Since actively and consciously participated she is a principal together with the employer
even if she was unconscious, the prohibited act is malum prohibitum, thus intent is not necessary, mere execution of the act is punishable.
estafa however is malum in se (but no mention as to liability)
2. PEOPLE v GALLO, RODOLFO (ACCUSED-APPELANT) | PACARDO, FIDES AND MANTA, PILAR (ACCUSED) [Korean ; Factory Worker
; MPM Agency ; New Filipino ; Syndicated Illegal Recruitment ; RA8042 S6]
> Person found guilty of illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa
> Syndicated illegal recruitment : Illegal recruitment committed by 3 or more persons confederating / conspiring with one another

Gallo, Pacardo, Manta, together with Martir and 9 others were charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and 18 counts of estafa.
- Only the illegal recruitment and estafa cases against the three proceeded because the others remained at large.
- Some cases were also dismissed because complainants failure to appear and testify in trial.
- Pacardo and Manta was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
- Gallo was convicted on both counts of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa in the case filed by DelaCaza.

MPM agency in Malate, Agency, asked for placement fee of P150K with a down payment of P45K and the balance payable through a
salary deduction scheme for a job placement in Korea as a factory worker. Korean nationals were present during the transaction.
- Agency kept moving from place to place and changing names : New Filipino Manpower Development and Services
- Roa, a POEA representative certified that New Filipinos license has already expired back in 2001 ; that MPM agency was not
licensed to recruit; POEA MC no 14-1999 placement fee ceiling for landbased workers, POEA MC 09-1998 placement fee ceiling for
Taiwan and Korean Markets ; others.

: claimed that he was not an employee, but was also an applicant ; merely assisted Mardeolyn (another accused) because she was a town
mate and even his own employment did not materialize.

RTC : guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa


CA: affirmed with modification of sentence for estafa conviction
- assails conviction because the crimes were not proven beyond reasonable doubt

I. WON the evidence supports conviction for syndicated illegal recruitment? YES ; SYNDICATED ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT ELEMENTS
ARE ALL PRESENT ; RECEIVED 45K FROM COMPLAINANT FOR FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT ; PARTICIPATION IN RECRUITMENT
(EVEN IF NOT AN EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY) IS UNMISTAKABLE SINCE HE SIGNED AND ISSUED THE OFFICIAL
RECEIPTS
(1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b), or any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.[makes it
committed by a syndicate]

When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group, it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

Even if with a license, an act is still illegal recruitment when :

RA8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act) S6. Definition. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-
licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so
engaged. It shall, likewise, include the following act, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority:

(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or
advance; xxx
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
deployment and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the
workers fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

To prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there be actual proof that all conspirators took a direct part in every act, it is sufficient that they
acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.
- Other accused including Mardeolyn and the other officers and employees of MPM Agency committed deception
- Active involvement of each to divest complainants of their money reveals conspiracy

People v Gamboa : Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest.
- Actual proof for conspiracy is not necessary ; sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective
II. WON estafa (RPC A315 P2(a) was proven by evidence? YES ALL THE ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA EXIST
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned hereinbelow x xxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.

ELEMENTS:
(1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and
(2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person

Deceit = false representation of a matter of fact, by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should
have been disclosed and which deceives or intends to deceive another

III. WON s defenses (of denial) can prevail (over positive identification)? NO ; POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION PREVAILS OVER ALIBI
AND DENIAL

People v Abolidor : positive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the
eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial

Defense miserably failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of prosecution witness to falsely testify against him

CONCLUSION : DENY s APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO SHOW REVERSIBLE ERROR ; AFFIRM CA DECISION
3. YAP, CLAUDIO v THENAMARIS SHIPS MANAGEMENT ; INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES, INC [Electrician ; M/T SEASCOUT sold
during duration of employment ; illegal dismissal ; computation of salaries ; illegal dismissal ; RA8042 S10]
> Serrano vs Gallant Maritime Services RA8042 S10 P5 delimiting the claim to 3 months salary per year of the unexpired portion of the
contract is unconstitutional for violating the EPC
> Overseas workers are thus entitled to the full claim for the unexpired portion of the contract

was employed as an electrician of the vessel M/T SEASCOUT (2001/08/14) by P IMA Inc in behalf of its principal Vulture Shipping Limited
- Contract of employment was between and Capt. Adviento, Francisco (IMA Inc General Manager) and was for 12 months
- 2001/08/23 : boarded M/T SEASCOUT and commenced his job as an electrician
- 2001/11/08 : vessel was sold ; 2001/12/06 POEA was informed of the sale in a letter signed by Capt Adviento ; to scrap vessel
- Crewmembers were informed of the sale and advised to seek for transfer or to ask for reembarkation
o received seniority, vacation, extra and scrapping bonus
o however refused to accept the payment of wages of a measly one-month basic wage ; requested for transfer
o filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter

LA : was illegally dismissed ; bad faith when it failed to transfer / reembark despite the formers request & availability of ships
- $12,870.00 for the 9 months salary ; P100K for moral damages ; P50K for exemplary damages + 10% for Attys fees.

NLRC : affirmed LAs findings ; was illegally dismissed and committed bad faith on wilful failure to transfer
- However modified the award of salaries for 3 months (instead of 9) only based on RA8042 S10 Money Claims. - x x x In case of
termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled
to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
- Affirmed other awards
NLRC reversed earlier modification of reducing the damages to 3 months salary
- There can be no choice to grant only three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term because there is no full year of
unexpired term which this can be applied ; thus salary should be for 9 months ($12,870.00)

CA affirmed the findings of the LA and NLRC that was illegally (and constructively) dismissed
- RA8042 S10 is applicable, so award should only cover 3 months

INTERVENING DEVELOPMENT : Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services (2009/03/24) RA8042 S10 P5 : "or for three months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less held as unconstitutional
- (unaware of the case) made arguments for the unconstitutionality of the clause (violation of EPC as opposed to local labor since
illegally dismissed employees serving overseas are only given 3 months salary while the labor code guarantees full backwage)
- (aware of the case) : Serrano ruling should not apply in the present case since RA8042 S10 is substantive law thus no retroactive
application + tanker allowance of $130 should not be included in the computation of salary
o Further, the NLRC already garnished the full peso equivalent of the 9-month salary deposited as bond and asks for the return
of the excess amount awarded and already given to

I. WON is entitled to the full salary for the unexpired period or merely the 3-month salary provided in RA8042 S10 P5? IS
ENTITLED TO THE SALARY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD

Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services : RA8042 S10 P5 or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less is
unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of OFWs to equal protection of the laws
- Clause contains a suspect classification in that it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of the OFW with an unexpired portion of 1 year or
more in their contracts but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment
- Clause singles out one classification of OFW with peculiar disadvantage without any definite governmental purpose

GENERAL RULE : unconstitutional act is not a law ; it does not confer rights nor does it impose any duty
- Unconstitutional law is inoperative as if it has not been passed
- Operative fact doctrine only applies in matters of equity and fair play ; only when it will impose an undue burden on those who have
relied on the invalid law

Present case is not covered by the operative fact doctrine thus the general rule that applies

II. WON the tanker allowance of $130.00 should be included in the computation of the salary? YES ; ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED SO
LATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS ; CONTRACT REVEALS THAT THE TANKER ALLOWANCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A BONUS BUT WAS
ENCAPSULATED IN THE SALARY CLAUSE

A. only contested the computation at this late stage, it was not raised before the LA, NLRC nor the CA
Fair play, justice and due process dictate that the Court cannot, for the first time on appeal, pass upon this question

B. Close perusal of the contract reveals that the tanker allowance was not categorized as a bonus but rather encapsulated in the basic salary
clause ( $1300 + $130 tanker allowance / month)
4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V HON. DOMINGO PANIS ; and SERAPIO ABUG [PD 442 ; ART 13 (b) proviso ; recruitment for Saudi
Arabia ; motion to quash ]
>

Four informations filed in CoFI Zamboanga City and OlongapoCity accusing P that he, without a license secured from the Minister of Labor,
operated an employment agency and promised employment in Saudi Arabia by charging fees and expenses from four separate individuals
- Acts violated LC A16 in relation to LC A39 [private recruitment vis--vis illegal recruitment]

P filed motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense
- Merely accused of recruiting only one person in each of the 4 informations.
- Under the proviso in Article 13(b) there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or
offered any employment for a fee.

Hon. Panis granted the motion

: P was being prosecuted under Art 39 in relation to Art 16 of the labor code;
- Hence Art 13(b) is inapplicable ;
- Or at least requirement of two or more persons to be recruited is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an
offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of a fee.

P: to constitute illegal recruitment ; as proviso provides, the act should involve two or more persons

I. WON the interpretation of the prosecution () or by the P is correct? NEITHER IS CORRECT

PD 442 A13(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

Both interpretation are wrong.


- Proviso does not require an offer or promise of employment if the purpose was to apply the two or more person requirement
- Proviso intended neither to impose a condition to the basic rule (of recruiting, canvassing, et al.) nor to provide an exception but merely
to create a presumption.
o It presumes that the individual/entity engaged in recruitment and placement WON dealing with 2 or more persons.

Number of persons recruited is immaterial. Any acts mentioned under A13(B) constitutes illegal recruitment and placement even if only one
person is involved/recruited.
- Proviso merely laid down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or
more individuals shall be deemed (creates presumption) engaged in the act of recruitment and placement.
- Words shall be deemed considered and given same force as prima facie evidence / disputable presumption
o Likened to RPC A217 presumption of misappropriation when the accused fails to produce public funds or property upon lawful
demand

Unfortunate that no records of debates and deliberations, PD 442 created by virtue of a presidential decree and not by a statute ; however the
court still reached a reasonable interpretation as the intent of the law is to prevent illegal recruitment and placement.

Set aside orders quashing the informations, reinstate the dismissed cases
5. TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORPORATION v Hon SEC of LABOR ; CASTIGADOR, ROSELLE ; MAMON, JOSEFINA et al [Domestic
helpers in Hongkong ; non-refund of placement fees ; suspend / cancel license or authority to recruit for overseas employment]
> POEA and Sec. of Labor has concurrent power to suspend or cancel license / authority to recruit for overseas employment

1987/07/24 to 1987/11/09 : scoured Iloilo City for possible recruits for alleged job vacancies in Hongkong
- Ps sought employment as domestic helpers thru s employees Aragon, Luzviminda ; Domincil, Ben Hur and his wife Cecile
- They paid placement fees ranging from P1,000.00 to P14,000.00 but failed to deploy them ; refunds were also not made
- P instituted complaints against for violations of A32 and A34(a) of the Labor Code

: denied receiving the amounts allegedly collected from P


- Aragon was tasked to only pre-screen and interview applicants
- Spouses Domincil were not authorized to collect fees
- Made warnings to P not to give money to unauthorized individuals

Labor Usec Confesor : to reimburse Ps placement fees ; liable for 28 counts of violation of LC A32 and 5 counts of A34(a)
- Suspension of 66 months in total
- However, under the schedule of penalties under LC A39 : any suspension amounting to a period of 12 months (or more), the penalty
shall be cancellation.
o Thus the license of to participate in overseas placement and recruitment is hereby ordered cancelled

: Labor Usec Confesor acted with GAOD


- POEA has the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide illegal recruitment cases including authority to cancel
- The cancellation order based on the POEA 1987 schedule of penalties is not valid for non-compliance with Rev. Admin Code regarding
its registration with the UP Law Center

I. WON the POEA or the DOLE Sec has the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas
employment? THE POWER IS VESTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE POEA AND SEC OF LABOR [ PEOPLE v DIAZ]

POEA was established by EO 797 and EO 247


- Assumed the functions of the Overseas Employment Development Board (OEDB), the National Seamen Board (NSB) and the overseas
employment function of the Bureau of Employment Services (BES)

: when POEA absorbed these powers, LC A35 was rendered ineffective

Power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit for overseas employment is vested with the Sec. of Labor

Eastern Assurance and Surety Corp v Secretary of Labor : Secretary of Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to apply those
sanctions, as well as the authority, conferred by Section 36
- LC A35. Suspension and/or cancellation of license or authority. The Minister of Labor shall have the power to suspend or cancel any
license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment for violation of rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Labor,
the Overseas Employment Development Board, or for violation of the provisions of this and other applicable laws, General Orders and
Letters of Instructions.
- LC A36. Regulatory power. The Secretary of Labor shall have the power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement
activities of all agencies within the coverage of this Title and is hereby authorized to issue orders and promulgate rules and regulations
to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions of this Title.

People v Diaz : non-licensee or non-holder of authority = any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or
authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or
cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary.

Thus : the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment is concurrently vested
with the POEA and the Secretary of Labor and Employment

II. WON the non-filing of the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties with the UP Law Center rendered it ineffective? NO ; POEA RULES NOT
NEEDED TO BE FILED WITH UP LAW CENTER SINCE IT MERELY AMPLIFIED THE PROVISION OF THE LABOR CODE ; IN ANY CASE,
THE CANCELLATION OF LICENSE WAS BASED ON LC A35 AND NOT ON THE POEA RULES

USec. Confesor was correct to hold that the POEA Revised Rules on the Schedule of Penalties were issued pursuant to LC A34. It merely
amplified and particularized the various violations. No additional rules or regulations.
- In any case, the license of was cancelled on authority of LC A35 and not pursuant to the 1987 POEA Rules on Schedule of Penalties
6. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Rep by Administrator of the POEA) v. PRINCIPALIA MANAGEMENT and PERSONNEL
CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED [Placement ; Concha ; Baldoza ; Suspension of documentary processing]
> POEA orders are appealed to the DOLE
> POEA can no longer exercise its regulatory power over a recruitment agency if an issue is already raised to the DOLE Sec

2 complaints were filed before the POEA against


- 2003/07/16 Concha, Ruth : Applied for placement as caregiver / physical therapist in the USA or Canada ;
o Paid P20,000 out of the P150,000.00 fee required by ; transaction was not properly receipted
o failed to deploy Concha
- 2003/10/14 Baldoza, Rafael : Applied for placement as a machine operator in Doha, Qatar with a monthly salary of $450.00
o Paid P20,000.00 as placement fee and was actually deployed to Doha, Qatar
o Made to work as a welder, a job which he had no skills ; insisted that he was hired as a machine operator but was offered a
position as a helper instead ; repatriated 2003/07/05
o 2003/11/12 Entered into a compromise agreement with quitclaim and release in exchange for redeployment
failed to deploy him this time

POEA
- Concha complaint : liable for violating 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations : suspend the license for 12 months or fine of P120K and
to pay Concha P20K as reimbursement
o For collecting a fee from the applicant before employment was obtained
o For non-issuance of official receipt
o For misrepresenting that it was able to secure employment
- Baldoza complaint : s documentary processing is suspended

POEA upon s MFR, lifted the suspension of documentary processing upon showing of earnest efforts to redeploy Baldoza

Before the POEA order lifting the suspension order was promulgated : : Filed a complaint against POEA Administrator Baldoz, Rosalinda and
POEA Conciliator Atty. Abara, Jovencio before the RTC (before the promulgation
- Annulment of Order of Suspension with damages + TRO / Writ of Preliminary Injunction + Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
- Suspension order would ruin its reputation and goodwill and would cause loss of its applicants, employers and principals

RTC granted 72-hour restraining order ; latter granted injunctive writs to prevent irreparable damage and tremendous losses to

CA dismissed outright POEAs appeal because they failed to attach copies of its memorandum as well as transcripts of the hearings as
required under the ROC R46 S3 ; also denied s MFR

I. WON the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on purely technical grounds? NO ; THE RULES OF COURT REQUIRE THE
ATTACHMENT OF THE SUCH ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS AND RULINGS AS A CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING PETITIONS ; ROC
ALLOWS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ANY PETITION WHICH FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS

ROC R46 S3 SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements . The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses
of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief
prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof
was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as
such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling
subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall
be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by
his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents
attached to the original. xxx xxx xxx

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

ROC R65 S1 Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law a, person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

CA dismissed s petition for certiorari due to POEAs failure to attach the following relevant documents
1. Memorandum filed by the POEA in the TC to oppose the complaint
2. Transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) of the hearings conducted in the TC

II. WON the trial court erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction? NO ; UNTIL THE APPEAL TO THE DOLE OF THE POEA
SUSPENSION ORDER IS RESOLVED WITH FINALITY, THE RECRUITER HAS THE RIGHT TO OPERATE
: TC committed GAOD in granting the injunctive writs when the requirements to issue the same have not yet been met
- had no clear and convincing right to the relief demanded (injunction) as it had no proof of irreparable damage as required under the
ROC

: No, TC did not decree that the POEA is not allowed to determine s compliance with the conditions for the grant
- Subject suspension order was still being appealed with the Secretary of DOLE
o Until the appeal is resolved with finality by the DOLE, has a clear and convincing right to operate as a recruitment agency

: succeeded in proving that irreparable damage will be caused in implementing the suspension
- If the injunctive writ was not granted, would be labelled as an untrustworthy recruitment agency before there could be any final
adjudication of its case by the DOLE resulting in losing its employer-clients and its prospective applicants

: Moreover POEA would have no authority to exercise its regulatory functions over Principalia because the matter was raised to the jurisdiction
of the DOLE
7. DATUMAN, Santosa v FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER AND PROMOTION SERVICES, INC. [Saleslady > housemaid ; solidary
liability of recruitment/employment agency with foreign employer for breach of contract ; substitute contracts]
> Employment agency is solidarily liable with foreign employer for breaches / violations of the recruitment or employment contract.

recruited to work abroad [Bahrain ; as saleslady ; 370USD / month ; Foreign employer : Mohammed Hussain ]
- was deployed upon payment of her placement fee ; however, forced to work as domestic helper at low wage 40 Bahrain Dinar : 100
USD / month ; employer also took her passport
- was compelled to sign another contract, transferring her as housemaid to another employer for 40 BD / month for 2 years. Unpaid
from 1991-1993.

managed to get home through the help of Bahrain Passport and Immigration Department
- filed a complaint with POEA adjudication office against
- also filed a case with NLRC for same causes.

: actually wanted to go as a housemaid, but since POEA did not allow it at that time, indicated work as saleslady ;
- alleges that was the one who breached their contract when she transferred employment without s knowledge and approval
- also posited that the action has prescripted beyond the 3-year period (reckoned 1990 or 1991)

Labor Arbiter Mayor, Jr. :held that < violated terms of the employment contract, liable for 4,050.00 USD (salary for 15 months) + 180.00 BD
(refund of plane ticket). even admitted that they proposed to enter into an illegal contract (housemaid : saleslady)

NLRC 2nddivision: affirmed with modification ; differentials earlier than April 1993 has prescribed. Complaint was filed May 31, 1995 when she
arrived from jobsite April 1993 :modif to 2,970.00 USD

CA : eventually reversed NLRC ruling.


- After declaring money claims prior to April 1993 as prescribed, NLRC has lost its jurisdiction after that period.
- Under Sec 1(f), Rule II, Book II of 1991 POEA rules and regulations: the local agency shall assume joint and solidary liability with the
employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract, including but not limited to
payment of wages, health and disability compensation and repatriation. Those claims can only arise in connection with the
implementation of the contract i.e.Only the first contract.

I. WON is solidarily liable for s money claims? YES

POEA Rules and Regulation RII S1. Requirements for Issuance of License. - Every applicant for license to operate a private employment agency
or manning agency shall submit a written application together with the following requirements: xxx
f. A verified undertaking stating that the applicant: xxx
(3) Shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in
connection with the implementation of the contract; including but not limited to payment of wages, death and disability
compensation and repatriation

Private employment agency is jointly and solidarily liable with the (foreign) employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement
or contract of employment
Liability not only extends to the principal contract, but also extends to substitute contracts before the expiration of POEA approved contracts.
: forced to sign new contracts
: Placewell Intl Services Corporation v Camote : subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with foreign
employer reducing his salary below the amount approved by the POEA is void for being against our existing laws, morals, and public policy.
: s liability continues ; cannot claim non-knowledge, admitted that the contract was not real (housemaid : saleslady)

II. WON s money claims prescribed? CLAIMS PRIOR TO MAY 31, 1992 (3 years before the claim was filed) ALREADY PRESCRIBED

LC A291. Money Claims. - All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed
within three years from the time that cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.

:prescription period not to be reckoned from Sept 1, 1989 (date when s was forced to sign new contract). Cause of action accrued upon
rendering service for that month (e.g. cause of action for November 1989 accrued at end of November 1989, so on and so forth).
: to determine which cause of action has prescribed, count three years prior to filing of complaint (May 31, 1995). Thus only claims
prior to May 31, 1992 have prescribed. She is entitled for salary differentials from May 31, 1992 to April 1993

: received 100 USD, differential of 270 x 11 months = 2970.00 USD.


8. STOLT-NIELSEN TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC and CHUNG GAI SHIP MANAGEMENT v MEDEQUILLO Jr., SULPECIO
[ Assistant Engineer ; Novation ; Obligations in perfected contracts ; deployment]
> Actual deployment is a suspensive condition for the commencement of employment ;
> However, perfected contracts of employment still give rise to obligations

1995/03/06 filed a complaint before the adjudication office of the POEA against for illegal dismissal under their first contract and for failure
to deploy under a second contract
- 1991/11/06 was hired by on behalf of its principal CGSM as 3rd Asst. Engr on board the Stolt Aspiration for 9 months
o Basic monthly salary of $808.00 and a fixed overtime pay of $404.00 ($1,212.00 / month)
o 1992/02 or nearly 3 months of rendering service, he was ordered to disembark the vessel at Batangas and was repatriated to
Manila for no reason or explanation
- 1992/04/23 entered the second contract which was noted and approved by the POEA, to be transferred under the same terms to
another vessel Stolt Pride
o refused to deploy
o POEA, without knowledge that failed to deploy certified the 2nd employment contract
o released passport, seamans book and other employment documents in exchange for signing documents
- POEA transferred the case to the Labor Arbiter of DOLE upon effectivity of the RA8042 Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of
1995

2000/07/21 LA : was constructively dismissed


- 1st contract was novated by 2nd contract
- thus cannot be held liable for the 1st contract but are liable for the breach of the 2nd contract
- liable only for actual damages $12,537.00 ; no substantial evidence for moral and exemplary damages

2003/02/28 NLRC affirmed LA ruling with modification of deleting the award of overtime pay of $3,636.00
- Unjustified termination because failed to present evidence to justify s non-deployment
- Denied the claim of that monetary award should be limited to three (3) months for every year of unexpired term of the contract
[RA8042 S10 P5]

CA affirmed NLRC ruling

I. WON the 2nd contract novated the 1st contract? YES ; LOGICAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE 2 ND CONTRACT
NOVATED THE 1ST CONTRACT SINCE WAS EMPLOYED WHEN THE 2ND CONTRACT WAS NEGOTIATED WHICH WAS NECESSARY
TO PLACATE HIM SINCE HE WAS DISMISSED AND REPATRIATED WITHOUT REASON

: first employment contract is different from and independent of the second contract subsequently executed upon s repatriation

: No ; novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or
modifies the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third
person in the rights of the creditor
- ELEMENTS OF NOVATION
o There must be a previous valid obligation,
o There must be an agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract,
o There must be the extinguishment of the old contract, and
o There must be the validity of the new contract.

LA and NLRC (which was affirmed by the CA) ruled that novation evidently took place ; the parties impliedly extinguished the first contract by
agreeing to enter into a 2nd contract to placate who was unexpectedly dismissed and repatriated
- Novation is an unavoidable conclusion since was still employed under the 1 st contract when the 2nd contract was negotiated

Reyes v NLRC Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals
- Factual findings of labor officials, who have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only
respect but finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence

Although the claim from the 1st contract has already prescribed (3 years : February 1992 February 1995), it is the subsequent breach of the
2nd contract that gives the cause of action for recovery

II. WON actual deployment is necessary for the commencement of employment? YES ; HOWEVER EVEN WITHOUT ACTUAL
DEPLOYMENT, THE PERFECTED CONTRACT GIVES RISE TO OBLIGATIONS ON THE PARTIES

under the POEA contract, actual deployment is a suspensive condition for the commencement of employment

: yes, however, even without actual deployment, the perfected contract gives rise to obligations on part of the
- POEA Standard Employment Contract : employment shall commence "upon the actual departure of the seafarer from the airport or
seaport in the port of hire."
-
Distinction between perfection of employment contract and commencement of the employer-employee relationship
- Perfection of contract : coincide with date of execution thereof [when and agreed on the object and the cause + terms and
conditions]
- Employer-employee relationship : commences upon s deployment from the point of hire

Even before commencement of the E-E relationship, certain rights and obligations are already existing by the virtue of perfection of the
contract of employment
- Breach of the perfected contract may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party
- If refused to be deployed, he would be liable for damages

: Penalty for failure to deploy is not merely a reprimand

1991 POEA Rules S4 Worker's Deployment. An agency shall deploy its recruits within the deployment period as indicated below:
xxx xxx xxx
b. Thirty (30) calendar days from the date of processing by the administration of the employment contracts of seafarers.

Failure of the agency to deploy a worker within the prescribed period without valid reasons shall be a cause for suspension or
cancellation of license or fine. In addition, the agency shall return all documents at no cost to the worker.

RA8042 S10 Money Claims . Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages

CC A2199 one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
- Thus 9 months salary as provided in the contract
9. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs DELA PIEDRA, CAROL [keywords: Nurse ; mere referral as defense ; large scale illegal recruitment]
> Conviction of large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether
individually or as a group.

was charged before RTC Zamboanga City for large scale illegal recruitment of 3 persons [Modesto, Maria ; Araneta, Nancy ; and Baez,
Jennelyn] and pleaded not guilty

Erlie Ramos, an attorney of the POEA, received a call from an unidentified woman inquiring about the legitimacy of the recruitment conducted by
Mrs. Carol Figueroa.
- Ramos conferred with the CIS to organize the arrest of the alleged illegal recruiter.
- The group planned the entrapment the next day with Eileen Fermindoza to pose as an applicant.

The plan materialized the next day, which caused the CIS team to bring Figueroa, a certain Jasmine Alejandro, and three women applicants to
the office for investigation.
- In the course of the investigation, it turned out that Figueroa had many aliases, among them Carol Llena and Carol de la Piedra.
- A check by Ramos with the POEA revealed that she was not licensed nor authorized to conduct recruitment.

Figueroa was charged before the Regional Trial Court of illegal recruitment in Large Scale.
- Denial comprised the accuseds' defense.
- The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
- Accused-appellant questioned her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and assailed the constitutionality of the law.

I. Is the law void for vagueness? NO,


The issue in People v Panis was whether under the proviso of Article 13(b) the crime of illegal recruitment could only be committed whether two
or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee. (which the court ruled in the negative : proviso was not a
condition on the basic rule nor an exception but merely a presumption from the words : shall be deemed)

Number of persons is irrelevant. Any of the acts mentioned is illegal recruitment even if only one prospective worker is involved.

The court in Panis still arrived at a reasonable interpretation thus rendering the law not void for vagueness. As long as the intent of the
legislature can be inferred (to protect workers from scrupulous recruiters) it cannot be vague.

II. Is the law void for being overbroad? NO,


A statute is overbroad when it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively guaranteed by the constitution, such as speech
or religion. (Adior v ComElec, prohibition of posting election materials such as on private vehicles other than those designated inhibited the
freedom of use of property and even speech and information)

III. Was her right to equal protection of the laws violated? NO, no proof of discriminatory prosecution
A discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination. Just because others are not yet
prosecuted, does not mean that her right to equal protection of the laws.

IV. Is she guilty of large scale illegal recruitment? NOT LARGE SCALE
2 out of 3 elements of illegal recruitment are present
1. No license or authority to conduct or engage in recruitment [present]
2. Engages in any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Sec 13(b) [present]
3. Committed the same against three or more persons whether individually or as a group [absent]

Conviction of large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether
individually or as a group.
only Araneta and Modesto were proven to be recruited. The last person, Baez, was not presented for testimony.
the law does not require three persons to be present in trial, but it requires sufficient evidence that the offense was committed against three or
more persons ; the joint affidavit allegedly provided by Baez was neither identified nor affirmed by Baez, thus it was merely hearsay and
inadmissible.

THUS NOT LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, REDUCE PENALTY TO 2 COUNTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT 4-6 years for
each count and fine of 30K PHP
10. ESTATE OF DULAY, Nelson (rep by DULAY, Merridy) v ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME INC. and GENERAL CHARTERERS, INC.
[Renal failure secondary to septicemia ; collective bargaining agreement jurisdiction : voluntary arbiters]
> Voluntary arbiters, not labor arbiters, have jurisdiction over the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements

Dulay, Nelson was employed by GCI, a subsidiary of Aboitiz.


- originally worked as ordinary seaman and later as bosun on a contractual basis. From Sept 3, 1999 up to July 19, 2000 Nelson was
detailed in the vessel MV Kickapoo Belle.
- Nelson died due to renal failure secondary to septicemia on Aug 13, 2000 [25 days after completion of employment contract ]; at
time of death he was a bona fide member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamans Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP),
GCIs collective bargaining agent.
- Merridy, Nelsons wife claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
between AMOSUP and GCI. Grievance procedure was however declared deadlocked as GCI refused to grant the benefits sought by
the widow.

Merridy filed a complaint with NLRC sub-regional arbitration board in GenSan City against GCI for death and medical benefits and damages
on March 5, 2001.
- Nelsons brotherJoven Mar received 20,000.00 PHP from respondents pursuant to A20 (A) 2 of the CBA and signed a certification
acknowledging receipt of the amount and releasing AMOSUP from further liability.
- Merridy avers that the 20,000.00 received by Joven Mar should be considered advanced payment of the total claim of 90,000.00 USD
aver that NLRC had no jurisdiction over the action on account of the absence of the employer-employee between Nelson and GCI at the time
of Nelsons death + cause of death is not work related. Posits that their liability was limited to A 20 (A) 2 of the CBA.

Labor Arbiter : grant death benefits, however cause of death was not work-related
NLRC : affirmed granting of death benefits, but reversed Labor Arbiters proximate cause of death.
filed special action for certiorari with the CA
CA : suit filed by Merridy is a money claim, thus involving interpretation and application of provisions in the subject CBA ; thus jurisdiction
belongs to the voluntary arbitrator and not the labor arbiter. [BASICALLY LABOR ARBITER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE]

I. DID THE CA ERR IN RULING THAT THE LABOR ARBITER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE? NO
S10 of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) vests jurisdiction on the appropriate branches of the NLRC to entertain
disputes regarding the interpretation of CBA involving migrant / OFWs, amended A 217 (c) of the labor code which confers jurisdiction upon
voluntary arbitrators.

RA 8042 S10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing
of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workersfor overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.

A217 Paragraph C and A261 of labor code remain to be the governing provisions of law

LC Article 217 x x x (c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.

LC A261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreementand those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are
gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes,
grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall
immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

RA 8042 is a special law governing OFW, however no provisions provides for jurisdiction over disputes or unresolved grievances regarding
interpretation or implementation of the CBA. It simply speaks of in general, claims arising out of employer-employee relationship . . . involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment . . .

A217 (C) and 261 of the labor code specifically provides jurisdiction to voluntary arbitrators over cases arising from interpretation and
implementation of a CBA
- General law (Labor code) provided for treated specifically, while the special law (RA 8042) provided for in general

issue raised by Merridy involves which provision of the CBA applies, thus Labor code > jurisdiction > voluntary arbitrator.
- Article 13.1 of the CBA entered into by and between respondent GCI and AMOSUP
The Company and the Union agree that in case of dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of any of the provisions of this
Agreement, or enforcement of Company policies, the same shall be settled through negotiation, conciliation or voluntary arbitration

when parties validly agree upon a procedure for resolving grievances x xx that procedure should be strictly observed.
- Section 29 of the prevailing Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going
Vessels, promulgated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)

Section 29. Dispute Settlement Procedures. In cases of claims and disputes arising from this employment, the parties covered by a
collective bargaining agreement shall submit the claim or dispute to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator
or panel of arbitrators. x xx
Similar IRRs provided by DOLE and DFA

: CA correct : voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction.


11. SANTIAGO, PAUL vs CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INC [Seafarer ; Not deployed for fear of jumping ship ; E-E relationship ]
> E-E relationship commences from deployment
> Pre-deployment issues are cognizable by the NLRC ; Non-deployment remedied by actual damages [total contract salary]

worked as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management () for 5 years


- 1998/02/03 : signed a new contract of employment with for 9 months ; Monthly salary of $515.00, OT pay and other benefits
- 1998/02/04 : contract was approved by the POEA ; to be deployed on MSV Seaspread

s VP Capt Fernandez faxed the Captain of MSV Seaspread that


- The wife of asked him not to let board the vessel
- Other callers gave the feedback that will jump ship in Canada like his brother who jumped ship in Japan causing fines against
- Thus informed that he wont be leaving for Canada and instead promised future deployment

filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and AFs against and its foreign principal [Cable and Wireless (Marine) Ltd]

LA employment contract remained valid but had not commenced since was not deployed
- violated the rules and regulations when it did not deploy causing actual damages
- Award salary of $7,209

NLRC No employer-employee relationship because under the POEA Standard Contract : employment contract shall commence upon actual
departure of the seafarer at the point of hire with a POEA-approved contract
- Since there was no employer-employee relationship, there can be no claims arising therefrom
- Further, validly exercised its management prerogative when it did not deploy
- Weirdly, affirms the finding of LA but vacates award of actual damages

CA noticed ambiguity in NLRC ruling + is not entitled to actual damages because damages are not recoverable by a worker who was not
deployed by his agency within the period prescribed by the POEA rules
- Non-deployment was a valid management prerogative
- No deployment = no employer-employee relationship between and

: violated RA8042 when it failed to deploy him within 30 calendar days without a valid reason
- Unilaterally and arbitrarily prevented the consummation of the POEA-approved contract
- Claims constructive fulfilment of the contract thus he is an employee and entitled to his claims
- Claims regular employee status since he has worked for 5 years ; non-deployment was to prevent attaining regularization
- Affidavit that wife did not call nor was the alleged call supported by other evidence

: LA had no jurisdiction since employment did not commence because was not deployed
- Controversy thus only involves a breach of contractual obligations and cognizable by civil courts

I. WON is entitled to his claims? PARTLY ; HE IS ENTITLED TO 9 MONTHS SALARY AS ACTUAL DAMAGES FOR THE PRE-
DEPLOYMENT BREACH OF CONTRACT MADE BY

Distinction between perfection of employment contract and commencement of the employer-employee relationship
- Perfection of contract : coincide with date of execution thereof [when and agreed + terms and conditions]
- Employer-employee relationship : commences upon s deployment from the point of hire

Even before commencement of the E-E relationship, certain rights and obligations are already existing by the virtue of perfection of the
contract of employment
- Breach of the perfected contract may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party
- If refused to be deployed, he would be liable for damages

: act of preventing s deployment constitutes a breach of contract giving a cause of action against
- Sanctions provided for non-deployment do not end with suspension/cancellation of the license or fine and return of all documents
POEA Rules does not provide sanctions which the POEA can impose on erring agencies on pre-deployment cases because it is not the
POEA but the NLRC which has jurisdiction over such matters

NLRC has jurisdiction over pre-deployment cases

RA8042 S10 Money Claims . Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages

CC A2199 one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
- Actual damages in the form of the 9 months salary + AF 10%
- However, OT pay is not guaranteed to be paid, so is not entitled to it
- No MD, since although the acts of are baseless they are not attended by bad faith
- Further, seafarers are considered as contractual employees and cannot be considered as regular employees
12. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS ; ROSALINDA BALDOZ ; LUCITA LAZO vs REY SALAC, WILLIE ESPIRITU, MARIO MONTENEGRO,
DODGIE BELONIO, LOLIT SALINEL, BUDDY BONNEVIE [keywords : Recruitment deregulation (repealed) ; NURSE CUARESMA raped and
killed ; Saudi Arabia ;

> CONSOLIDATED CASES involving RA 8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995.
> RA 8042 enacted June 7, 1995.
> Officials are not automatically solidarily liable with companys liabilities unless there is proof that they have a connection to the fault.

<moot and academic>

Salac et al. filed a case to order DOLE, POEA, TESDA to comply with the directives of Sec 29 and 30
G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710 assails constitutionality of RA 8042 particularly Sec 29 and 30 which commanded DOLE to begin deregulating
within 1 years of passage the business of handling recruitment and migration and phase out the regulatory functions of POEA.
QC RTC, granted Salac et als petition and annulled DOLE DO10, POEA MC15 and all other issuances, circulars and orders inconsistent with
the policy of deregulation under RA8042.
- Several companies intervened because the law effectively barred their operation.
- Republic informed the Court on April 10, 2007 that then President GMA signed into law RA 9422, which expressly repealed sec 29 and
30 of RA 8042 and adopted the policy of close government regulation of recruitment and deployment of OFWs
Consequently, the two cases, G.R. 152642 and 152710, should be dismissed for being moot and academic.

</moot and academic>

GR 167590 : constitutionality of Sec 6, 7 and 9 of RA 8042.

Aug 21, 1995 Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) filed a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition to annul sec 6, 7
and 9 for being unconstitutional.

Sec 6 defines illegal recruitment; sec 7 provides for penalties; Sec 9 allowed filing of criminal actions of illegal recruitment before RTC where the
offense was committed or where offended party actually resides at time of commission of the offense

SEC. 6. Definition. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That such non-license or non-holder, who,
in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise
include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority x xx

I. Is Sec 6 unconstitutional for being vague? NO!

RTC MANILA: sec 6 unconstitutional for being vague ; failed to make distinction between licensed and non-licensed recruiters.

SUPREME COURT: constitutional, definition is clear and unambiguous.

By its terms, persons who engage in "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers" without the
appropriate government license or 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, enlisting, etc. of OFWs, although with the appropriate government license
or authority, are guilty of illegal recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in Section 6.

II. Is section 7 unconstitutional for having sweeping grave penalties? NO

RTC MANILA : unconstitutional , it failed to make distinctions as to seriousness of the act committed for the grave penalty imposed.

SUPREME COURT: constitutional, not within the power of the Court to question the wisdom of this kind of choise
[duralexsedlexyadayadayada] + RA 10022 provided even more penalties (rationale: protect labor since they are not within the immediate
protection of the law)

III. Is section 9 unconstitutional for violating due process of the alleged offender? NO

RTC MANILA: unconstitutional, venue is jurisdictional, allowing offended party to file case at their place of residence violates due process.

SUPREME COURT: constitutional. Sec115(a) Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79, and G.R. 184298-99

spousesCuaresmas filed a claim for death and insurance benefits against petitioners Becmen Inc. and White Falcon Services, Inc. for the
death of their daughter Jasmine Cuaresma [staff nurse in Saudi Arabia]

Labor arbiter : dismissed the claim : spouses already received insurance from Overseas Workers Welfare Association (OWWA) and gave
credence to Saudi Arabian authorities that Jasmine committed suicide.
NLRC: Becmen and White Falcon solidarily liable for Jasmines death : 113,000.00 USD as actual damages ; relying on Cabanatuan City
Health Office autopsy finding that Jasmine died of criminal violence and rape.

CA: Becmen and White Falcon solidarily liable with foreign employers.

SUPREME COURT: Jasmines death not work-related nor work-connected since rape and death did not occur while she was on duty. Delete
actual damages, but held Becmen and White Falcon solidarily liable for failure to investigate the true nature of her death ; abandoned their duty
to assist the Cuaresmas ; 2 companies and foreign employer Rajab and Silsilahsolidarily liable for: 2.5 million as moral damages ; 2.5 million as
exemplary damages ; 10% as attorneys fees

board members questioned validity of 2nd paragraph of Sec 10 of RA 8042 [holds corporate directors, officers and partners of recruitment
agencies solidarily liable for money claims] filed case (GR 167590)

SEC. 10. Money Claims. x xx

The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several.
This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages
that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid
claims and damages.

I. ARE THE OFFICERS AUTOMATICALLY LIABLE BASED ON SEC10? NO

MAM Realty Development Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission To make them jointly and solidarily liable with their company,
there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal
activities.

No evidence that officers were connected with the companies failure to exercise duty in assisting the Cuaresmas
13. SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC vs CABILES, JOY [Quality Control > Cutter in Taiwan ; Repatriated ; Proper interests
on claims ]
> Reimbursement for placement fees have 12% interest ; Salary claims are covered by CB circular 799 thus, have 6% interest
> Foreign employer and employment agency are solidarily liable for claims ; latter can recover from former
> RA8042 S10 P5 Clause limiting the salary claim to 3 months per year still unconstitutional despite re-enactment in RA10022

applied for a quality job control in Taiwan with


- accepted s application and later asked her to sign a 1-year employment contract with a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00
- required to pay a placement fee of P70,000.00 when she signed the employment contract
- 1997/06/26 was deployed to Taiwan to work for Taiwan Wacoal Co Ltd but was asked to work as a cutter
- 1997/07/14 was informed by a certain Mr. Huwang that was terminated and that should report to to get her salary and
passport and to prepare for immediate repatriation
o She allegedly only earned NT$9,000.00 in that period
o A further NT$3,000.00 was deducted to cover her plane ticket to Manila

1997/08/15 : filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal against and Wacoal [s foreign principal]
- Asked for the return of her placement fee + withheld amount for repatriation costs + 23 months salary + MD + ED

: s termination was due to her inefficiency, negligence in duties and failure to comply with the work requirements
- Only P20,360 was asked as placement fee as evidenced by an official receipt
- Further, Wacoals accreditation has already been transferred to Pacific Manpower & Management Services as of 1997/08/06
o PMMS however argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and and thus denied liability

LA dismissed s claim ; claim was based on mere allegations


- No excess payment of placement fees based on the OR
- Transfer of obligations to PMMS is unnecessary to dismiss her complaint

NLRC : was illegally dismissed


- Burden of proof to show that dismissal is for a just or valid cause belongs to the employer
o failed to discharge the burden since there was no sufficient proof to show that was inefficient or failed to comply with
what was required of her
o Further, procedural due process was not observed in terminating respondent
- Did not rule on the issue of reimbursement of placement fees for lack of jurisdiction
- Refused to entertain the issue of alleged transfer of obligations to PMMS because it did not acquire jurisdiction since failed to appeal
the LAs decision not to rule on the matter
- Only awarded 3 months worth of salary [NT$46,080] + reimbursement of repatriation cost NT$3000 and AF of NT$300
o appealed to the CA

CA affirmed the NLRC ruling + remand to NLRC to address validity of s allegation against PMMS

I. WON is liable for the award? YES

A. was illegally dismissed

: failed to show that there was just or valid cause for dismissal

: Wacoal [the foreign principal-employer] also failed to accord her due process of law
- Employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards and impose reasonable rules to ensure compliance
- Employers cannot be compelled to retain employees who act contrary to the interest of the employer
- This right of the employer is tempered with the right of the employee to security of tenure

With respect to the rights of OFWs, we follow lex loci contractus [law of the place where the contract is made] ; thus LC and its IRR governs
- PCL Shipping Philippines v NLRC : Twin requirements of notice and hearing applies whether the employment is local or abroad. The
provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to labor apply to Filipino employees whether working
within the Philippines or abroad

OFWs may only be terminated for a just or authorized cause and after compliance with procedural due process

LC A282 Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with
his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his
duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
: s alleged inefficiency and negligence may be a just cause for termination, but if and only if was able to prove it

Requirements for dismissal for failure to comply with standards


1) the employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be judged;
2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the employee; and
3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee's performance assessment

B. failed to comply with procedural due process

Valid dismissal requisites


1. Valid cause
2. Valid procedure [twin requirement of notices (at least two) and a hearing]

Procedure requires that employer gives the employee at least 2 written notices before termination
- First notice informs the employee of the particular acts that may cause dismissal
- Second notice informs the employee of the employers decision

II. WON is entitled to her claims? YES BUT SINCE THE 3-MONTH SALARY PER YEAR OF UNEXPIRED PORTION OF THE
CONTRACT WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS ENTITLED TO THE SALARY OF THE FULL UNEXPIRED PORTION + 12%
INTEREST ON PLACEMENT FEE + 6% INTEREST ON SALARIES + AFs

RA8042 S10 P5 In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers
shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

RA8042 S15 x x x Repatriation of the worker and the transport of his [or her] personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of
the agency which recruited or deployed the worker overseas ; except when termination x x x is due solely to the fault of the worker

RA8042 S111 Attorneys fees. (1) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorneys fees equivalent to
ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

: however in Serrano vs Gallant Maritime Services : the clause or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less is held as unconstitutional.
- Therefore is entitled to her salary for the whole unexpired portion of her contract

: The clause was re-enacted by RA10022 [promulgated 2010/03/08]


- Thus it was not yet in effect at the time of s termination

REENACTMENT OF 3-MONTHS PER YEAR SALARY REIMBURSEMENT IN RA10022

Reiterate the finding in Serrano vs Gallant Maritime that limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to
three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

EPC : Classification
(1) must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) must be germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) must apply equally to all members of the same class

: Clause discriminates in two ways


- OFWs as against other workers
- OFWs whose contract periods are for more than 1 year [3 months only] as against those with less than 1 year [whole unexpired period]
- Evidently violative of EPC requirements

Violates due process since it arbitrarily deprives OFWs of their monetary claims without any discernible purpose

Applicable interest rate

BSP Circular 799 [2013/06/21] which revised the interest loan for loan or forbearance from 12% to 6% in the absence of stipulation

CB Circular 799 S2013


S1. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence
of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.

S2. In view of the above, Subsection X305.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Sections 4305Q.1, 4305S.3 and 4303P.1 of the
Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions are hereby amended accordingly.
Nacar vs Gallery Frames : With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of
interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the
interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest
from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed
from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded
may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages, except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.

Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is
made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time
the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the
quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal
interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case
falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period
being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

And, in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013, shall not be disturbed and
shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.

Since RA8042 S10 explicitly provides that illegally terminated workers are entitled to the reimbursement of their placement fees with an
interest12% interest per annum, it shall be considered incorporated as stipulated into every employment contract
- Claims for reimbursement of placement fees thus have 12% interest per annum and is not affected by Circular 799
- However, claims for awards of salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract are not given a fixed interest rate by RA8042
thus they are covered by Circular 799

III. What are the liabilities of [employment agency] and Wacoal [principal] : SOLIDARY LIABLITY FOR THE AWARD

RA8042 S10 : Foreign employer and local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims including claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship and/or damages
- Further, the performance bond filed by the local agency shall be answerable for such money claims or damages

CONCLUSION : pay
- the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of the contract with 6% interest
- NT$3000 salary withheld
- AFs NT$300 with 6% interest
- 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.
14. MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING INC ; A.P. MOLLER SINGAPORE LIMITED ; AGBAYANI, JESUS vs AVESTRUZ, TORIBIO [keywords :
Chief Cook ; Oily garbage bin cover ; insubordination ; illegal dismissal ]

2011/04/28 : was hired by Maersk (in behalf of its principal AP Moller)


- As Chief Cook on board M/V Nedlloyd Drake / 6 months / monthly salary of $698 ; Boarded the vessel on 2011/05/04

2011/06/22 : Captain Woodward rebuked because a cover of a garbage bin in the kitchen is oily
- Took s hand and swiped it on the oily cover
- answered ship is big, dirt is everywhere ; Capt. Woodward shoved s chest resulting in an argument
- After requiring reports [ and Messman Kong (witnessed the event)] of what transpired in the galley, informed that he was to be
dismissed and disembarked in India

2011/07/03 : upon arrival, filed a suit for illegal dismissal, payment for unexpired portion of contract, damages and AF
- No investigation / hearing was conducted ; not given the chance to defend himself
- Capt. Woodward failed to observe POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) S17 on disciplinary measures
- Cost of airfare ($606.15) was deducted from his wages
- Claims $5,372 (basic pay, guaranteed OT, and vacation leave) $1936 (on-board allowance) $292 (ship maintenance bonus) $8760
(hardship allowance) P300K (moral damages) P200K (exemplary damages) AF of 10% of the total monetary award

: failed to attend to his tasks [maintain cleanliness of galley (kitchen)]


- Capt. Woodwards weekly reminders which went unheeded by ; became angry and snapped when ordered to comply
- Capt. Woodward informed that he was being dismissed for insubordination (just and valid cause according to )
- Capt. Woodward sent 2 emails to Maersk explaining the decision to terminate

LA dismissed s complaint for lack of merit


- failed to perform duties of maintaining cleanliness in galley and repeatedly failed to obey his superiors directives which is
tantamount to insubordination
o The CBA between the parties considers the act of insulting a superior officer by words or deed as insubordination

NLRC sustained the validity of s dismissal ;


- However, failed to observe procedures in POEA-SEC S17 ; non observance of proper procedure = thus nominal damages

CA : was illegally dismissed


- must pay placement fees paid and deductions made with 12% interest per annum + salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract
and AF of 10% of the total award ; all other money claims (damages) denied for lack of merit
- Findings of LA and NLRC of valid dismissal was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no factual basis for
insubordination
- also failed to comply with POEA SEC S17 (Two-notice rule)
- RA10022 S7 amended RA8042
o Illegally dismissed overseas worker given the full reimbursement of placement fee and deductions made with 12% interest per
annum + salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract
- failed to show entitlement to overtime and leave pay ; AF of 10% is in accordance with LC A111

I. WON the CA erred in reversing and setting aside the ruling of the NLRC that was legally dismissed albeit with payment of nominal
damages for violation of procedural due process? NO ; FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT WAS
DISMISSED FOR JUST OR AUTHORIZED CAUSE ; INSUBORDINATION WAS NOT PROVEN BY THE EVIDENCE [2 emails sent by Capt.
Woodward] ; FAILED TO OBSERVE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS MANDATED BY POEA-SEC S17 [Two-notice rule] ; CA
MONETARY AWARD IS ALSO CORRECT

GENERAL RULE [Civil Proc] : re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari
because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law
- EXCEPTION : Findings of lower courts and the CA are contradictory ; SC may pass upon the evidence and draw conclusions

GENERAL RULE [Labor] : Burden of proof that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause falls on the employer
- If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and therefore illegal
- The employer must thus present substantial evidence [relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion and not based on mere surmises or conjectures]

after examination of the records : CA did not err in reversing and setting aside the prior rulings
- No just or valid cause for dismissal was provided by thus the conclusion devolves to that was illegally dismissed

: s assertion that committed insubordination because of repeated failure to obey his superiors order to maintain cleanliness
in the galley as well as insulting a superior officer by words or deeds are uncorroborated and self-serving
- Thus failed to discharge the burden of proof that was legally dismissed
- Further failed to prove that committed acts of insubordination that would warrant his dismissal

Elements of insubordination
(1) the employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude;
(2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been
engaged to discharge.

Contents of Capt. Woodwards email also not supported by other evidence


- GENERAL RULE : Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies, however should have
offered additional proof to corroborate the statements described therein
o Ranises v NLRC : SC impugned the credence given by the NLRC upon the Telex sent by respondent employers vessel
master that the employee allegedly committed a breach of trust, because the respondent failed to verify the veracity of the
telex and worse still, no other evidence was submitted to corroborate the charge against petitioner
o Skipper United Pacific, Inc v NLRC : lone evidence [Chief Engineers Report / telex] offered by the employer to justify
dismissal did not discharge the onus required to show validity of the dismissal

: was not accorded procedural due process because POEA-SEC S17 (two-notice rule) was not complied with

SECTION 17. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES. The Master shall comply with the following disciplinary procedures against an erring seafarer:
A. The Master shall furnish the seafarer with a written notice containing the following:
1. Grounds for the charges as listed in Section 33 of this Contract or analogous act constituting the same.
2. Date, time and place for a formal investigation of the charges against the seafarer concerned.
B. The Master or his authorized representative shall conduct the investigation or hearing, giving the seafarer the opportunity to explain
or defend himself against the charges. These procedures must be duly documented and entered into the ships logbook.
C. If after the investigation or hearing, the Master is convinced that imposition of a penalty is justified, the Master shall issue a written
notice of penalty and the reasons for it to the seafarer, with copies furnished to the Philippine agent.
D. Dismissal for just cause may be effected by the Master without furnishing the seafarer with a notice of dismissal if there is a clear
and existing danger to the safety of the crew or the vessel. The Master shall send a complete report to the manning agency
substantiated by witnesses, testimonies and any other documents in support thereof.

GENERAL RULE [ Skippers United Pacific Inc v Mira] : Requisites of the two-notice rule
1. Erring seaman is given a written notice of the charge against him and afforded the opportunity to defend himself
2. Should sanctions be imposed, a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished to both the seafarer and the
Phiippine. agent

EXCEPTION : If there is a clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew and vessel ; however a complete report is still sent to the manning
agency substantiated by witnesses, testimonies and any other documents in support thereof

No evidence of compliance to either notice requirement


- Written reports required by the Captain hardly qualifies as a written notice of the charge against nor of written notice of the penalty

RA8042 [as amended by RA10022] S10 Money claims. x x x. In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant workers salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Therefore, the monetary award ruled by the CA is correct


15. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES,INC v NLRC 2nd Division ; Hon. DINOPOL, ERNESTO (Labor Arbiter) ;
MONTEHERMOZO, DIVINA [Domestic Helper in Taiwan ; Extension of contract ; Agency ; Salary deduction claims]
> Employment agency cannot be held liable to a contract it is not privy to

P Montehermozo was deployed by to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract effective 1997/02/01
- Deployment was with the assistance of a Taiwanese broker Wang, Edmund the President of Jet Crown International Co. Ltd
- After expiry of the 12-month contract on 1998/02/01, she continued working for her Taiwanese employer [Hang Rui Xiong] for two more
years, after which she returned to the Philippines on 2000/02/04
- Filed a complaint before the NLRC against and its owner Perez, Adelaide ; the Taiwanese Broker [Wang] and the employer-foreign
principal [Xiong] alleging that she was jailed for 3 months and that she was underpaid
- Claimed that the 2 year extended contract was with the knowledge and consent of
- and the following deductions were made Year Deduction for income tax Deduction for savings
- Deductions made in the year 1997 were refunded 1997 NT 10,450 NT 23,100
- Deductions made in 1998 and 1999 were not refunded 1998 NT 9,500 NT 36,000
1999 NT 13,300 NT 36,000
[Gen. Manager Olarte, Maria]
- P no longer entitled to refund of 24 month (1998-1999) savings because she already took back her savings in 1997 and the (foreign)
employer did not deduct any money from her salary [in accordance with the fax message from Sunaces employer Jet Crown
International Co. Ltd
- P is not entitled to refund of her 14 months tax and payment of Atty.s Fees because she finished her one-year contract and hence
not illegally dismissed by her employer
o Further, tax deductions were in compliance with Taiwanese law
- 2-year extension was without s knowledge and consent as evidenced by Ps execution of a waiver/quitclaim and release of
responsibility and an affidavit of desistance

LA rejected s claim that the extension was without its knowledge and consent
- and Wang have not stopped communicating ; alleged non-consent has not been categorically established
- should have written to the POEA about the extension and expressed its objection thereto with copies furnished to all parties
- Since failed to do so, it is presumed to have consented to the extension and thus liable to its consequences
- Further, the waiver/quitclaim is ineffective since it should have been reduced to writing and signed by the parties before the LA
o The compromise agreement was entered into by the parties not in the presence of the LA
- and its owner Perge, Adelaida are liable both in their personal capacity and as agents of Hang Rui Xiong / Wang, Edmund for the
payment of NT 91,500 or its peso equivalent

NLRC affirmed LA ruling

CA dismissed s petition for certiorari


- impliedly consented to the extension
- still communicated with the foreign employer [Xiong]
- as agent of the foreign principal cannot profess ignorance [act of the principal extending the contract bound the agent ()]

I. WON should be held liable for the deductions made to the wages of P during the 2-year extension? NO ; WAS NOT PRIVY TO
THE SUBSEQUENT EXTENSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND THUS CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ITS
CONSEQUENCES + IMPLIED REVOKATION OF THE AGENCY WHEN THE FOREIGN PRINCIPAL DIRECTLY EMPLOYED P

A. There was no continuous communication between and the foreign employer


Contrary to the CAs findings, continuously communicated with the Taiwanese broker Wang and not with the foreign principal Xiong
- The telefax that was the only basis of finding continuous communication was from the broker Wang
o The telefax merely stated that P had already taken her savings from her foreign employer and that no deduction was made
on her salary
o No mention was made about the extension nor the s consent thereto
- Thus the CA was misplaced in ruling that there was a continuous communication between and the foreign employer

B. Theory of imputed knowledge ascribes knowledge of the agent [] to the principal [Xiong]
CAs ruling that the agent [] should know the acts of its principal [Xiong] is mistaken
- Imputed knowledge means that the principal knows of the acts of its agent and not the other way around

No substantial proof that knew of and/or consented to be bound under the 2-year employment contract extension
- Thus, not being privy thereto, it cannot be held liable to the consequences thereof

CC 1311 Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the
contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law

C. Agency was impliedly revoked between and the foreign principal-employer


After termination of the original employment contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with P

CC 1924 The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons.
16. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES ; BETIA ; BRENDA vs REBESENCIO, JOPETTE ; Sacar-Adiong, Montassah ; Cristobal, Rouen ; Schneider-
Cruz, Loraine [Flight Attendants ; Pregnant ; Forced to resign or be terminated ; constructive dismissal ; illegal dismissal ; forum non conveniens
vs choice of law ; personal liability of agency owner]
> See discussion below on FNC and COL
> Constructive dismissal is tantamount to illegal dismissal
> See tests below on voluntary resignation and constructive dismissal

s : recruited and hired by as temporary flight attendants with the accreditation and approval of the POEA
- After undergoing seminars required by the POEA + completing training modules offered by , they became permanent
o 1990/05/16 : Rebesencio ; 1993/05/22 : Sacar-Adiong and Cristobal ;1995/08/27 : Schneider-Cruz
- Continued their employment until they were separated in various dates on 2006
- Claimed that the termination was illegal since they were allegedly terminated because they were pregnant
- They originally filed for maternity leaves which were originally approved but was latter denied by the management in Jeddah
o Given the choice of resigning with claim for benefits or termination, losing all their benefits
Forced to file their resignation letters

: Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants (Unified Contract) : x x x if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time during
the term of this contract, this shall render her employment contract as void and she will be terminated due to lack of medical fitness.
- Initially approved the appeals of but latter reneged on the approval

2007/11/08 : filed their complaints against for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for holidays, rest day
premium, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, night shift differentials, medical expense reimbursements, retirement
benefits, illegal deduction, lay-over expense and allowances + moral and exemplary damages + AFs
- Case was initially assigned to LA Suelo
- opposed jurisdiction of the LA : determining points of contract referred to foreign law and should be dismissed by forum non
conveniens + had no cause of action since they voluntarily resigned

LA Jambaro-Franco dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction/merit

NLRC reversed LA ruling


- are OFWs thus the LAs and the NLRC have jurisdiction
- No special circumstances warranted abstention from jurisdiction thus forum non conveniens does not apply
- to pay aggregate amount of SAR614,001.24 for backwages and separation pay + 10% as AFs

CA denied s R65 petition but modified the CA judgment


- Separation pay : computed from 1st day of employment up to finality of current decision at 1 month per year of service
- Backwages : computed from date were illegally terminated until finality of current decision
- AF : 10% of total award

I. WON the LA and the NLRC have jurisdiction over SAL and apply Philippine laws? YES ; NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN SAL
JEDDAH AND SAL MANILA ; ADMITTED THAT IT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AND HAVING A LOCAL OFFICE
THUS SUBJECT TO LOCAL LAWS AND JURISDICTION

A. can be sued in local courts


: LA and NLRC does not have jurisdiction because summons were sent to SAL Manila not SAL Jeddah
- SAL Jeddah was the employer of because
o SAL Manila was not a party to the Cabin Attendant Contract
o SAL Jeddah provided the funds to pay for salaries and benefits
o SAL Jeddah was the recipient of s resignation letters

Vainly splitting hairs to absolve itself from liability ; no basis for concluding that SAL Jeddah is distinct from SAL Manila
- s petition states that it has an office in 4/F Metro House Building, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City
- s position paper states that SAL Jeddah only referred to its head office and SAL Manila is its office in Manila
- Admitted that while it is a foreign corporation, it has a Philippine office

RA7042 [Foreign Investments Act] S3(d) The phrase doing business shall include . . . opening offices, whether called liaison offices or
branches x x x

Plain application of RA7042 is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, as such it may be sued in the Philippines and is subject
to the jurisdiction of Philippines Tribunals

B. Choice of law and forum non conveniens


: Cabin attendant contract requires application of foreign law thus requiring application of forum non conveniens

No ; choice of law and forum non conveniens are entirely different matters
- Choice of law : offshoot of autonomy of contracts [A1306 : may establish stipulations, terms, clauses as they may deem convenient]
- Forum non conveniens : akin to forum shopping ; to prevent abuse if venue is left to the whim of either party
Contractual choice of law affects transnational litigation and dispute resolution by
(1) procedures for settling disputes, e.g., arbitration;
(2) forum, i.e., venue;
(3) governing law; and
(4) basis for interpretation.

FNC relates to but is not subsumed by forum under COL

Contractual choice of law is not determinative of jurisdiction


- Transnational transactions entail differing laws leading to various fora for litigation and dispute resolution

Formal contents : CC A17 : [t]he forms and solemnities of contracts . . . shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed [lex loci celebrationis]

Substantive contents : no established rule on resolution


- Lex loci contractus or the law of the place of the making;
- Lex loci solutionis or the law of the place of performance; and
- Lex loci intentionis or the law intended by the parties [preferred locally]

FNC on the other hand is a means of addressing the problem of parallel litigation akin to litis pendentia, res judicata and non-forum shopping
- Latter concepts apply to parallel litigation within a single jurisdiction
- FNC applies to parallel litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions [concept in common law and private international law]
o Although finds no textual basis locally, FNC has been used to decline jurisdiction locally
o Found within the principle of comity and deference to the tribunals of another sovereign
o Also prevents frivolity and futility of a court ruling on a matter it cannot enforce

Puyat vs Zabarte : Situations where a courts desistance may be warranted


1. Matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere because main aspect of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction / material witnesses
have residence there
2. Belief that a non-resident plaintiff sought the forum to secure procedural advantages or to harass the defendant
3. Unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded
4. Inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained
5. Difficulty of ascertaining foreign law

Bank of America vs CA : Philippine court may assume jurisdiction


1. Court is the one which the parties may conveniently resort to
2. Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts
3. Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision

FNC must be
1. Clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal
2. Pleaded at the earliest possible opportunity, otherwise it shall be deemed waived
3. As a factual matter, it must proceed from a factually established basis [ i.e. already brought in another jurisdiction]

FNC relates to forum and not to the choice of governing law


- Thus it is not applicable in the present case

While a local tribunal is called upon to respect the parties choice of governing law, such respect must not be so permissive as to lose sight of
law, morals, good custom, public order or public policy

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was signed and ratified by the Philippines on
1980/07/08 and on 1981/08/05 respectively + EPC [and basic observation] reveals that SAL has a glaringly discriminatory policy
- Pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains specifically to women
- s policy excludes from and restricts employment on the basis of no other consideration but sex
o Pregnancy may present physical limitation that may render the performance difficult but it is not permanent

CCA1700 + jurisprudence : relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual x x x [but] are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good
- Thus Philippine law and jurisdiction applies over the present issue
- Application of Puyat v Zabarte warrants the assumption of local jurisdiction over the case
- Application of Bank of America vs CA also warranted
II. WON voluntarily resigned or were illegally terminated? YES ; THREATENING TERMINATION (resulting in loss of benefits) UPON
THEIR FAILURE TO RESIGN IS ENOUGH REASON TO COMPEL ANY PERSON TO ABANDON EMPLOYMENT THUS RESULTING IN
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL WHICH FURTHER AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL TERMINATION

Voluntary resignation [ Bilbao vs SAL]


- The voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment
- A formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of
relinquishment
- Test for voluntariness of resignation : As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the
employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he or she, in fact, intended to sever his
or her employment

Constructive dismissal
- Cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in
rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits
- Penaflor v Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation : constructive dismissal is tantamount to involuntary resignation due to the
harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer
- Test for constructive dismissal : WON a reasonable person in the employees position would feel compelled to give up his
employment under the prevailing circumstances

Clearly were constructively dismissed thus their termination is illegal


- Termination / constructive dismissal happened when they were pregnant and expecting to incur cost on account of child delivery and
infant rearing
- Voluntary resignation goes against normal and reasonable human behaviour because they need that employment to sustain the family
- They intended to remain employed with SAL because they filed for maternity leaves instead of resignation and even filed appeals to the
decision of the management
- Threat of termination in case of their failure to voluntarily resign is enough to compel a reasonable person to give up employment
- Written resignation were executed on SALs blank letterheads they provided with the word resignation already typed on the subject
o Further, mere compliance with standard procedures (exit interviews, quitclaims et al) neither negates compulsion nor indicates
voluntariness
o Further, exit interviews revealed that the reason for resigning was the sudden twist of decision regarding maternity leave
o Phil. Employ Services v Paramio : if there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled x x x or the terms of settlement are
unconscionable and on their face invalid, such quitclaims must be struck down as invalid or illegal

Since they were illegally terminated, are entitled to full backwages and benefits from the time of their termination until finality of this decision
- Separation pay : 1 months salary for every year of service until finality of this decision with a fraction of at least 6 months being counted
as 1 year
- Moral Damages : since dismissal was attended with bad faith, malice or fraud, or is an act oppressive to labor, or done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
- Exemplary damages : as an example of correction for the public good as against such schemes or policies / wanton, oppressive or
malevolent violation of rights
- AFs 10% for being compelled to litigate

III. WON Betia may be held personally liable along with SAL? NO ; CORPO HAS SEPARATE PERSONALITY TO ITS OFFICERS ;
GENERALLY OFFICERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES EXCEPT WHEN THEY ACTED IN BAD
FAITH OR IN MALICE

Corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it

GENERAL RULE : Corporate directors and officers are not liable for the illegal termination of a corporations employees
EXCEPTION : Corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable when they acted in bad faith or with malice

: provided no proof that Betia acted in bad faith or with malice as regards their termination
17. REPUBLIC of the Philippines (Rep by POEA) vs PRINCIPALIA MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS, INC [Collection of
excessive fees ; Jurisdiction over injunctions ; exhaustion of administrative remedies ; moot and academic + exceptions ; forum shopping]
> POEA orders for immediate execution of [serious] penalties can only be appealed to the DOLE Sec
> However, RTC has the exclusive and original jurisdiction over injunctions to stay the execution of such penalties

2009/06/08 : POEA : collected from complainant Ramos, Alejandro an excessive placement fee ; Violation of 2002 POEA RR Part VII Rule I
S2(b) : a serious offense which carries the penalty of cancellation of license for the first offense

2009/06/24 Upon s receipt of the order, POEA immediately cancelled its license based on POEA RR PVI RI S5

POEA RR PVI RI S5 Stay of Execution. The decision of the Administration shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal; Provided that where the
penalty imposed carries the maximum penalty of twelve months suspension or cancellation of license, the decision shall be immediately executory
despite the pendency of the appeal.

Provided further that where the penalty imposed is suspension of license for one month or less, the decision shall be immediately executory and may only be
appealed on ground of grave abuse of discretion

2009/06/26 : filed with RTC Mandaluyong City a complaint for injunction + TRO and/or writ of prelim. prohibitory and mandatory injunction
- Immediate cancellation of its license deprived it of due process and jeopardized deployment of hundreds of OFWs
- RTC granted the TRO to allow deployment of those scheduled

2009/07/08 : appealed the POEA order to the DOLE Sec.

POEA : filed a motion to dismiss with RTC Mandaluyong on grounds of lack of jurisdiction
- Failure to exhaust administrative remedies : DOLE Sec. and not the RTC has jurisdiction over cases assailing POEA orders
concerning cancellation of licenses of a recruitment agency
- Assuming the RTC had jurisdiction : still failed to exhaust administrative remedies since it failed to first seek recourse from DOLE
- Forum-shopping : appealed the POEA order with DOLE while the same is pending with the RTC

RTC denied POEAs motion to dismiss


- RTC is conferred jurisdiction over injunction actions by BP129 S21
- Case falls under the exception of exhaustion of administrative remedies since will suffer irreparable damage of the immediate
cancellation of its license
- No forum-shopping since there is no identity of relief between the injunction case (RTC) and appeal before the RTC

CA affirmed RTC ; debunked POEAs position


- Injunction case : to determine the legality / propriety of immediate cancellation of the license
- RTC hasnt even ruled over the injunction [merely issued a TRO] ; thus it has not yet intruded into the realm of the DOLE Sec
- POEA Rules cannot deprive the regular courts of jurisdiction to entertain an injunction complaint

2013/05/22 : filed a motion to dismiss (with leave of court) before the RTC
- No longer interested in pursuing the same
- Issue is already moot and academic since its license was subsequently renewed several times over

: renewal of license does not bar the Court from ruling on the matters
- Issue falls within the exceptions to the moot and academic principle
o Primarily to resolve once and for all which between the DOLE Sec and the RTC has jurisdiction over actions assailing a POEA
order for the immediate enforcement of penalties for serious offenses such as cancellation of license
o also failed to exhaust administrative remedies when it directly filed the injunction with the RTC + it committed forum
shopping

I. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint for injunction against the POEA order cancelling s license? YES ; POEA RULES DO
NOT PROVIDE FOR INJUNCTIVE REMEDIES + THE RTC HAS THE EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER INJUNCTIONS

Dismissible for being moot and academic


- Moot and academic : case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening events, there is no more actual controversy
between the parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits
- However, the Court can still pass upon the main issue for guidance of both bar and bench where
1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution.
2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved.
3) when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public.
4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

2002 POEA RR PVI RI S1 and EO247 S3(d): POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all pre-employment cases which
are administrative in character involving and arising out of violations of recruitment regulations / violations of conditions for the issuance of
license to recruit workers
2002 POEA RR PVI RV S1 : Remedy of an appeal / petition for review of an order issued by POEA in the exercise of such exclusive jurisdiction
is lodged exclusively with the DOLE Secretary

Nothing in EO247 and 2002 POEA RR provides for the grant to a recruitment agency of an injunctive relief from the immediate execution of
penalties for serious offenses

Conversely EO247 and 2002 POEA IRR do not deprive the courts of the power to entertain injunction petitions to stay execution
- Thus the RTC can take cognizance of the injunction complaint which is a suit to enjoin the defendant, perpetually or for a particular
time, from the commission or continuance of a specific act or his compulsion to continue performance of a particular act
- Actions for injunctions and damages lie within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC [BP129 S19]

GENERAL RULE [Admin law] : Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency
entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency
- However, Courts can still set aside such executive determination on proof of GAOD, fraud, error of law which will warrant an injunction

II. WON committed forum shopping when it sought relief both from the RTC and with the DOLE Sec? NO ; RELIEFS SOUGHT AND
SUBJECT MATTER OF EACH ACTION ARE QUITE DIFFERENT, THUS NEGATING FORUM SHOPPING

Forum shopping elements


(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration

: s question before the DOLE was concerned with the merits of the case which brought about POEAs issuance of its cancellation order
: s case before the RTC is limited to enjoining the POEA from immediately enforcing such cancellation

: Reliefs sought from the two fora were different and thus negates forum-shopping

III. WON failed to exhaust administrative remedies? NO BECAUSE THE RULE ADMITS SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS

Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedy admits of exceptions


- Correctly raised that it was deprived of due process [ a question of fact and which the RTC correctly allowed to be determined]