c



     c 
   

 !" # $ %" "!!!
vs.
 !  " &!
!' #!&# 
G.R. No. 103144 April 4, 2001


"
— ilsa is a domestic corporation engaged in t e recruitment of workers for overseas employment.
Sometime in January 1985, private respondents, w o were recruited by petitioner for employment in
Saudi Arabia, were required to pay placement fees in t e amount of —5,000.00 for private respondent
Rodrigo L. Mikin and —
,500.00 eac for private respondents Vivencio A. de Mesa and Cedric —. Leyson.
After t e execution of t eir respective work contracts, private respondents left for Saudi Arabia on
January 29, 1985. T ey t en began work for Al-Hejailan Consultants A/E, t e foreign principal of
petitioner.
W ile in Saudi Arabia, private respondents were allegedly made to sign a second contract w ic
c anged some of t e provisions of t eir original contract resulting in t e reduction of some of t eir
benefits and privileges. T ey were again allegedly forced by t eir foreign employer to sign a t ird contract
w ic increased t eir work ours from 48 ours to
0 ours a week wit out any corresponding increase
in t eir basic mont ly salary. W en t ey refused to sign t is t ird contract, t e services of private
respondents were terminated by Al-Hejailan and t ey were repatriated to t e — ilippines.
Upon t eir arrival in t e — ilippines, private respondents demanded from petitioner — ilsa t e
return of t eir placement fees and for t e payment of t eir salaries for t e unexpired portion of t eir
contract. W en petitioner refused, t ey filed a case before t e —EA against petitioner — ilsa and its
foreign principal, Al-Hejailan.
n t e aspects of t e case involving money claims arising from t e employer-employee relations
and illegal dismissal, t e —EA rendered a decision dated August 31, 1988 ordering respondent —HILSA
to pay complainants, jointly and severally wit its principal Al-Hejailan.
In a decision dated July 2
, 1989 , t e NLRC modified t e appealed decision of t e —EA Adjudication
ffice by deleting t e award of salary deductions and differentials. T e awards to private respondents
were deleted by t e NLRC considering t at t ese were not raised in t e complaint filed by private
respondents.
—rivate respondents t en elevated t e July 2
, 1989 decision of t e NLRC to t e Supreme Court
in a petition for review for certiorari w ere it was docketed as G.R. No. 89089. However, in a Resolution
dated ctober 25, 1989, t e petition was dismissed outrig t for "insufficiency in form and substance,
aving failed to comply wit t e Rules of Court and Circular No. 1-88 requiring submission of a certified
true copy of t e questioned resolution dated August 23, 1989."
Almost simultaneous wit t e promulgation of t e August 31, 1988 decision of t e —EA on
private respondents' money claims, t e —EA issued a separate rder dated August 29, 1988 resolving
t e recruitment violations aspect of private respondents' complaint. In t is rder, t e —EA found
petitioner guilty of illegal exaction, contract substitution, and unlawful deduction.
Under t e —EA Rules and Regulations, t e decision of t e —EA t ru t e LR suspending or
canceling a license or aut ority to act as a recruitment agency may be appealed to t e Ministry (now
Department) of Labor and Employment. Accordingly, after t e denial of its motion for reconsideration,
petitioner appealed t e August 31, 1988 rder to t e Secretary of Labor and Employment. However, in
an rder dated September 13, 1991, public respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed i

 t e assailed rder. —etitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but t is was likewise denied in an
rder dated November 25, 1991.
( 
1. W et er or not t e petitioner can be eld liable for illegal exaction as —EA Memorandum
Circular No. 11, Series of 1983, w ic enumerated t e allowable fees w ic may be collected from
applicants, is void for lack of publication.

2. W et er or not t e public respondent as acted wit out or in excess of jurisdiction, or wit grave
abuse of discretion in olding petitioner liable for illegal deductions/wit olding of salaries for t e
supreme court itself as already absolved petitioner from t is c arge.

 '

1. No. T e administrative circular under consideration is one of t ose issuances w ic s ould be

publis ed for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a
valid delegation. Considering t at —EA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 as not as yet
been publis ed or filed wit t e National Administrative Register, t e same is ineffective and may not
be enforced.
T e fact t at t e said circular is addressed only to a specified group, namely private employment
agencies or aut ority olders, does not take it away from t e ambit of our ruling in 


 .
In t e case of i 

i i

i


 t e administrative circulars questioned
t erein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely — ilippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged
in t e recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still t e Court ruled t erein t at, for lack of proper
publication, t e said circulars may not be enforced or implemented.
ur pronouncement in 


 is clear and categorical. Administrative rules and
regulations must be publis ed if t eir purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation. T e only exceptions are interpretative regulations, t ose merely internal in nature, or t ose
so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning t e rules and guidelines
to be followed by t eir subordinates in t e performance of t eir duties. Administrative Circular No. 2,
Series of 1983 as not been s own to fall under any of t ese exceptions.

2. —etitioner is correct in stating t at t e July 2
, 1989 Decision of t e NLRC as attained finality by
reason of t e dismissal of t e petition for certiorari assailing t e same. However, t e said NLRC
Decision dealt only wit t e money claims of private respondents arising from employer-employee
relations and illegal dismissal and as suc , it is only for t e payment of t e said money claims t at
petitioner is absolved. T e administrative sanctions, w ic are distinct and separate from t e money
claims of private respondents, may still be properly imposed by t e —EA. In fact, in t e August 31,
1988 Decision of t e —EA dealing wit t e money claims of private respondents, t e —EA
Adjudication ffice precisely declared t at "respondent's liability for said money claims is wit out
prejudice to and independent of its liabilities for t e recruitment violations aspect of t e case w ic is
t e subject of a separate rder."
T e fact t at petitioner as been absolved by final judgment for t e payment of t e money claim
to private respondent de Mesa does not mean t at it is likewise absolved from t e administrative
sanctions w ic may be imposed as a result of t e unlawful deduction or wit olding of private
respondents' salary. T e —EA t us committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner
administratively liable of one count of unlawful deduction/wit olding of salary.