PHILSA International Placement & Services Corporation vs. Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment [G.R. o. !"#!

$$ April $% &""!' (acts) Philsa is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitmentof workers for overseas employment. Sometime in January 1985, private respondents, who were recruited y petitioner for employment in Saudi !ra ia, were re"uired to pay placement fees in the amount of P5,###.## for private respondent $odrigo %. &ikin and P',5##.## each for private respondents (ivencio !. de &esa and )edric P. %eyson. !fter the e*ecution of their respective work contracts, private respondents left for Saudi !ra ia on January +9, 1985. ,hey then egan work for !l-.e/ailan )onsultants !01, the foreign principal of petitioner. 2hile in Saudi !ra ia, private respondents were allegedly made to sign a second contract which changed some of the provisions of their original contract resulting in the reduction of some of their enefits and privileges. ,hey were again allegedly forced y their foreign employer to sign a third contract which increased their work hours from 38 hours to '# hours a week without any corresponding increase in their asic monthly salary. 2hen they refused to sign this third contract, the services of private respondents were terminated y !l-.e/ailan and they were repatriated to the Philippines. 4pon their arrival in the Philippines, private respondents demanded from petitioner Philsa the return of their placement fees and for the payment of their salaries for the une*pired portion of their contract. 2hen petitioner refused, they filed a case efore the P51! against petitioner Philsa and its foreign principal, !l-.e/ailan. 5n the aspects of the case involving money claims arising from the employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal, the P51! rendered a decision dated !ugust 61, 1988 ordering respondent P.7%S! to pay complainants, /ointly and severally with its principal !l-.e/ailan. 7n a decision dated July +', 1989 , the 8%$) modified the appealed decision of the P51! !d/udication 5ffice y deleting the award of salary deductions and differentials. ,he awards to private respondents were deleted y the 8%$) considering that these were not raised in the complaint filed y private respondents. Private respondents then elevated the July +', 1989 decision of the 8%$) to the Supreme )ourt in a petition for review for certiorari where it was docketed as 9.$. 8o. 89#89. .owever, in a $esolution dated 5cto er +5, 1989, the petition was dismissed outright for :insufficiency in form and su stance, having failed to comply with the $ules of )ourt and )ircular 8o. 188 re"uiring su mission of a certified true copy of the "uestioned resolution dated !ugust +6, 1989. !lmost simultaneous with the promulgation of the !ugust 61, 1988 decision of the P51! on private respondents; money claims, the P51! issued a separate 5rder dated !ugust +9, 1988 resolving therecruitment violations aspect of private respondents; complaint. 7n this 5rder, the P51! found petitioner guilty of illegal e*action, contract su stitution, and unlawful deduction. 4nder the P51! $ules and $egulations, the decision of the P51! thru the %$5 suspending or canceling a license or authority to act as a recruitment agency may e appealed to the &inistry <now =epartment> of %a or and 1mployment. !ccordingly, after the denial of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner appealed the !ugust 61, 1988 5rder to the Secretary of %a or and 1mployment. .owever, in an 5rder dated Septem er 16, 1991, pu lic respondent Secretary of %a or and 1mployment affirmed in toto the assailed 5rder. Petitioner filed a &otion for $econsideration ut this was likewise denied in an 5rder dated 8ovem er +5, 1991.

Iss*es) <1> 2hether or not the pu lic respondent has acted without or in e*cess of /urisdiction, or with grave a use of discretion in holding petitioner lia le for illegal deductions0withholding of salaries for the supreme court itself has already a solved petitioner from this charge. <+> 2hether or not the petitioner can e held lia le for illegal e*action as P51! &emorandum )ircular 8o. 11, Series of 1986, which enumerated the allowa le fees which may e collected fromapplicants, is void for lack of pu lication. Held) <1> Petitioner is correct in stating that the July +', 1989 =ecision of the 8%$) has attained finality y reason of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari assailing the same. .owever, the said 8%$) =ecision dealt only with the money claims of private respondents arising from employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal and as such, it is only for the payment of the said money claims that petitioner is a solved. ,he administrative sanctions, which are distinct and separate from the money claims of private respondents, may still e properly imposed y the P51!. 7n fact, in the !ugust 61, 1988 =ecision of the P51! dealing with the money claims of private respondents, the P51! !d/udication 5ffice precisely declared that :respondent;s lia ility for said money claims is without pre/udice to and independent of its lia ilities for the recruitment violations aspect of the case which is the su /ect of a separate 5rder.: ,he fact that petitioner has een a solved y final /udgment for the payment of the money claim to private

respondent de &esa does not mean that it is likewise a solved from the administrative sanctions which may e imposed as a result of the unlawful deduction or withholding of private respondents; salary. ,he P51! thus committed no grave a use of discretion in finding petitioner administratively lia le of one count of unlawful deduction0withholding of salary. <+> 8o. ,he administrative circular under consideration is one of those issuances which should e pu lished for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an e*isting law pursuant to a valid delegation. )onsidering that P51! !dministrative )ircular 8o. +, Series of 1986 has not as yet een pu lished or filed with the 8ational !dministrative $egister, the same is ineffective and may not e enforced. ,he fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group, namely private employment agencies or authority holders, does not take it away from the am it of our ruling in ,a?ada vs. ,uvera. 7n the case of Phil. !ssociation of Service 1*porters vs. ,orres, the administrative circulars "uestioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely Philippine and .ong @ong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for .ong @ong, and still the )ourt ruled therein that, for lack of proper pu lication, the said circulars may not e enforced or implemented. 5ur pronouncement in ,a?ada vs. ,uvera is clear and categorical. !dministrative rules and regulations must e pu lished if their purpose is to enforce or implement e*isting law pursuant to a valid delegation. ,he only e*ceptions

are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructionsissued of their duties. !dministrative )ircular 8o. +, Series of 1986 has not e*ceptions.

administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to e followed y their su ordinates in the performance een shown to fall under any of these

EAS+ER SHIPPI G LI ES% I C.% vs. PHILIPPI E ,-ERSEAS E.PL,/.E +A0.I IS+RA+I, SCRA 4##% G.R. o. 533##% ,ctober !6% !766

1P,EA2!33

(acts) (italiano Saco was )hief 5fficer of the &0( 1astern Polaris when he was killed in an accidentin ,okyo, Japan on &arch 15, 1985..is widow sued for damages under 1*ecutive 5rder 8o. A9A and &emorandum )ircular 8o. +of the P51!.,he petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cogniBa le not y theP51! ut y the Social Security System and should have een filed against the State Cund7nsurance.,he P51! nevertheless assumed /urisdiction and after considering the position papers of theparties ruled in favour of the complainant.,he petition is =7S&7SS1=, with costs against the petitioner. ,he temporary restraining orderdated =ecem er 1#, 198' is here y %7C,1=. 7t is so ordered. Iss*e) 1. 2hether or not the P51! had /urisdiction over the case as the hus and was not an overseasworker.+. 2hether or not the validity of &emorandum )ircular 8o. + itself as violative of the principleof non-delegation of legislative power.

Held) 1. Des. ,he Philippine 5verseas 1mployment !dministration was created under 1*ecutive 5rder8o. A9A, promulgated on &ay 1, 198+, to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Cilipinos and to protect their rights. 7t replaced the 8ational Seamen Eoard created earlier under!rticle +# of the %a or )ode in 19A3. 4nder Section 3<a> of the said e*ecutive order, the P51!is vested with :original and e*clusive /urisdiction over all cases, including money claims,involving employee-employer relations arising out of or y virtue of any law or contractinvolving Cilipino contract workers, including seamen.: ,hese cases, according to the 1985$ules and $egulations on 5ver seas 1mployment issued y the P51!, include, Fclaims for death,disa ility and other enefitsG arising out of such employment. ,he award of P18#,###.## for death enefits and P1+,###.## for urial e*penses was made ythe P51! pursuant to its &emorandum )ircular 8o. +, which ecame effective on Ce ruary 1,1983. ,his circular prescri ed a standard contract to e adopted y oth foreign and domesticshipping companies in the hiring of Cilipino seamen for overseas employment.+. 8o. &emorandum )ircular 8o. + is an administrative regulation. ,he model contractprescri ed there y has een applied in a significant num er of the cases without challenge y theemployer. ,he power of the P51! <and efore it the 8ational Seamen Eoard> in re"uiring themodel contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in thee*ercise of the said authority. ,hat standard is discovera le in the e*ecutive order itself which, increating the Philippine 5verseas 1mployment !dministration, mandated it to protect the rightsof overseas Cilipino workers to :fair and e"uita le employment practices.:9181$!% $4%1H 8on-delegation of powersI e*ception7t is true that legislative discretion as to the su stantive contents of the law cannot e delegated.2hat can e delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may e enforced, not what thelaw shall e. ,he ascertainment of the latter su /ect is a prerogative of the legislature. ,hisprerogative cannot e a dicated or surrendered y the legislature to the delegate.,wo ,ests of (alid =elegation of %egislative Power,here are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislativepower, (iB , the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. 4nder the first test, the lawmust e complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when itreaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. 4nder the sufficientstandard test, there must e ade"uate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the oundaries of the delegateJs authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Eoth tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, whois not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and e*ercise a power essentially legislative. ,he delegation of legislative power has ecome the rule and its non-delegation the e*ception (inman General vs Inocencio FACTS: Pan Pacific 5verseas is a recruitment agency which offers /o s a road duly registered with the P51!. Cinman 9eneral is acting as Pan PacificJs surety <as re"uired y P51! rules and !rt. 61 of the %a or )ode>. Pan Pacific was sued y 2illiam 7nocencio and 6others for alleged violation of !rticle 6+ and 63 of the %a or )ode. 7nocencio alleged

that Pan Pacific charged and collected fees utfailed to provide employment a road.P51! ruled in favor of 7nocencio et al and had impleaded Cinman <upon re"uest of 7nocencio> in the complaint as well <Pan Pacificchanged usiness address without prior notice to P51!>. ,he %a or Secretary affirmed P51!Js ruling. Cinman 9eneral asserts that it should not e impleaded in the case ecause it is not a party to the contract etween Pan Pacific and 7nocencio et al. ISS8E) 2hether or not Cinman 9eneral is solidarily lia le in the case at ar. HEL0) Des. Since Pan Pacific had thoughtfully refrained from notifying the P51! of its new address and from responding to thecomplaints, petitioner Cinman may well e regarded as an indispensa le party to the proceedings efore the P51!. 2hether Cinmanwas an indispensa le or merely a proper party to the proceedings, the S) held that the P51! could properly implead it as partyrespondent either upon the re"uest of 7nocencio et al or motu propio. Such is the situation under the $evised $ules of )ourt.Cinman 9eneral is solidarily lia le. 4nder Section 1A' of the 7nsurance )ode, as amended, the lia ility of a surety in a surety ond<Cinman> is /oint and several with the principal o ligor <Pan Pacific>.Curther, !rticle 61 of the %a or )ode providesH!rt. 61. Eonds. K !ll applicants for license or authority shall post such cash and surety onds as determined y theSecretary of %a or to guarantee compliance with prescri ed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and,conditions of employment as appropriate.*** +9e Secretary of Labor s9all 9ave t9e e:cl*sive po;er to determine% decide% order or direct payment from% orapplication of% t9e cas9 and s*rety bond for any claim or in<*ry covered and =*aranteed by t9e bonds >.. Promotions & .ana=ement% Inc., petitioner, vs. ational Labor Relations Commissionand 8lpiano L. 0e Los Santos, respondents. FACTS: PetitionerJs appeal was dismissed y the respondent 8ational %a or $elations )ommission citing the second paragraph of !rticle ++6 of the %a or )ode as amended and $ule (7, Section ' of the new $ules of Procedure of the 8%$), as amended. ,he petitioner contends that the 8%$) committed grave a use of discretion in applying these rules to decisions rendered y the P51!. 7t insists that the appeal ond is not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for overseas employment ecause they are already re"uired under Section 3, $ule 77, Eook 77 of the P51! $ules not only to pay a license fee of P6#,### ut also to post a cash ond of P1##,### and a surety ond of P5#,###. 7n addition, the petitioner claims it has placed in escrow the sum of P+##,### with the Philippine 8ational Eank in compliance with Section 1A, $ule 77, Eook 77 of the same $ule, Fto primarily answer for valid and legal claims of recruited workers as a result of recruitment violations or money claims.G ,he Solicitor 9eneral sustained the appeal ond and commented that appeals from decisions of the P51! were governed y Section 5 and ', $ule (, Eook (77 of the P51! $ules. ISSUE: 2hether or not the petitioner is still re"uired to post an appeal ond to perfect its appeal from a decision of the P51! to the 8%$)L Iss*e) 2as the petitioner still re"uired to post an appeal ond despite the fact that it has posted onds of 15#k and placed +##k in escrow eforeL Held) Des. 7t is possi le for the monetary reward in favor of the employee to e*ceed the amount of 65#,### ecause of the stringent re"uirements posed upon recruiters. ,he reason for such is that overseas employees are su /ected to greater risks and hence, the money will e used to insure more care on the part of the local recruiter in its choice of foreign principal to whom the worker will e sent. =octrineH )onstructionH 7t is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute <or a set of rules as in this case>, care should e taken that every part thereof e given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. 4t res magis valeat "uam pereat. F,hat the thing may rather have effect than e destroyed.G

,he rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should e avoidedI instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should e reconciled whenever possi le as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole. 2ith regard to the present case, the doctrine can e applied when the )ourt found that Sec. ' complements Sec. 3 and Sec. 1A. In t9e P,EA R*les% t9e bonds re?*ired in Sec. $ R*le &% @ooA & and t9e escro; re?*ired in Sec. !5 R*le &% @ooA & 9ave different p*rposes from t9e appeal bond re?*ired in Sec. 3% R*le 4 @ooA 5. ,he onds in Sec. 3 are made to answer for all claims against the employer, which is not limited to monetary awards to employees whose contracts of employment have een violated. ,he escrow agreement in Sec. 1A is used only as a last resort in claiming against the employer. 5n the other hand, Sec. ' re"uires an appeal ond in an amount e"uivalent to the monetary award. 7ndeed, this appeal ond is intended to further insure the payment of the monetary award. !lso, it is possi le that the monetary award may e*ceed the onds posted previously and the money placed in escrow. 7f such a case happens, where will the e*cess e sourcedL ,o solve such a dilemma, an appeal ond e"uivalent to the amount of the monetary award is re"uired y Sec. '. Eastern Ass*rance vs Secretary of Labor FACTS: JME &anpower is an overseas employment agency registered with the P51! and 1astern !ssurance was its surety eginning January1985. Crom 1986 to =ecem er 1985, JME recruited 66 persons ut none of them were ever deployed. ,hese 66 persons sued JMEand the P51! as well as the Secretary of %a or ruled in favor of the 66 workers and ordered JME to refund them <with 1astern!ssurance eing solidarily lia le>. 1astern !ssurance assailed the ruling claiming that P51! and the Secretary of %a or have no /urisdiction over non-employees <since the 66 were never employed, in short, no employer-employee relations>. ISS8E) 2hether or not 1astern !ssurance can e held lia le in the case at ar. HEL0) Des. Eut only for the period covering from January 1985 when the surety took effect <as already held y the %a or Secretary>.,he Secretary of %a or was given power y !rticle 63 <%a or )ode> and Section 65 and 6' of 15 A9A <P51! $ules> to :restrict andregulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies,: ut also to :promulgate rules and regulations to carry out theo /ectives and implement the provisions: governing said activities.7mplicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims of the offenses committed y the respondent agency orcontractor, specially the refund or reim ursement of such fees as may have een fraudulently or otherwise illegally collected, or suchmoney, goods or services imposed and accepted in e*cess of what is licitly prescri ed. 7t would e illogical and a surd to limit thesanction on an offending recruitment agency or contractor to suspension or cancellation of its license, without the concomitanto ligation to repair the in/ury caused to its victims.,hough some of the cases were filed after the e*piration of the surety ond agreement etween JME and 1astern !ssurance, noticewas given to JME of such anomalies even efore said e*piration. 7n this connection, it may e stressed that the surety ond providesthat notice to the principal is notice to the surety. Eesides, it has een held that the contract of a compensated surety likerespondent 1astern !ssurance is to e interpreted li erally in the interest of the promises and eneficiaries rather than strictly infavor of the surety. (ea=le Constr*ction Corp. vs. Gayda% !63 SCRA 467 (actsH .erein respondents, 3# Cilipino workers formerly employed with !lgosai i-Eison, %td. $e"uested petitioner recruiter to return them to their /o site in Saudi !ra ia. Petitioner informed the workers that it did not want to send ack any workers ecause of the ig risk due to the financial difficulties of !lgosai i-Eison %td.. $espondent workers assured petitioner that they were willing to assume the risk and emphasiBed that they were willing to sign a written statement indicating that they would not hold petitioner lia le for any delay or non-payment of their salaries and any amounts due them from !lgosai i-Eison, %td. 7t was under the foregoing circumstances that petitioner reluctantly agreed to send ack private respondents to Saudi !ra ia to help them in their dire financial need if they would sign the aforementioned statements. 2hen !lgosai i-Eison %td went into ankruptcy, private respondents filed with the P51! a complaint against petitioner for unpaid claims with the li"uidator of !lgosai i-Eison %td.

Iss*eH 258 petitioner may e held solidarily lia le with the foreign employer for any unpaid claims of private respondents against their foreign principal employer even as they have a stipulation to this effect. HeldH 8o. !s a rule, a recruiter is solidarily lia le with unpaid wages of workers sent a road. )ase at ar is an e*ception ecause it was the workers who persuaded recruiter to send them ack a road despite knowledge that foreign employer might not pay their wages and they agreed not to hold recruiter responsi le thereof. (acilities .ana=ement Corporation vs. de la ,sa Case 0i=est (acilities .ana=ement Corporation vs. de la ,sa [GR LB#63$7% .arc9 &3% !757' (acts) Cacilities &anagement )orporation and J. S. =reyer are domiciled in 2ake 7sland while J. (. )atuira is an employee of C&) stationed in &anila. %eonardo dela 5sa was employed y C&) in &anila, ut rendered work in 2ake 7sland, with the approval of the =epartment of %a or of the Philippines. =e la 5sa was employed as <1> painter with an hourly rate of N1.+5 from &arch 19'3 to 8ovem er 19'3, inclusiveI <+> house oy with an hourly rate of N1.+' from =ecem er 19'3 to 8ovem er 19'5, inclusiveI <6> house oy with an hourly rate of N1.66 from =ecem er 19'5 to !ugust 19'', inclusiveI and <3> cashier with an hourly rate of N1.3# from !ugust 19'' to &arch +A 19'A, inclusive. .e further averred that from =ecem er, 19'5 to !ugust, 19'', inclusive, he rendered overtime services daily, and that this entire period was divided into swing and graveyard shifts to which he was assigned, ut he was not paid oth overtime and night shift premiums despite his repeated demands from C&), et al. 7n a petition filed on 1 July 19'A, dela 5sa sought his reinstatement with full ackwages, as well as the recovery of his overtime compensation, swing shift and graveyard shift differentials. Su se"uently on 6 &ay 19'8, C&), et al. filed a motion to dismiss the su /ect petition on the ground that the )ourt has no /urisdiction over the case, and on +3 &ay 19'8, de la 5sa interposed an opposition thereto. Said motion was denied y the )ourt in its 5rder issued on 1+ July 19'8. Su se"uently, after trial, the )ourt of 7ndustrial $elations, in a decision dated 13 Ce ruary 19A+, ordered C&), et al. to pay de la 5sa his overtime compensation, as well as his swing shift and graveyard shift premiums at the rate of 5#O per cent of his asic salary. C&), et al. filed the petition for review on certiorari. Iss*e) 1. 2hether the mere act y a non-resident foreign corporation of recruiting Cilipino workers for its own use a road, in law doing usiness in the Philippines. +. 2hether C&) has een :doing usiness in the Philippines: so that the service of summons upon its agent in the Philippines vested the )ourt of Cirst 7nstance of &anila with /urisdiction. Held) 1. 7n its motion to dismiss, C&) admits that &r. )atuira represented it in the Philippines :for the purpose of making arrangements for the approval y the =epartment of %a or of the employment of Cilipinos who are recruited y the )ompany as its own employees for assignment a road.: 7n effect, &r. )atuira was alleged to e a liaison officer representing C&) in the Philippines. 4nder the rules and regulations promulgated y the Eoard of 7nvestments which took effect 6 Ce ruary 19'9, implementing $! 5355, which took effect 6# Septem er 19'8, the phrase :doing usiness: has een e*emplified with illustrations, among them eing as followsH ::<1> Soliciting orders, purchases <sales> or service contracts. )oncrete and specific solicitations y a foreign firm, not acting independently of the foreign firm, amounting to negotiation or fi*ing of the terms and conditions of sales or service contracts, regardless of whether the contracts are actually reduced to writing, shall constitute doing usiness even if the enterprise has no office or fi*ed place of usiness in the PhilippinesI <+> appointing a representative or distri utor who is domiciled in the Philippines, unless said representative or distri utor has an independent status, i.e., it transacts usiness in its name and for its own account, and not in the name or for the account of the principalI *** <3> 5pening offices, whether called ;liaison; offices, agencies or ranches, unless proved otherwise. *** <1#> !ny other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that e*tent the performance of acts or works, or the e*ercise of some of the functions normally incident to, or in the progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and o /ective of the usiness organiBation.: +. C&) may e considered as :doing usiness in the Philippines: within the scope of Section 13 <Service upon private foreign corporations>, $ule 13 of the $ules of )ourt which provides that :7f the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a non-resident /oint stock company or association, doing usiness in the Philippines, service may e made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose or, if there e no such agent, on the

government official designated y law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.: 7ndeed, C&), in compliance with !ct +38' as implemented y =epartment of %a or 5rder 7( dated +# &ay 19'8 had to appoint Jaime (. )atuira, 16++ !. &a ini, 1rmita, &anila :as agent for C&) with authority to e*ecute 1mployment )ontracts and receive, in ehalf of that corporation, legal services from and e ound y processes of the Philippine )ourts of Justice, for as long as he remains an employee of C&).: 7t is a fact that when the summons for C&) was served on )atuira he was still in the employ of the C&). .ence, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in usiness in the Philippines, is not arred from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines <such as in earlier cases of !etna )asualty M Surety )ompany, vs. Pacific Star %ine, etc. P9$ %-+'8#9Q, 7n &entholatum vs. &angaliman, and 1ast oard 8avigation vs. Juan Dsmael M )o.>, a fortiori, that same corporation cannot claim e*emption from eing sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines SalaCar -s. Ac9acoso !6# SCRA !$4 G.R. o. 6!4!" .arc9 !$% !77" (acts) $osalie ,esoro of Pasay )ity in a sworn statement filed with the P51!, charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Pu lic respondent !tty. Cerdinand &ar"ueB sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the P51! regarding the complaint against him. 5n the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, pu lic respondent !dministrator ,omas !chacoso issued a )losure and SeiBure 5rder 8o. 1+#5 to petitioner. 7t stated that there will a seiBure of the documents and paraphernalia eing used or intended to e used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner hasK <1> 8o valid license or authority from the =epartment of %a or and 1mployment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employmentI <+> )ommitted0are committing acts prohi ited under !rticle 63 of the 8ew %a or )ode in relation to !rticle 68 of the same code. ! team was then tasked to implement the said 5rder. ,he group, accompanied y mediamen and &andaluyong policemen, went to petitionerJs residence. ,hey served the order to a certain &rs. Cor a SalaBar, who let them in. ,he team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with P51! a letter re"uesting for the return of the seiBed properties, ecause she was not given prior notice and hearing. ,he said 5rder violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec + of the Eill of $ights, and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasona le force and intimidation. Iss*e) 2hether or 8ot the Philippine 5verseas 1mployment !dministration <or the Secretary of %a or> can validly issue warrants of search and seiBure <or arrest> under !rticle 68 of the %a or )ode Held) 4nder the new )onstitution, F. . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e*cept upon pro a le cause to e determined personally y the /udge after e*amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly descri ing the place to e searched and the persons or things to e seiBedG. &ayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seiBure or arrest. ,he )losure and SeiBure 5rder was ased on !rticle 68 of the %a or )ode. ,he Supreme )ourt held, F2e reiterate that the Secretary of %a or, not eing a /udge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. .ence, the authorities must go through the /udicial process. ,o that e*tent, we declare !rticle 68, paragraph <c>, of the %a or )ode, unconstitutional and of no force and effectR ,he power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, o viously, e*ceptional. 7t <the power to order arrests> cannot e made to e*tend to other cases, like the one at ar. 4nder the )onstitution, it is the sole domain of the courts.G Curthermore, the search and seiBure order was in the nature of a general warrant. ,he court held that the warrant is null and void, ecause it must identify specifically the things to e seiBed. 2.1$1C5$1, the petition is 9$!8,1=. !rticle 68, paragraph <c> of the %a or )ode is declared 48)58S,7,4,758!% and null and void. ,he respondents are 5$=1$1= to return all materials seiBed as a result of the implementation of Search and SeiBure 5rder 8o. 1+#5.