Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AKD Digests 1
AKD Digests 2
Respondents
and
petitioner
both
filed
a
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration.
NLRC
affirmed
the
finding
of
Illegal
Dismissal
and
Bad
Faith
on
the
part
of
respondent.
However,
the
NLRC
reversed
its
earlier
Decision,
holding
that
"there
can
be
no
choice
to
grant
only
3
months
salary
for
every
year
of
the
unexpired
term
because
there
is
no
full
year
of
unexpired
term
which
this
can
be
applied."
Respondents
filed
an
MR,
which
the
NLRC
denied.
Undaunted,
respondents
filed
a
petition
forcertiorariunder
Rule
65
before
the
CA.
The
CA
affirmed
the
findings
and
ruling
of
the
LA
and
the
NLRC.
However,
the
CA
ruled
that
the
NLRC
erred
in
sustaining
the
LAs
interpretation
of
Section
10
of
R.A.
No.
8042.
The
CA
relied
on
the
clause
"or
for
three
months
for
every
year
of
the
unexpired
term,
whichever
is
less"
provided
in
the
5th
paragraph
of
Section
10
of
R.A.
No.
8042.
Both
parties
filed
their
respective
MRs
which
the
CA
denied.
Thus,
this
petition.
ISSUE:
[1]
Whether
Section
10
of
R.A.
8042,
to
the
extent
that
it
affords
an
illegally
dismissed
migrant
worker
the
lesser
benefit
of
"salaries
for
[the]
unexpired
portion
of
his
employment
contract
for
three
(3)
months
for
every
year
of
the
unexpired
term,whichever
is
less"
is
constitutional;
[2]
Assuming
that
it
is,
whether
the
CA
gravely
erred
in
granting
petitioner
only
three
(3)
months
backwages
when
his
unexpired
term
of
9
months
is
far
short
of
the
"every
year
of
the
unexpired
term"
threshold.
HELD:
The
petition
is
impressed
with
merit.
We
have
previously
declared
that
the
clause
"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.
Moreover,
the
subject
clause
does
not
state
any
definitive
governmental
purpose,
hence,
it
also
violates
petitioner's
right
to
substantive
due
process.
Generally,
an
unconstitutional
act
is
not
a
law.
An
exception
to
this
is
the
doctrine
of
operative
fact
applied
when
a
declaration
of
unconstitutionality
will
impose
an
undue
SBCA
2nd
Sem
SY
15-16
burden
on
those
who
have
relied
on
the
invalid
law.
This
case
should
not
be
included
in
the
exception.
It
was
not
the
fault
of
petitioner
that
he
lost
his
job
due
to
an
act
of
illegal
dismissal
committed
by
respondents.
Also,
we
cannot
subscribe
to
respondents
postulation
that
the
tanker
allowance
of
US$130.00
should
not
be
included
in
the
computation
of
the
lump-sum
salary.
First,
fair
play,
justice,
and
due
process
dictate
that
this
Court
cannot
now,
for
the
first
time
on
appeal,
pass
upon
this
question.
Second,
the
allowance
was
encapsulated
in
the
basic
salary
clause.
People
of
the
Philippines
vs.
Domingo
Panis
GR
No.
L5867477,
July
11,
1990
FACTS:
On
January
9,
1981,
four
information
were
filed
in
the
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
(CFI)
of
Zambales
and
Olongapo
City
alleging
that
herein
private
respondent
Serapio
Abug,
"without
first
securing
a
license
from
the
Ministry
of
Labor
as
a
holder
of
authority
to
operate
a
fee-charging
employment
agency,
did
then
and
there
wilfully,
unlawfully
and
criminally
operate
a
private
fee
charging
employment
agency
by
charging
fees
and
expenses
(from)
and
promising
employment
in
Saudi
Arabia"
to
four
separate
individuals.
Abug
filed
a
motion
to
quash
contending
that
he
cannot
be
charged
for
illegal
recruitment
because
according
to
him,
Article
13(b)
of
the
Labor
Code
says
there
would
be
illegal
recruitment
only
"whenever
two
or
more
persons
are
in
any
manner
promised
or
offered
any
employment
for
a
fee.
Denied
at
first,
the
motion
to
quash
was
reconsidered
and
granted
by
the
Trial
Court
in
its
Orders
dated
June
24,
1981,
and
September
17,
1981.
In
the
instant
case,
the
view
of
the
private
respondents
is
that
to
constitute
recruitment
and
placement,
all
the
acts
mentioned
in
this
article
should
involve
dealings
with
two
or
more
persons
as
an
indispensable
requirement.
On
the
other
hand,
the
petitioner
argues
that
the
requirement
of
two
or
more
persons
is
imposed
only
where
the
recruitment
and
placement
consists
of
an
offer
or
promise
of
employment
to
such
persons
and
always
in
consideration
of
a
fee.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
Article
13(b)
of
the
Labor
Code
provides
for
the
innocence
or
guilt
of
the
private
respondent
of
the
crime
of
illegal
recruitment
COURT
RULING:
The
Supreme
Court
reversed
the
CFIs
Orders
and
reinstated
all
four
information
filed
against
private
respondent.
AKD Digests 3
The
Article
13(b)
of
the
Labor
Code
was
merely
intended
to
create
a
presumption,
and
not
to
impose
a
condition
on
the
basic
rule
nor
to
provide
an
exception
thereto.
Where
a
fee
is
collected
in
consideration
of
a
promise
or
offer
of
employment
to
two
or
more
prospective
workers,
the
individual
or
entity
dealing
with
them
shall
be
deemed
to
be
engaged
in
the
act
of
recruitment
and
placement.
The
words
"shall
be
deemed"
create
the
said
presumption.
[G.R.
No.
109583.
September
5,
1997.]
TRANS
ACTION
OVERSEAS
CORPORATION,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
HONORABLE
SECRETARY
OF
LABOR
FACTS:
Private
respondents
sought
employment
as
domestic
helpers
through
petitioner's
employees.
The
applicants
paid
placement
fees
ranging
from
P1,000.00
to
P14,000.00,
but
petitioner
failed
to
deploy
them.
Their
demand
for
refund
proved
unavailing;
thus,
they
were
constrained
to
institute
complaints
against
petitioner
for
violation
of
Articles
32
and
34(a)
of
the
Labor
Code,
as
amended.
The
Undersecretary
of
Labor
found
that
the
petitioner
is
liable
for
28
counts
of
violation
of
Article
32
and
5
counts
of
Art.
34(a)
and
ordered
the
cancellation
of
its
license
to
participate
in
the
overseas
placement
and
recruitment
of
workers.
The
cancellation
of
petitioner's
license
was
temporarily
lifted
but
the
order
revoking
its
license
was
reinstated
when
the
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration
was
eventually
denied
for
lack
of
merit.
The
issue
presented
in
the
case
at
bar
is
whether
or
not
the
Secretary
of
Labor
and
Employment
has
jurisdiction
to
cancel
or
revoke
the
license
of
a
private
fee
charging
employment
agency.
LibLex
The
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
the
power
to
suspend
or
cancel
any
license
or
authority
to
recruit
employees
for
overseas
employment
is
concurrently
vested
with
the
Philippine
Overseas
Employment
Authority
(POEA)
and
the
Secretary
of
Labor.
ISSUE:
whether
or
not
the
Secretary
of
Labor
and
Employment
has
jurisdiction
to
cancel
or
revoke
the
license
of
a
private
fee-charging
employment
agency.
HELD:
LABOR
AND
SOCIAL
LEGISLATION;
LABOR
CODE;
ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT;
POWER
TO
SUSPEND
OR
CANCEL
ANY
LICENSE
OR
AUTHORITY
TO
RECRUIT
FOR
OVERSEAS
EMPLOYMENT;
CONCURRENTLY
VESTED
WITH
THE
PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS
EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION
(POEA)
AND
THE
SECRETARY
OF
LABOR.
The
power
to
suspend
or
cancel
any
license
or
authority
to
recruit
employees
for
overseas
employment
is
vested
upon
the
Secretary
of
Labor
and
Employment
under
Article
35
of
the
Labor
Code,
as
amended.
In
the
case
of
Eastern
Assurance
and
Surety
Corp.
vs.
Secretary
of
Labor,
181
SCRA
110
(1990),
we
held
that:
"The
penalties
.of
suspension
and
cancellation
SBCA
2nd
Sem
SY
15-16
AKD Digests 4
AKD Digests 5
AKD Digests 6
AKD Digests 7
Appellant's
denials
cannot
prevail
over
the
positive
declaration
of
the
prosecution
witnesses.
Affirmative
testimony
of
persons
who
are
eyewitnesses
of
the
fact
asserted
easily
overrides
negative
testimony.
That
appellant
did
not
receive
any
payment
for
the
promised
or
offered
employment
is
of
no
moment.
From
the
language
of
the
statute,
the
act
of
recruitment
may
be
"for
profit
or
not";
it
suffices
that
the
accused
"promises
or
offers
for
a
fee
employment"
to
warrant
conviction
for
illegal
recruitment.
.
.
The
claim
of
"frameup,"
like
alibi,
is
a
defense
that
has
been
invariably
viewed
by
the
Court
with
disfavor
for
it
can
easily
be
concocted
but
difficult
to
prove.
Apart
from
her
self-
serving
testimony,
appellant
has
not
offered
any
evidence
that
she
was
indeed
framed
by
Ramos.
She
has
not
even
hinted
at
any
motive
for
Ramos
to
frame
her.
Law
enforcers
are
presumed
to
have
performed
their
duties
regularly
in
the
absence
of
evidence
to
the
contrary.
[G.R.
No.
172642.
June
13,
2012.]
ESTATE
OF
NELSON
R.
DULAY,
represented
by
his
wife
MERRIDY
JANE
P.
DULAY,
petitioner,
vs.
ABOITIZ
JEBSEN
MARITIME,
INC.
and
GENERAL
CHARTERERS,
INC
Who
has
jurisdiction
over
a
case
involving
the
interpretation
or
implementation
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement:
the
labor
arbiter
or
the
voluntary
arbitrator?
The
recent
case
of
Estate
of
Nelson
R.
Dulay
represented
by
his
wife
Merridy
Jane
P.
Dulay
vs.
Aboitiz
Jebsen
Maritime,
Inc.
&
General
Charterers,
Inc.
(G.R.
No.
172642)
decided
by
the
Supreme
Court
on
June
13,
2012
answered
the
above
question
by
holding
that
the
voluntary
arbitrator
should
take
cognizance
of
such
an
issue.
In
the
said
Dulay
case,
a
veteran
seafarer,
after
completion
of
his
employment
contract,
and
while
still
a
bona
fide
member
of
a
union
which
was
the
collective
bargaining
agent
of
his
employer,
died
of
acute
renal
failure
secondary
to
septicemia.
The
widow
claimed
for
death
benefits
through
the
grievance
procedure
of
the
Collective
Bargaining
Agreement
(CBA)
between
the
seafarers
union
and
his
employer
but
the
procedure
was
declared
deadlocked.
Pursuant
to
a
provision
in
the
CBA,
the
widow
then
filed
a
claim
against
the
employer
for
death
and
medical
benefits
and
damages
amounting
to
US
90,000
dollars
before
the
National
Labor
Relations
Commission
(NLRC)
Arbitration
Board.
A
few
days
later,
the
deceased
seafarers
brother
received
20,000
Pesos
from
the
employer
pursuant
to
a
different
and
separate
provision
of
the
same
CBA
and
released
the
union
from
further
liability.
The
employer
insisted
that
the
NLRC
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
widos
claim
due
to
the
absence
of
an
employer-employee
relationship
at
the
time
of
the
seafarers
death
and
the
fact
that
the
seafarers
contract
was
already
completed
prior
to
his
demise.
The
labor
arbiter
and
the
NLRC
both
recognized
the
claim
and
ruled
in
favor
of
the
widow,
ordering
the
claims
arising
out
of
an
employer-
employee
relationship
or
by
virtue
of
any
employer
to
pay.
SBCA
2nd
Sem
SY
15-16
On
appeal,
the
Court
of
Appeals
(CA)
reversed
the
decision
of
the
NLRC
and
referred
the
claim
to
the
National
Conciliation
and
Mediation
Board
(NCMB)
for
the
designation
of
the
voluntary
arbitrator
or
constitution
of
a
panel
of
voluntary
arbitrators
for
appropriate
resolution
on
the
applicable
CBA
provision
to
be
applied
insofar
as
death
benefits
due
to
the
heirs
of
the
seafarer
are
concerned.
The
Supreme
Court
affirmed
the
CA
ruling,
finding
that
Republic
Act
(RA)
No.
8042,
the
special
law
governing
overseas
Filipino
workers,
does
not
provide
for
any
provision
regarding
jurisdiction
over
disputes
or
unresolved
grievances
on
the
interpretation
or
implementation
of
a
CBA.
Section
10
of
R.A.
8042
simply
speaks
in
general
of
law
or
contract
involving
Filipino
workers
for
overseas
deployment
including
claims
for
actual,
moral,
exemplary
and
other
forms
of
damages.
On
the
other
hand,
Articles
217
(c)
and
261
of
the
Labor
Code,
a
general
statute,
are
clear
and
particular
in
expressing
that
voluntary
arbitrators
have
jurisdiction
over
case
arising
from
the
interpretation
or
implementation
of
CBAs..
As
such,
the
specific
or
special
provisions
of
the
Labor
Code
govern
and
not
those
of
R.A.
8042.
The
High
Court,
upon
review
of
the
CBA
which
the
seafarers
widow
considers
to
be
the
law
between
the
parties,
likewise
concluded
that
the
parties
really
intended
to
bring
to
conciliation
or
voluntary
arbitration
any
dispute
or
conflict
in
the
interpretation
or
application
of
the
provisions
of
their
CBA.
It
noted
that
Section
7
of
the
Omnibus
Rules
and
Regulations,
as
amended
by
R.S.
10022,
promulgated
by
the
Department
of
Labor
and
Employment
and
the
Department
of
Foreign
Affairs,
which
implement
R.A.
8042,
so
provides
that
for
Overseas
Filipino
Workers
with
CBAs
the
case
shall
be
submitted
for
voluntary
arbitration
following
Articles
261
and
262
of
the
Labor
Code.
Such
is
the
same
idea
invoked
in
Section
29
of
the
POEA
Standard
Employment
contract.
The
Court
made
it
clear
that
with
respect
to
disputes
involving
claims
of
Filipino
seafarers
where
the
parties
are
covered
by
a
CBA,
the
dispute
or
claim
should
be
submitted
to
the
jurisdiction
of
a
voluntary
arbitrator
or
panel
of
arbitrators.
In
the
absence
of
a
CBA,
the
parties
may
opt
to
submit
the
dispute
to
either
to
the
NLRC
or
to
voluntary
arbitration.
This
position
is
consistent
with
the
policy
of
the
state
and
Section
3,
Article
13
of
the
Constitution
to
promote
voluntary
arbitration
as
a
mode
of
settling
labor
disputes.
PAUL
V.
SANTIAGO,
petitioner,
vs.
CF
SHARP
CREW
MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
respondent.
G.R.
No.
162419
July
10,
2007
TINGA,
J.:
FACTS:
AKD Digests 8
In
G.R.
No.
152642,
in
2002,
Rey
Salac
et
al,
who
are
recruiters
deploying
workers
abroad,
sought
to
enjoin
the
Secretary
of
Labor,
Patricia
Sto.
Tomas,
the
POEA,
and
TESDA,
from
regulating
the
activities
of
private
recruiters.
Salac
et
al
invoked
Sections
29
and
30
of
the
Republic
Act
8042
or
the
Migrant
Workers
Act
which
provides
that
recruitment
agency
in
the
Philippines
shall
be
deregulated
one
year
from
the
passage
of
the
said
law;
that
5
years
thereafter,
recruitment
should
be
fully
deregulated.
RA
8042
was
passed
in
1995,
hence,
Salac
et
al
insisted
that
as
early
as
2000,
the
aforementioned
government
agencies
should
have
stopped
issuing
memorandums
and
circulars
regulating
the
recruitment
of
workers
abroad.
Sto.
Tomas
then
questioned
the
validity
of
Sections
29
and
30.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
Sections
29
and
30
are
valid.
HELD:
The
issue
became
moot
and
academic.
It
appears
that
during
the
pendency
of
this
case
in
2007,
RA
9422
(An
Act
to
Strengthen
the
Regulatory
Functions
of
the
POEA)
was
passed
which
repealed
Sections
29
and
30
of
RA
8042.
G.R.
167590
In
this
case,
the
Philippine
Association
of
Service
Exporters,
Inc.
(PASEI)
questioned
the
validity
of
the
following
provisions
of
RA
8042:
a.
Section
6,
which
defines
the
term
illegal
recruitment.
PASEI
claims
that
the
definition
by
the
law
is
vague
as
it
fails
to
distinguish
between
licensed
and
non-licensed
recruiters;
b.
Section
7,
which
penalizes
violations
against
RA
8042.
PASEI
argues
that
the
penalties
for
simple
violations
against
RA
8042,
i.e.,
mere
failure
to
render
report
or
obstructing
inspection
are
already
punishable
for
at
least
6
years
and
1
day
imprisonment
an
a
fine
of
at
least
P200k.
PASEI
argues
that
such
is
unreasonable;
c.
Section
9,
which
allows
the
victims
of
illegal
recruitment
to
have
the
option
to
either
file
the
criminal
case
where
he
or
she
resides
or
at
the
place
where
the
crime
was
committed.
PASEI
argues
that
this
provision
is
void
for
being
contrary
to
the
Rules
of
Court
which
provides
that
criminal
cases
must
be
prosecuted
in
the
place
where
the
crime
or
any
of
its
essential
elements
were
committed;
d.
Section
10,
which
provides
that
corporate
officers
and
directors
of
a
company
found
to
be
in
violation
of
RA
8042
shall
be
themselves
be
jointly
and
solidarily
liable
with
the
corporation
or
partnership
for
the
aforesaid
claims
and
damages.
PASEI
claims
that
this
automatic
liability
imposed
upon
corporate
officers
and
directors
is
void
for
being
violative
of
due
process.
RTC
Judge
Jose
Paneda
of
Quezon
City
agreed
with
PASEI
and
he
declared
the
said
provisions
of
RA
8042
as
void.
Secretary
AKD Digests 9
AKD Digests 10
SBCA
2nd
Sem
SY
15-16
AKD Digests 11