Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MIGRANT WORKERS (2) The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not
COMMENCEMENT OF RELATIONSHIP MONEY CLAIMS include overtime and leave pay. For seafarers
ABOSTA SHIP V. HILARIO: The contract was SERRANO V. GALLANT: (1) In sum, prior to like petitioner, DOLE Department Order No. 33,
already perfected on the date of its execution, R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with series 1996, provides a Standard Employment
which occurred when petitioner and respondent fixed-term employment who were illegally Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is
agreed on the object and the cause, as well as discharged were treated alike in terms of the understood as the basic wage, exclusive of
on the rest of the terms and conditions therein. computation of their money claims: they were overtime, leave pay and other bonuses;
Naturally, contemporaneous with the perfection uniformly entitled to their salaries for the whereas overtime pay is compensation for all
of the employment contract was the birth of entire unexpired portions of their work "performed" in excess of the regular eight
certain rights and obligations, a breach of contracts. But with the enactment of R.A. No. hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any
which may give rise to a cause of action 8042, specifically the adoption of the subject work "performed" on designated rest days and
against the erring party.16 Also, the POEA clause, illegally dismissed OFWs with an holidays.
Standard Contract must be recognized and unexpired portion of one year or more in their By the foregoing definition alone, there is no
respected. Thus, neither the manning agent employment contract have since been basis for the automatic inclusion of overtime
nor the employer can simply prevent a seafarer differently treated in that their money claims and holiday pay in the computation of
from being deployed without a valid reason. are subject to a 3-month cap, whereas no such petitioner's monetary award, unless there is
limitation is imposed on local workers with evidence that he performed work during those
fixed-term employment. The Court concludes periods.
SANTIAGO V. C.F. SHARP: A distinction must that the subject clause contains a suspect
be made between the perfection of the classification in that, in the computation SAMEER OVERSEAS V. CABILES: (1) Well-
employment contract and the commencement of the monetary benefits of fixed-term established is the rule that lex loci
of the employer employees who are illegally discharged, it contractus (the law of the place where the
employee relationship. The perfection of the imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of contract is made) governs in this
contract, which in this case coincided with the OFWs with an unexpired portion of one jurisdiction. There is no question that the
date of execution thereof, occurred when year or more in their contracts, but none contract of employment in this case was
petitioner and respondent agreed on the object on the claims of other OFWs or local perfected here in the Philippines.
and the cause, as well as the rest of the terms workers with fixed-term employment. The Therefore, the Labor Code, its
and conditions therein. The commencement of subject clause singles out one implementing rules and regulations, and
the employer-employee relationship, as earlier classification of OFWs and burdens it with other laws affecting labor apply in this
discussed, would have taken place had a peculiar disadvantage. case. Furthermore, settled is the rule that the
petitioner been actually deployed from the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign
point of hire. Thus, even before the start of There being a suspect classification involving a claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.
any employer-employee relationship, vulnerable sector protected by the Here in the Philippines, employment
contemporaneous with the perfection of the Constitution, the Court now subjects the agreements are more than contractual in
employment contract was the birth of certain classification to a strict judicial scrutiny, and nature. The Constitution itself, in Article XIII,
rights and obligations, the breach of which may determines whether it serves a compelling Section 3, guarantees the special protection of
give rise to a cause of action against the erring state interest through the least restrictive workers.
party. Thus, if the reverse had happened, that means.
is the seafarer failed or refused to be deployed (2) In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution
as agreed upon, he would be liable for The subject clause does not state or imply any is supreme. No branch or office of the
damages. definitive governmental purpose; and it is for government may exercise its powers in any
that precise reason that the clause violates not manner inconsistent with the Constitution,
Moreover, while the POEA Standard Contract just petitioner's right to equal protection, but regardless of the existence of any law that
must be recognized and respected, neither the
supports such exercise. The Constitution overseas, in general, and Filipino migrant
cannot be trumped by any other law. All APQ V. CASENAS: (1) Employment contracts workers, in particular.[23] The State shall
laws must be read in light of the of seafarers on board foreign ocean-going provide adequate and timely social, economic
Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent vessels are not ordinary contracts. They are and legal services to Filipino migrant
with it is a nullity. regulated and an imprimatur by the State is workers.[24] The rights and interest
necessary. While the seafarer and his employer of distressed[25] overseas Filipinos, in general,
are governed by their mutual agreement, the and Filipino migrant workers, in particular,
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is
POEA Rules and Regulations require that the documented or undocumented, are adequately
null because it is inconsistent with the
POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer’s protected and safeguarded.[26]
Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by
contract.15 In this case, there is no dispute that
reincorporation or reenactment of the same Caseñas’ employment contract was duly Becmen and White Falcon, as licensed local
or a similar law or provision. A law or approved by the POEA and that it incorporated recruitment agencies, miserably failed to abide
provision of law that was already declared the provisions of the POEA-SEC. by the provisions of R.A. 8042. Recruitment
unconstitutional remains as such unless agencies are expected to extend assistance to
circumstances have so changed as to R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the their deployed OFWs, especially those in
warrant a reverse conclusion. substitution or alteration to the prejudice of the distress.
worker, of employment contracts already
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. approved and verified by the Department of (2) Private employment agencies are held
Gallant Maritime that limiting wages Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time jointly and severally liable with the foreign-
that should be recovered by an illegally of actual signing thereof by the parties up to based employer for any violation of the
dismissed overseas worker to three and including the period of the expiration of recruitment agreement or contract of
months is both a violation of due the same without the approval of the DOLE. A employment. This joint and solidary liability
process and the equal protection subsequently executed side agreement of an imposed by law against recruitment agencies
clauses of the Constitution. overseas contract worker with her foreign and foreign employers is meant to assure the
employer which reduced his salary below the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient
amount approved by the POEA is void because payment of what is due him.[37] If the
it is against our existing laws, morals and recruitment/placement agency is a juridical
LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL/AGENT;
public policy. The said side agreement cannot being, the corporate officers and directors and
THEORY OF IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE:
supersede her standard employment contract partners as the case may be, shall themselves
SEALANES V. DELATORRE: (1)
approved by the POEA. be jointly and solidarily liable with the
The liability of the principal/employer and
corporation or partnership for the aforesaid
the recruitment/placement agency for any
(2) In a nutshell, there are three (3) claims and damages.
and all claims under this section shall be requirements necessary for the complete
joint and several. This provision shall be termination of the employment contract : (a) SUNACE V. NLRC: The theory of imputed
incorporated in the contract for overseas termination due to expiration or other knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the
employment and shall be a condition reasons/causes; (b) signing off from the agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer
precedent for its approval. vessel; and (c) arrival at the point of hire. In Xiong, not the other way around.[23] The
this case, there was no clear showing that knowledge of the principal-foreign employer
In addition, every applicant for license to Caseñas signed off from the vessel upon the cannot, therefore, be imputed to its agent
operate a seafarer’s manning agency shall, expiration of his employment contract. Sunace.
in the case of a corporation or partnership,
submit a written application together with, There being no substantial proof that Sunace
among others, a verified undertaking by knew of and consented to be bound under the
officers, directors and partners that they will BECMEN V. CUARESMA: (1) Under Republic 2-year employment contract extension, it
be jointly and severally liable with the Act No. 8042 (R.A. 8042), or the Migrant cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it
company over claims arising from employer- Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of and its owner cannot be held solidarily liable
1995,[22] the State shall, at all times, uphold for any of Divina’s claims arising from the 2-
employee relationship.
the dignity of its citizens whether in country or year employment extension.
performance evaluation on Palad, petitioner the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, failed to warn Palad of her alleged poor was illegal under the law.
there was an implied revocation of its agency performance. The records are bereft of
relationship with its foreign principal when, evidence to show that petitioner ever gave Even if the Court recognized the company’s
after the termination of the original Palad the opportunity to explain and defend need to train its employees through
employment contract, the foreign principal herself. Clearly, the two requisites for a valid apprenticeship, only the first apprenticeship
directly negotiated with Divina and entered into dismissal are lacking in this case. agreement can be considered for that purpose.
a new and separate employment contract in With the expiration of the first agreement and
Taiwan. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code (2) The Labor Code defines an apprentice as a the retention of the employees, Atlanta had,
reading worker who is covered by a written recognized the completion of their training and
apprenticeship agreement with an employer. In their acquisition of a regular employee status.
“The agency is revoked if the principal directly turn, RA 7796 emphasizes TESDA’s approval of To foist upon them the second apprenticeship
manages the business entrusted to the agent, the apprenticeship program as a pre-requisite agreement for a second skill which was not
dealing directly with third persons”. for the hiring of apprentices. Absent such even mentioned in the agreement itself,[59] is a
approval and registration, the employee hired violation of the Labor Codes implementing
APPRENTICE (Requirements/Effects of an shall be deemed regular. rules[60] and is an act manifestly unfair to the
invalid agreement) employees.
CENTURY V. CA: (1) Under Article 279[22] of In this case, the apprenticeship agreement was
the Labor Code, an employer may terminate entered into between the parties before
the services of an employee for just petitioner filed its apprenticeship program with
causes[23] or for authorized the TESDA for approval. Petitioner and Palad
causes.[24] Furthermore, under Article executed the apprenticeship agreement on 17
277(b)[25] of the Labor Code, the employer July 1997 wherein it was stated that the
must send the employee who is about to be training would start on 17 July 1997 and would
terminated, a written notice stating the causes end approximately in December 1997.[17] On
for termination and must give the employee 25 July 1997, petitioner submitted for approval
the opportunity to be heard and to defend its apprenticeship program, which the TESDA
himself. Thus, to constitute valid dismissal subsequently approved on 26 September
from employment, two requisites must concur: 1997.[18] Clearly, the apprenticeship agreement
(1) the dismissal must be for a just or was enforced even before the TESDA approved
authorized cause; and (2) the employee must petitioner’s apprenticeship program. Thus, the
be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to apprenticeship agreement is void because it
defend himself.[26] lacked prior approval from the TESDA.