2017 Pre-Bar Lecture: (1:27) First Off, The Migrant Worker's Act

2017 Pre-Bar Lecture
Labor Law (Special Labor Laws)

Atty. Joyrich Golangco

(0:02) Good afternoon. Our topics will be as follows, R.A. 8042 as amended, otherwise known
as the Migrant Workers Act. Ill also discuss salient provisions of the 2016 Revised Rules of
Procedure, Anti-Age Discrimination Act, SSS law, GSIS law, Limited Portability law, Employees
Compensation law, IRR of R.A. 7610 regarding child workers, also few provisions on the Magna
Carta for Disabled Persons, I think I prepared a small slide for D.O. 174-17 yung salient features
lang, and D.O. 167-16 regarding the amendment of the age of retirement for surface miners, so
let me begin.
(1:27) First off, the Migrant Workers Act.
This is the first thing you should remember in studying the Migrant Workers Act, the 14 acts
which are considered as illegal recruitment and placement, but, I know everybody knows this
already. Lets just read through them very briefly. 1. To charge or accept directly/indirectly any
amount greater than that specified in the schedule of fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment or to make the worker pay or acknowledge any amount greater than that
actually received by him as a loan or advance. 2. Misrepresentation regarding the relation to
recruitment or employment. 3. To give any false notice, testimony or information or document or
commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the
LC, or the reprocessing. So, it says here that it will include the act of reprocessing through a job
order which pertains to a non-existing work or work different from the actual overseas work, or
work with a different employer whether registered or not with the POEA. So, the reprocessing of
workers may be committed in 3 ways, as stated there. Pwedeng halimbawa, magpa-alis ka
nung tao abroad, you are an accredited agency but you sent him to another foreign principal
whether or not they accredited with the POEA. Provided that, hindi sila threatened sa iyo,
because, as you know, kapag nag-tthreaten ang Overseas Filipino Workers, dapat yung job
order the same, the work performed is the same as described in the job order, and you should
be sent to the employer named in your documents na accredited sa iyo. Halimbawa, pinadala
mo yung employee, yung OFW, to another employer which is accredited in the Philippines but
not accredited to you, then you can be held liable for illegal recruitment under this item. Letter D,
to induce or to attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to
offer him another, unless of course, the transfer is designed to liberate the worker from
oppressive terms and conditions of employment. So, itong Pirating, halimbawa, kukunin yung
employee, mas maganda yung terms and conditions of work na ibibigay sa kanya, lets say
before, $20,000, ngayon, $30,000 a month plus additional perks, then can you be held liable for
illegal recruitment? No.
(04:47) Letter E, to influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any
worker who has not applied for employment thru his agency or who has formed, joined or
supported, or has contracted or is supported by any union or workers organization. There are
actually 2 acts here, yung una, influence or attempt to influence an entity not to employ a worker
who has not applied thru the agency. Or, yung tao kasi, hindi siya nag-join sa organization niyo.
Letter F, to engage in recruitment and placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health,
morality and to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines. H, to fail to submit reports on the
status of employment, placement, vacancies or remittance of foreign exchange earnings,
separation from jobs, departure, and such other matters or information as may be required by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment. I, to substitute or to alter to the prejudice of the worker,
employment contracts approved and verified by the DOLE from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without approval
of the DOLE. You know na lahat ng documents ng worker should be processed thru the POEA.
If it is not processed thru the POEA, then the worker may be considered as a direct hire or main
hire, and we recall, probably in your previous discussions with your other lecturer, that direct
2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE
[Rashi Edding][Joe Rivera][Chare Marcial] 1
[Alex Tumulak][April Villamor][Agatha Corpus]
[Nikka Agustin][Sittie Lao][Bea Yu][Coleen De Leon][Jihan Llames][James Pellosis][Gee Lopez][Fawn Reynon]


hire per se is prohibited by law. Save for certain exceptions, yung mga na-hire ng diplomatic
corps, international organizations. Pero dito, ang punished lang, yung i-susubstitute mo yung
contract ng worker to his prejudice. For example, our worker, in his contract of employment, he
is entitled to receive $20,000 a month pero, pinalitan nalan yung contract niya abroad, sasabhin
Ay,hindi ka nag-perform ng maganda. Bibigyan nalang kita ng $15,000 a month.
Notwithstanding any problems with his performance, still, the contract is binding between the
parties. Yung pinalitan nilang contract from 20 to 15, is to the prejudice of the employee, so the
entity or the person may be held liable for illegal recruitment. J, for an officer or an agent of the
recruitment or placement agency, to become an officer/member of the board of any corporation
engaged in travel agencies, or to be engaged directly/indirectly in the management of a travel
agency. K, to withhold or deny any travel documents from applicant workers before departure
for monetary or financial consideration, or for any other reasons other than those authorized by
the LC and its Implementing Rules.
(08:19) L, failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without a valid reason as determined by
DOLE. M, failure to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with his documentation and
processing for the purpose of deployment in case the deployment does not actually take place
without the workers fault. So take note, if lets say the employee, nag-back out sa trabaho, lets
say, ayaw na niya because he found a better employment here, then the agency who recruited
him and has failed to deploy him cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment because this one.
You can be held liable for this act only if it is on account of the agencys fault, without the
workers participation. Finally, to allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a licensed
recruitment agency or manning agency. Illegal recruitment, economic sabotage can either be,
committed by a syndicate or on a large scale. It is committed by syndicate if it is carried out by a
group of 3 or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. At least three. It is
committed in large scale if it is committed against 3 or more persons individually or as a group.
Huwag natin kakalimutan, yung 3 or more. Simple illegal recruitment, economic sabotage. What
are the distinctions? There is a simple illegal recruitment if the recruitment is carried out by not
more than 2 persons or committed against not more than 2 persons. Kasi, kapag 3 or more na
ang involved, large scale or economic sabotage na by a syndicate or large scale. Illegal
recruitment, when committed by a syndicate or large scale shall be considered as an offense
involving economic sabotage.
(10:45) Penalties for illegal recruitment. There are different penalties for different types of illegal
recruitment. For a simple illegal recruitment, a person found guilty shall suffer a penalty of
imprisonment of not less than 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, and a fine of not less than P1
Million but not more than P2 Million. Whereas, if you committed a crime involving economic
sabotage, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed and a fine of not less than P2
Million no more than P5 Million shall be imposed if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage as defined therein. But, if you employ an under aged person, and he is immediately
repatriated, and you are found guiltiy of illegal recruitment, then, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed. And then of course, it will be an automatic revocation of the license or registration of
the agency. And, if it is committed by a foreigner, he will be deported to his country of origin.
Now, we also have certain prohibited acts, please take note that this 7 prohibited acts is
separate and distinct from the crimes considered as illegal recruitment. Doon, you have 14 acts,
this one, you have 7 prohibited acts which has a separate and distinct penalty. But, I will discuss
to you later kung ano ang ginawa nila sa 2016 POEA Rules of Procedure. Ano ba yung mga
prohibited acts na iyan? 1. To grant a loan to an OFW with interest exceeding 8% per annum,
which will be used for payment of legal and allowable placement fees, and take note of the other
element, to make a migrant worker issue, personally or through a guarantor or accommodation



party, post-datec checks in relation to the loan. For this act, you have to commit 2 acts. Di ka
lang magpapautang ng more than 8%, pero, irerequire mo parin siya mag-issue ng post-dated
check. Pag di mo siya na-require mag issue ng post-dated check, of course, sac rim law, the
crime is not committed kasi kulang ng isang element. 2. To impose a compulsory and exclusive
arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is required to avail of a loan only from
specifically designated institutions, entities or persons. 3. To refuse to negotiate, or condone a
loan incurred by the OFW if his contract has been prematurely terminated without his fault. Lets
say, nangutang siya tapos napauwi siya kasi may giyera sa Iraq. So, its either the party should
have his loan renegotiated at the very least, kung hindi man siya i-cocondone.
(14:08) 4. Same as with item number 2. Ito naman, impose a compulsory arrangement whereby
the OFW is required to undergo health examinations only from specifically designated medical
clinics, institutions or entities or persons, except in cases of seafarers whose medical
examination cost is shouldered by the principal or ship owner. 5. Same act, but its just that dito,
i-rerequire mo siya to undergo training in a specific institution. So, ano nga ba yung prohibited
acts, yung number 2, i-rerequire mo siya mag loan sa single institution, i-rerequire mo siya mag-
undergo ng medical examination sa isang institution lang, or, i-rerequire mo siya mag-undergo
ng training sa isang testing center. Unless of course for items 4 and 5, if the foreign principal or
agency will shoulder the cost, they cannot be held liable for the prohibited acts. 6. For
suspended recruitment agency, to engage in any kind of recruitment activities including the
processing of pending workers application. Because, as you can recall, usually, ang nangyayari
dito, its either they have committed violation of the POEA rules, therefore, they have been
suspended. Halimbawa, may i-rerepatriate na OFW, tapos, hindi nila na-repatriate on time or
wala silang biniling pre-paid airline ticket para doon sa tao within the time prescribed by the
POEA, then, the POEA will suspend the documentary processing of the company. When they
say document processing, lahat ng workers, whether bago or palabas na ng Pinas yung tao,
hindi na nila aaksyunan yung paper mo. And, if you submit papers to them, you can be held
liable for violating this act. 7. For recruitment and manning agency and their foreign principal to
pass on to overseas Filipino worker, or deduct from his/her salary, the payment of the cost of
insurance fees, premiums and other insurance related charges as provided under the
Compulsory Workers Insurance coverage. So, in this case, please take note that the mandatory
insurance is free. Except when you have a name hiree who voluntarily registered with the POEA
or government to government arrangement. Pwede sila magbayad or what you call the Balik-
Manggagawa. Yung Balik-Manggagawa, di na sila nagpapa-process ng papers nila doon sa
agency. What they do is that, when they come back here, they register their papers directly to
the POEA without the intervention or assistance of the agency. So, yung mga Balik-
Manggagawa, sila na yung nagbabayad ng compulsory insurance manifesting probably that
theyll personally shoulder it or pwedeng nakakuha sila ng fee from their principal abroad.
(17:45) What about the penalties? As we mentioned earlier, it is a separate and distinct act from
illegal recruitment. The penalties are much lower than illegal recruitment. If a person is found
liable for committing the said act, he may be incarcerated for a period of not less than 6 years
and 1 day to 12 years, and a fine of not less than P500,000 but not more than P1 Million. Again,
if the offender is an alien, in addition to the penalty prescribed therein, he shall be automatically
deported to his country of origin. Who may be held liable for illegal recruitment? The principals,
accomplices, and accessories. Kasi diba, penal in nature siya, we follow the provisions of the
RPC. So in case of additional persons, the officers having ownership, control and management
or direction of the business who are responsible for the commission of the offense, and
responsible agents and employees thereof shall also be held liable. We have here a problem, it
was taken from a case. X is a cashier of E Recruitment Agency, he recruited A,B,C, and D for
overseas employment under the direction of her employer. She received the payments of the


applicants, transmitted the payments to the company treasurer but failed to deploy the workers.
Can she be held liable for illegal recruitment? For those of you who can recall the case of
Melissa Chua? People vs. Melissa Chua. The facts are taken from the case of Melissa Chua.
Kasi, Melissa Chua was an employee of the company pero hindi talaga siya yung President ng
company, nag-recruit siya on the directive of the company. Tapos, yung pera dumaan sa kanya,
na-remit naman niya sa company treasurer so wala naman siyang na-enjoy na advantage
whatsoever but, she was held liable for committing illegal recruitment. Thats the answer to the
question. Can she be held liable for illegal recruitment? Yes. All of the elements of illegal
recruitment are present. The Court said, X cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her
participation as a cashier of E Recruitment Agency. The provisions of Section 6 of 8042 as
amended is equivocal that illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is immaterial
therefore, whether X remitted the placement fee to the agency treasurer or appropriated them.
The provision likewise provides that persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are
principals, accomplices and accessories. Therefore, X can be held liable as a principal by direct
participation since she personally undertook the recruitment of applicants without any authority.
(21:07) Illegal recruitment and Estafa.
A person can be found liable for both illegal recruitment and estafa at the same time precisely
for the reason that, they have the different elements and they are penalized by different laws.
One is malum prohibitum, and one is malum in se. Criminal intent is not necessary for the
conviction/violation of 8042 as amended, while in Estafa of course, criminal intent or malice is a
requirement. So, this is a chart comparing the elements of both offenses. When a person is
charged of illegal recruitment, the elements would be, recruitment and placement is undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, or a holder or a licensee commits any of the acts
considered as illegal recruitment. That is based on 8042 as amended. Kung tatanungin kayo sa
Bar exam niyan, mapapansin niyo yung D.O. 141-14, but I will not discuss that anymore since
na-discuss na iyan sa recruitment and placement. Tingnan niyo yung acts doon, yung acts
considered as illegal recruitment, there is 11. In 8042 as amended, we have 14. Please take
note of that, I know yung mga acts, memorize na natin siya. If you base it in logic only, hindi mo
malalaman yung isang act would be considered as illegal recruitment per se, as defined by law.
Estafa, usually ang na-commit na offense diyan ay violation of Article 315, item no. 2, paragraph
a, so based on false pretense. There must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to
power, influence, qualification, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transaction. The
false pretense was made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud. The offended
party relied on the false pretense and it induced him to part with his money or property, and as a
result, the offended party suffered damage. I suppose it was discuss already, the case of
People vs. Panis sa previous meeting? Yung proviso diba, because there is a definition, Art. 13
(b) of the LC. In the definition of recruitment and placement, mayroong last proviso doon.
Theres this proviso there, ang sabi doon, 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. Bsically, Panis was charged of illegal recruitment. Ang
defense niya, Hindi ako liable for illegal recruitment kasi isa lang yung tao na nag-charge sa
akin. So, based on the definition, tapos sinama niya yung sa proviso, ngayon ang sabi niya,
Dapat at least two or more persons, isa lang naman ito eh. Ganun yung kwento, but the Court
said, that the proviso only creates a presumption that the person is engaged in recruitment and
placement. Basta lahat ng elements ng recruitment and placement is present, kahit may isa
lang na nag-charge sa iyo, then, the person can be held liable for illegal recruitment.



(25:44) We have this Theory of Imputed Knowledge. What does it provide? Theory of Imputed
Knowledge describes knowledge of the agent to the principal. The principal is cognizant of the
circumstance of fact attributed to the agent because of his position or relationship with the latter.
The applicable case is Sun Ace International vs. NLRC. Sun Ace is a recruitment agency who
deployed Divina as a domestic worker in Taiwan for a one-year contract. After the expiration of
her contract, she stayed with the employer for 2 more years. When she arrived in Manila, she
filed a complaint against Sun Ace because she claims that she was jailed for 3 months, and she
was under paid. Sun Ace denied liability, sabi nila, they have no knowledge or nor did they give
consent to Divinas extension of employment. Kasi remember, the contract is only for one year.
Divina insists that Sun Ace is liable based on the theory of Imputed Knowledge. So kung alam
ng principal, sabi niya, alam nung agent. What did the Court rule? Was Sun Ace liable? No. Sun
Ace is not liable. The Theory of Imputed Knowledge is not applicable because the theory of
imputed knowledge describes knowledge of the agent to the principal. Kung alam dapat ni Sun
Ace, alam ng principal, not the other way around. There being no substantial proof that Sun Ace
knew of and consented to be bound under the 2 year extension, it cannot be a said privy
thereto. Further, there was implied revocation of Sun Ace agencys relationship with the foreign
principal, when after the termination of the original contract, the foreign principal directly
negotiated with Divina and created, and entered into a separate contract in Taiwan.
(28:08) I suppose everybody knows about the venue on the criminal case involving illegal
recruitment and the prohibited acts? The criminal action for illegal recruitment shall be filed with
the RTC having jurisdiction over the residence of the complainant, or where the offense was
committed at the option of the complainant. And of course, you know the prescriptive period, if
its a simple illegal recruitment, we have 5 years. For economic sabotage, you have 20 years
from the commission of the crime. Now, definitions are also important. We all know who an
Overseas Filipino Worker is, he is a person who is to be engaged, is engaged, or has been
engaged, in an remunerative activity in the state in which he/she is not a citizen or, on board a
vessel navigating the foreign seas other than a government ship used for military or non-
commercial purposes, or in an installation located offshore or on high seas, to be used in
exchange of view with Migrant Workers. So OFW and Migrant Workers, the same. With the
amendment of 122, if you can remember, wala nang distinction regarding a seafarer and an
Overseas Filipino Worker. Dati kasi, ang overseas Filipino worker, nirerefer lang nila sa
landbased workers, ngayon, sinama na nila. But, if you can recall last meetings discussion
doon sa Seafarers Protection Act, it exclusively applies to seafarers who are deployed abroad.
So, what are the guarantees of a Migrant Workers rights? The Philippines shall only allow the
deployment of Overseas Filipinos in countries where the rights of the workers are protected.
These are the guarantees, the receiving country should have existing labor or social laws
protecting the rights of workers including migrant workers or it is a signatory to a multi-lateral
agreement relating to the protection of the workers, including migrant workers or it has
concluded a bilateral agreement with the Government on the protection of the Overseas Filipino
Worker. So, take note, either of the three, pwede. Lets say, mayroon lang siyang bilateral
agreement with the Philippines, that is sufficient already provided that the second requirement
would be, the receiving country is taking positive and concrete measures to protect the rights of
the workers. What does positive and concrete measure mean? The IRR defines it as follows, it
shall include legislative or executive initiative, diplomatic negotiation, judicial decisions,
program, projects and activities and such other acts by the receiving country aimed at protecting
the migrant workers.
(31:29) The rules also, Rule 5, discusses the prohibition of government personnel to engage in
recruitment and placement of Overseas Filipino Workers. Basta lahat nung entity engaged in
the implementation of 8042 as amended is prohibited from recruitment and placement of


Overseas Filipino Workers, and their relatives of consanguinity or affinity up to the fourth civil
degree are likewise prohibited from engaging in recruitment and placement of overseas
workers. So para mabilis natin maalala, tandaan natin yung mga agencies kung saan ba
dumadaan yung Overseas Filipino Worker, then we would remember kung anong mga agencies
iyan kasi medyo marami. We have the DOLE, just remember all the DOLE family, we have
DOLE, POEA, OWWA, NLRC because NLRC adjudicates the case diba? TESDA because
usually the testings come from there. And then after that, we have the BI, the Bureau of
Immigration kasi pag naayos mo na yung paper mo diba, dadaan ka dun. DOH, kasi DOH has a
participation in the implementation of 8042 as amended with respect to the regulation of the
clinics. Civil Aviation Authority, the CFO. Civil Aviation Authority kasi sasakay ng eroplano yung
Overseas Filipino Worker, right? And then of course, the CFO sa agency, Commission on
Filipinos Overseas, not necessarily overseas Filipino workers. We have DOJ, kasi pagbalik mo
dito, mag-ffile ka ng case for illegal recruitment and they would have to conduct the PI. PNP,
because the PNP now will enforce, lets say, theres a probable cause found against you and
the information has been filed in court, sila ngayon yung manghuhuli sa iyo pag may warrant of
arrest na. Tandaan lang natin iyon, kung saan dadaan yung Overseas Filipino Worker. And of
course, IC, Insurance Commission because we now have the compulsory insurance. Tandaan
lang natin kung saan pupunta yung overseas worker, di na tayo ma-coconfuse, medyo mahaba
kasi talaga yung listing nila.
(34:18) Another important provision is Section 10. One of the most important, I believe.
Basically, Section 10 speaks of the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter over complaints filed by an
Overseas Filipino Worker, and the liability of the principal and the placement agency is joint and
solidary including that of the corporate officers of the corporation, if the agency is a juridical
being. It also speaks of the awards that could be granted to an illegally dismissed overseas
Filipino worker or to those overseas Filipino workers who are underpaid. Sabi dito, in case of
termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause defined by law or
contract, or any unauthorized deduction of the migrant workers salary, the worker shall be
entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee and deductions made with interest at 12%
per annum less the less the salaries of his unexpired portion of his employment contract.
Because we know, the last proviso there has been rendered unconstitutional already in the case
of Yap vs. Thenamaris, that was after the passage of 122. Basta hanggang diyan nalang iyan,
unexpired portion of his employment. Now regarding jurisdiction, we have this case Saudi A vs.
Rebescencio Briefly, I discussed this case last meeting. So Rebescencio and the flight
attendants were hired by Saudi Arabian Airlines, and their contracts were processed with the
POEA. They got pregnant, therefore, they were dismissed based on their unified contracts
stating that when these employees get pregnant, then their contract would be rendered null and
void. What they did is that, in order not to forfeit their benefits, they filed for their respective
resignation. Pero when they arrived in Manila, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The
main contention is that, whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the complaint? As
you can recall, sabi ng Saudi, the Philippine Court has no jurisdiction over the case based on
the forum of non-convenience. Why? Because, Saudi laws, it is stipulated in the contract that
Saudi laws will apply, and the Philippines cannot make a justifiable, or cannot correctly
determine, or cannot correctly apply the Saudi laws and has no power to determine whether or
not they are illegally dismissed. Of course you know the ruling of the court, the Labor Arbiter has
jurisdiction over the case. It says here the Doctrine of Forum of Non-convenience is not a
ground for a Motion to Dismiss. And number 2, the contractual choice of law is not determinative
of jurisdiction. As we mentioned earlier, it only determines kung anong law ang i-aapply pero
Philippine courts can rule on the matter. You just have to prove kung yung foreign law will apply.
The Court only applies the doctrines in Conflicts of Law in cases where the court may refuse



imposition on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum, and the
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. The Court said the Philippines
respects the parties autonomy to contracts but such respect should not be super missive as to
lose sight of the law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. As such, the Supreme
Court considered the provision on the CEDAW Convention where the Philippines is a signatory.
(39:01) Number 3, All the requisites of this exercise of jurisdiction are present, all the parties are
based on the Philippines. And, all material incidents transpired in this jurisdiction. The Philippine
tribunals are in the position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and facts, and the
Philippine Tribunals can enforce its decision. This case was compared to the case of Santos vs.
Manila Hotel, if you can recall, I discussed this also last week. Santos was an overseas Filipino
worker working in Oman when he was offered another employment. He was to work as a chef in
China. Tapos nun, a few months lang siya sa China, na-terminate yung services niya due to
business losses. Aggrieved, he went back to the Philippines. he filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against Manila Hotel. But, Manila Hotel kasi, hindi siya yung agency nito. Its related to
the company but it is not its foreign principal. In that case, the Court declined to rule on that
case. Sabi nung Court, ang mag-aapply dito, doctrine of Forum Non-convenience. The
Philippine Court is not the proper court who can determine, or properly adjudicate the case. The
only Filipino element there was the Filipino, that was Santos. Pero, yung kung paano na-perfect
yung contract niya, kung paano siya na-dismiss, lahat abroad. Its safe to say na hindi na-
process yung documents niya thru the POEA. So lahat ng transaction niya abroad. It would be a
more convenient forum kapag sa abroad siya nag-complain. More importantly, the Philippine
court cannot enforce its decision because the company that he was suing does not have any
office in the Philippines. Hindi yan yung mismong Manila Hotel na nasa Luneta, ibang company
yung na-sue niya, its just connected but its not the same company.
(41:25) Theres this another case, joint and solidary liability of foreign principal and local agency.
Whats the purpose of this requirement? 1. To assure the Overseas Filipino of the immediate
and efficient payment of what is due them. 2. To ensure that the local agency will always be in
the lookout against foreign employers who tends to violate labor laws, less the reputation or
finances, local agencies must already have a mechanism for guarding against scrupulous
foreign employers even at the level prior to overseas employment applications Joint and
Solidary liability of corporate officers, we have two cases regarding this one. The case of Santo
Tomas vs. Salac, this is a relatively old case, if you can recall, I think there are 4 consolidated
cases, one of which in that case is this one. We have this staff nurse in Saudi, she was raped
and killed. Aggrieved, her family filed claims for death and insurance benefits and damages
against Becmen and White Falcon, the recruitment agency. NLRC found Becmen and White
Falcon jointly and solidarily liable for Jasmins death. On appeal, the CA ordered Becmens
corporate officers to be jointly and solidarily liable with their company for their failure to
investigate the true nature of Jasmins death. The corporate officers of Becmen, the local
agency, assailed the constitutionality of the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Section 10 of
8042 as amended which holds the corporate directors, officers and partners jointly and solidarily
liable with the company. The second sentence was rendered unconstitutional. Sabi ng Court,
absence of proof that the corporate officers and directors of the erring company had knowledge
of and allowed illegal recruitment, meaning they are automatically liable would violate the right
to due process of law. It ruled that pending the adjudication of the case, the liability of the
corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily liable with
the company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of the
company such as, sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of activities.



(44:16) Notwithstanding this ruling, na-declare na ng court na unconstitutional yung last

sentence ng Sec 10, of 8042. We now have the case of Bergallo vs. Go. Its a 2016 case. Ang
nangyari diyan, si Bergallo, is a seafarer, he suffered an accident while on board the vessel.
After the incident, he undertook several surgeries, tapos, parang hindi siya gumagaling, he
consulted a private physician. He filed a complaint for disability benefits before the NLRC. Ang
sabi ng Court, kasi, yung kanyang claim for disability benefits was filed within the 240-day
period. Diba, if you can recall, na-aaward ang disability benefits, the Crystal Shipping case, di
na siya yung rule of thumb, yung 120 days. So yung recuperation, pwede siya mag-extend up to
240 days, pero kung di ka pa magaling ng 240 days,o di ka binigyan ng medical findings, ng
certification na fit to work ka in 240 days, you are considered as a person suffering from
permanent total disability. Therefore, you are entitled to 100% of your disability benefits. Sabi ng
Court, Di ka pa entitled kasi within the 240-day period ka. Another issue was that, the Court
awarded them a partial disability benefit, kaya lang, ang sabi ng court in that case, they made
the officers of the company liable based on the provision which was earlier held to be
unconstitutional. Kahit na unconstitutional na siya sa Sto. Tomas vs. Salac, yung court in the
Bergallo case applied the provision of 2nd paragraph, Section 10 of 8042 as amended literally.
Wala na siyang due process. Ang sabi nila doon, the officers are also solidarily liable with the
award given to our seafarer, Bergallo. Ito yung sabi nila, Section 10 of R.A. 8042 as amended
expressly provides for joint and solidarily liability of corporate directors and officers with the
recruitment and placement agency for all money claims and damages that may be awarded to
the OFWs while the corporate directors, trustee or officer who entered into contracts in behalf of
the corporation generally, cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of the latter in
reference to the separate and distinct legal personality of a corporation from the persons
composing it. Personal liability of such corporate officers along with the corporation can be
validly attached when he is made by a specific provision of law personally answerable for his
corporate action. Na-apply nila ulit. In addition, the Court said, Seafront is presumed to have
submitted a verified undertaking by its officers and directors that they will be jointly and severally
liable with the company over claims arising from employer-employee relationship when they
apply for a license to operate a seafarers manning agency as required in the 2003 POEA Rules
governing the seafarers. Up to now, that has not been overturned, this is a decision on a MR.
Wala silang subsequent resolution, decision nan a-overturn nila ito, so most probably, the safest
answer in the Bar, would be to apply the case of Bergallo. Di siguro nila na-check yung case ng
Sto. Tomas vs. Salac but, for now, that is the prevailing rule. That is what you should write in the
Bar exams in case you would be asked a question regarding the same.
(49:19) In that case also, the issue on Attorneys fees was also discussed. The Court clarified
that Bergallo, kasi diba, nag-file siya ng case, premature, na-awardan siya ng partial disability
benefit, nag-cclaim din kasi siya ng payment of attorneys fees. Pero yung court, hindi siya na-
awardan ng attorneys fees. Ito yung sabi ng court, Attorneys fees may be awarded to the
claimant who is compelled to litigate with a third person or incurred expenses to protect his
interests by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party to whom it is sought, only when
there is sufficient showing of bad faith on the part of the latter. But, in our case, since the claim
is premature, then wala talagang bad faith on the part of Seafront na di siya bayaran ng
disability benefits kasi di pa naman tapos ang 240 days. In that case, hindi siya na-awardan ng
Attorneys fees. Awards, Money Claims. Due Process requirements and computation of legal
interests. Ill just discuss the cases and Ill go through the pertinent provisions of the rules, IRR
of 8042 as amended. We have the case of Sameer Overseas Placement vs. Cabiles. Cabiles
was employed in Taiwan for a one-year contract of employment. Doon siya sa Wacoal nag
trabaho, barely 1 month to her employment, pinauwi siya ng employer due to inefficiency.
Aggrieved, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Sameer. The issue there was



whether or not she was illegally dismissed and to determine that, you have to know what law
you will apply. The agency was insisting na the Taiwan laws would apply. Inefficient din naman
siya, they have Taiwan laws, so dapat Taiwan law should apply. What did the Court say? Was
she illegally dismissed? Yes. She was illegally dismissed. They applied the principle lex loci
contractus, foreign principal should comply with due process requirement and just cause and
due process. Take note, because the contract, sabi ng court, was performed and effected in the
Philippines. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that she worked abroad, dapat ang mag-aapply
parin is the Philippine laws. Other than Philippine laws, you apply the LC. Before you are
terminated from services there should be due process, and when we speak of due process, we
refer to substantial due process and procedural due process. Substantial, dapat mayroon kang
any of the acts mentioned in Article 282 in the old numbering, I think its 285 right now. Just
check your notes. Yung just causes for termination.
(52:42) Procedural due process, there must be two notices. First notice of course, to inform the
employee that he is being charged of a specific act and should be given opportunity to explain
within a reasonable time thereof. The second notice would be after receiving his explanation,
then you found it not plausible or unsatisfactory thereby warranting his dismissal from
employment. Hindi nakapag-comply yung company kasi if you read further the facts, sabi nung
company, ng Wacoal, inefficient siya, pinaalis na siya. Right there and then, kinuha yung
passport niya and mayroon na siyang ticket pabalik ng Philippines. Ganun yung nangyari sa
kanya. Second, ang illegally dismissed employee is entitled to full reimbursement of her
placement fee plus 12% interest per annum for unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of her
contract. Another issue here was regarding the applicability of the BSP Circular 799, kasi that
time, kalalabas palang nung BSP Circular, sabi nila, itong 12% interest per annum, di daw dapat
siya applicable. Dapat daw, na-supersede siya nung BSP Circular. What did the court say? The
BSP Circular does not supersede Section 10 of 8042 as amended. Reimbursement of
placement fees and salaries unlawfully withheld are still subject to 12% interest per annum but
the unexpired portion of the contract is subject to the BSP Circular 799. Take note that the BSP
Circular took effect July 1, 2013 in reducing the legal interest from 12% to 6%. Kung walang
particular provision of law ang nag-apply, then, you apply the BSP Circular. So this is a
summary of the application of the BSP Circular. Ang mag-aapply yung sa last, yung number 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 paragraphs 1 or 2 above, shall be 6% per annum
from such finality until its satisfaction. This interim period may be equivalent to forbearance of
credit. So yun ang mag-aapply sa illegal dismissal of an overseas Filipino worker.
(55:37) Maersk Philippines Crewing vs. Avestruz. Avestruz is a seafarer, and then one day, the
captain found that the vessel was not properly cleaned. The captain shoved the seaman on the
chest, sabi nung seaman, Dont touch me. Nagalit yung captain, na-repatriate niya yung
seafarer. Thats what happened, he was illegally dismissed. The issue in that case was whether
or not he was legally dismissed. The Court said, No. His dismissal was illegal theres no proof
that he is guilty of insubordination. In this case, the application of the two-notice rule was
emphasized. Kasi, itong mga kasong ito, prior to the case of IPMS vs. De Vera and Arriola, abi
dito, dapat meron two-notice rule bago na-terminate yung services niya. In this case, wala kasi.
Wala din silang mapalabas na proof. Because as you know, in your Transpo Law, diba all of the
transactions, all of the incidents that happened on board the vessel should be recorded in the
captains logbook. Wala silang ma-produce na incident sa logbook. Basta lang napauwi na agad
yung seafarer natin. Due process was not observed, Section 17 of POEA Rules requires the
two-notice rule. An erring seaman is given notice of the charge against him, and is afforded
opportunity to explain or defend himself. Sanctions that are imposed in the written notice of
penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished to the erring seafarer. It is only in exceptional


cases of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices
are dispensed with. But, just the same, the report shall be sent to the manning agency
supported by substantial evidence of the findings which was absent in that case. This one is one
of the important cases regarding the OFW, Arriola is a surgeon, he was deployed by Industrial
Personnel Management Services or IPMS for overseas employment as a safety officer in
Lavalin Engineers & Contractors Inc, a Canadian company to one of its projects in Madagascar.
The contract was for a period of 19 months, however, after rendering 16 months of service, he
was sent a letter notifying him of his termination from employment due to the diminishing
workload in his project site. There is no other available assignment. Aggrieved, umalis na siya
sa trabaho niya, nd then he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against IPMS.
(58:54) IPMS contends that Arriolas dismissal was legal. First, there was actually a business
slow down as shown by newspaper articles. Nagpakita sila ng newspaper articles na wala
talaga masyadong negosyo yung Canadian company. Second, the Canadian law should apply
because Arriolas documents were processed in Canada. Third, Canadian laws do not require
any ground for termination, and the only requirement was written notice of termination which
was served to Arriola. Nabigyan siya ng notice of termination. IPMS likewise submitted a copy
of the Canadian law. Was Arriola illegally dismissed? Yes. And the second issue on that case is,
will the foreign law apply, kasi nga being that his documents were processed in Canada. Yung
IPMS is ctually a recruitment agency in the Philippines. Kaya lang, may document siya dito,
pagdating niya sa Canada, may documents din siya doon, prinocess sa Canadian government,
so actually, mayroon siyang document doon. Tapos, yung na-process doon, yun yung ipapadala
sa project site sa Madagascar, kung saan siya na-terminate. So, was he illegally dismissed?
Yes. He was illegally dismissed. Ang importante dito sa kasong ito, yung second issue, when
will the foreign law govern over the overseas employment contract. These are the requisites,
that it is expressly stipulated in the overseas employment contract that a specific foreign law hall
govern. 2. The foreign law must be invoked before the court pursuant to the Philippine Rules on
Evidence. If the foreign law was not proven then, the doctrine of Processual Presumption will
apply. Ibig sabihin, if the foreign law is not proven, then it is presumed that parehas lang kayo
ng Philippine laws. 3. The foreign law was stipulated in overseas employment contract as not
made contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. 4. That the overseas
employment contract must be processed through the POEA. Because, if it is not complied with,
Art. 18 of the LC will be violated. It provides that no employer may hire a Filipino worker for
overseas employment except through boards or entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. In
this case, it was not indicated in his contract that the foreign law will apply. Further, the foreign
law invoked by IPMS is contrary to Philippine laws and the Constitution, kasi diba, we require
due process, yung two-notice rule. Pero sa kanila, walang due process.
(1:02:07) Their act, the Court said, is violative of the constitutional right of the employee to his
security of tenure. Kaya diyan, the company was held liable for illegal dismissal. These 4
elements, wag niyo lang siyang kakalimutan. These are very important. Also, Section 23 (c),
paragraph 6, is also important. In case an overseas Filipino worker is found not to be medically
fit upon his/her arrival in the country of destination, the medical clinic will conduct examinations
to the overseas Filipino worker, and shall pay for his repatriation back to the Philippines nd the
cost of deployment of such worker. Pero, ang requirement diyan is that, he is found not fit to
work within 15 days upon arrival in the foreign country. Lets say, 17 days, 16 days, pwede pang
maging administratively liable yung DOH clinic, tatanggalin yung accreditation niya. Pero, hindi
na siya liable for repatriation costs. Also, Section 37, Compulsory Insurance, one of the most
important provisions. These are the list of the coverage of the insurance, you have accidental
death insurance, accidental death benefit, permanent total disablement. Number 3, is actually



important, repatriation costs of workers, where his/her employment is terminated without valid
cause including the transport of his/her belongings. In case of death, kasama na din yung pag-
uwi ng kanyang remains. Subsistence allowance benefit, this is given to an employee who is
having a litigation in the foreign country to protect his right. At least $100 per month, and not
exceeding 6 months. Take note, kahit basahin niyo yung buong rules, yung employer is not
actually obligated, or the recruitment agency is not obligated to award an overseas Filipino
worker, a subsistence benefit. Wala iyan, insurance lang iyan. Money claims arising from
employers liability which shall be awarded or given to the worker in a judgment or settlement in
his/her case in the NLRC. This is important because, if you can recall the last phrase doon sa
Section 10 of 8042 as amended, which was declared unconstitutional? The insurance coverage
of money claims shall be equivalent to 3 months of the migrant workers employment or
whichever is less. Dito kasi, limited lang siya. Hanggang 3 months lang. Doon sa isa, unexpired
portion of the contract. So ni-retain nila yung provision but this is only with respect to the
insurance coverage.
(1:06:12) Also we have Compassionate Visit, this is a provision allowing the loved ones of the
migrant worker to visit an employee who has suffered an ailment abroad. Provided that the
employee has been confined for a period of 7 days. Pwedeng family member, or sinong person
na i-nonominate niya. Ang babayaran ng insurance company is the travel cost, pero yung
lodging mo, yung documentation, ikaw na magbabayad nun. Importante din dito yung Medical
Evacuation, take note, the medical evacuation is undertaken only when as determined by the
company designated physician or the consulting physician that the evacuation is appropriate
when there is no adequate medical facility available for the overseas Filipino worker.Kailangan
iyan aside from the fact that walang medical facility that will adequately treat the ailments
suffered by the overseas Filipino worker. Kailangan mayroong determination or certification
yung accredited insurance company physician or consulting physician. Medical repatriation, this
is only made when pwede na iuwi yung tao as determined by the attending physician under the
medical supervision to the migrant workers residence, shall be undertaken by the insurance
provider t such time that the migrant worker is medically cleared for travel by a commercial
carrier. But please, remember that any question or dispute in the insurance policy under 8042
as amended still falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the IC. If you are disputing,
lets say, Paramount Insurance, ayaw niya mag-release ng money for subsistence allowance for
a particular employee, despite nag-submit ka na ng mga documents na may pending case nga
siya abroad, then, you should file your complaint with the IC, not the NLRC. So, NLRC,
specifically the LA, if you have claims for illegal dismissal, or damages arising from EE
relationship, But with insurance claims regarding the OFW, doon sa insurance na I mentioned
earlier, thats with the IC.
(1:09:07) Now who is primarily responsible for the repatriation of the OFW? It is the foreign
principal or the local agency. The responsibility to repatriate entails obligation on the part of the
agency or the principal to advance the cost of repatriation including airfare, should the need
arise prior to the determination of the cause of termination of the workers employment. Sabi sa
rules, pagdating dito, tsaka na daw i-determine kung justifiable ba yung pag-uwi. If it is the fault
of the employee, then the agency can run after the employee for the reimbursement of the cost
of transportation. But, with respect to OFWs, whose repatriation requires the issuance of an exit
visa, the primary responsibility is on the foreign principal. They are required to facilitate the
issuance and processing of the exit visa within 15 days from the notice of the request for
repatriation. We have this exceptions doon sa primary responsibility, in case of emergency
repatriation, halimbawa, may giyera, epidemic, then, emergency repatriation will be undertaken
by the OWWA, subject of course to reimbursement. Naalala niyo yung maraming umuwi na
OFWs? Tapos, yung government yung nag-uwi sa kanila? Hindi po libre yun. Gagawin nila,


pagbalik ng tao dito, sisingilin nila yung mga agency if it is still existing, reimbursement for the
plane cost. The agency should reimburse the cost, the plane fare within 60 days of the notice.
Otherwise, their accreditation, their license would be suspended until such time they pay the
corresponding fees. Also, we have this mandatory repatriation for underaged migrant workers.
Below 18 will automatically be repatriated. In some countries, I think, domestic helpers, the
requirement is 21 years old and above. Kung mas mababa yung age, papauwiin na agad ng
OWWA yan, subject of course to reimbursement of the travel expenses from the agency. Plus,
of course, the agency will be prosecuted for their recruitment. When the agency cannot be
identified, located, or ceased operations, in this case, since wala na yung agency, the OWWA
will shoulder the cost of repatriation.
(1:12:09) Where do you file a complaint for illegal recruitment, I mentioned that earlier, where
the offense is committed, where the offended party actually resides. But for money claims, it is
before the Labor Arbiter where the offended party resides or the place of business of the
agency, at the option of the OFW. Who may institute the action? With respect to the criminal
action, the rules provide that it can be the OFW, the DOLE Secretary, or the DOLE Regional
Director. But, with respect to the money claim, si aggrieved party lang or his heirs in case of his
death. Prescriptive actions, we discussed this earlier. Money claims, 3 years. Admin action, 3
years as provided for in the rules. We have here another problem, this is based on the case of
Serrano vs. CA, X, a seafarer deployed by E Manning Agency on 1978. He regularly sends
money remittances to his family through E Manning Agency. In 1979, he discovered that the
salary for June 1978 as not remitted by E Manning Agency to his family. He called the attention
of E Manning Agency but failed to follow up the same because of his immediate deployment.
But everytime he disembarks on the vessel, pumupunta siya doon sa agency, he follows it up
but, it was not acted upon by the agency. After 7 years, 1985, he finally wrote the company a
demand letter for the payment of the return of the remittance. On the same year, E Manning
Agency denied the claim. Aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter. Would the
action prosper? This is a money claim which prescribes in 3 years. The act was committed in
1978, tapos na-file lang siya noong 1985. Has the action prescribed within the 3 year period?
The Court said, No. The action has not yet prescribed, they enumerated elements of the cause
of action. 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises
or is created. 2. When obligation on the part of the main defendant to respect or not to violate
such right. 3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant violating such right of the plaintiff
or breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. In this case, Xs cause of action
accrued only when E Manning Agency finally denied his claim for the payment or return of the
remittance. Who may suspend or cancel a license or authority? We have the POEA
Administrator, or the Sec. of Labor. For local employment, we have the RD and the Sec. of
Labor. X filed a complaint for illegal recruitment against Y. Herafter, X executed an affidavit of
desistance in favor of Y Company and moved for the withdrawal of the complaint. Should the
POEA dismiss the complaint? The Court said, No. Xs affidavit of desistance and motion to
withdraw the complaint shall not bar the POEA from prosecuting the proceedings with the
investigation of recruitment violations. The POEA should resolve the case on its merits and
impose appropriate penalties because administrative cases involves violation of the terms and
conditions of the license to operate the recruitment agency which is within the ambit of POEAs
regulatory authority and X is only a witness. Kahit walang witness, pero may documentary
evidence ka to prove na may na-violate yung company, yung recruitment agency ng rules ng
POEA, they can still penalize the same.
(1:17:02) Just take note that under Section 11 of the Rules, the POEA Administrator or the
concerned RD can conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether a non-licensees



act constitutes a danger to national security and public order or would lead to further exploitation
of the workers. So kung mayroon siyang nakitang probable cause, they can issue a closure
order to a non-licensee only. Kasi, kung licensee ka, tapos nakita nung POEA na parang
nanloloko ka ng tao, or yung ginagawa mo is dangerous to public and national security, then,
they will cancel your license after affording you due process. Cancelled na yung license, hindi
na sila kailangan mag-issue ng closure order. How was this closure order implemented? The
closure order is implemented upon serving a copy of the closure order to the officers of the
agency concerned. The effect of the closure order is that, all of the persons therein or who
participated in the illegal recruitment activities will be included in the list of persons with a
derogatory record. Therefore, these individuals can no longer engage in recruitment and
placement of OFWs. But what if tuwang tuwa yung na-ccord nung agency, sinama yung parlor
sa gilid, Uy, first time ko makahawak ng yellow tape na ito. Tuwang tuwa siya kasi minsan lang
magamit, ang dami pa sa office, so what is the remedy of the owner of the beauty parlor? He
may file a motion to re-open the establishment. And the grounds for the motion to open the
establishment will be, 1. The office is not subject of the closure order, or other grounds provided
herein, is that the contract of lease by the owner of the building has already been cancelled or
terminated; the office is shared by a person not involved in illegal recruitment activity or any
analogous causes. But lets say, ikaw yung nabigyan ng closure order, what is your remedy?
File a motion to lift the closure order. Not a motion to re-open the establishment, but to lift the
closure order. When should you file the same? Within 10 days from the date of implementation.
And if your motion is denied, what is your remedy? Immediately file an appeal. Theres no MR to
the decision of the RD, you file an appeal with the Sec. of Labor within 10 days from receipt of
the denial of the motion.
(1:20:31) Also, the important concept discussed in the Migrant Workers Act is the One country
team approach, under this approach, all officers, representatives, personnel posted abroad
regardless of their mother agency, shall, on a per country basis, act as a country team with a
mission under the leadership of the Ambassador. So, kahit anong agency, magiging boss niyo
parin doon, mayroon parin final say sa transaction niyo, with regard to the plight of the OFW, is
always the Ambassador. Magrereport ka sa kanya, based on the One Country Team Approach.
Jurisdiction of the POEA is also discussed in 8042 as amended. Basically, yung pre-
employment violations falls within the original jurisdiction of the POEA. Administrative cases
against the foreign principal or administrative cases against the OFW. Lets say you are the
owner of the agency and you have been found guilty of violating a specific provision of the 2016
POEA Rules or 8042 as amended, and you are imposed a penalty of suspension. Pwede bang
instead of the suspension, bayad ka nalang ng fine? Yes. Provided that yung penalty is not
cancellation of the license or suspension for a period of 12 months. P50,000 per month of
suspension. And, if you are aggrieved with the decision of the POEA, you appeal it to the Sec.
of Labor. What is the reglementary period? This is what makes it different from the others, kasi
15, wala kang MR doon sa POEA, pero kung ang reglementary period to file an appeal is 15,
instead of the 10 day period na usually nangyayari sa labor.
(1:23:18) With respect to the findings of the DOH Accredited Clinic, lets say yung employer,
matagal na siyang foreign principal, tapos may preferred siya na specific clinic, doon ka
magpapa-physical examination. Tapos, in the advent of 122, di na pwede i-require yung tao na
doon nalang. Tapos si employer, ayaw niya magbayad ng cost ng medical expenses, ikaw,
nagpagawa ka sa iba, tapos hindi tinanggap ng foreign principal yung medical exam, is there
any sanction that can be imposed against the foreign principal? Yes, its accreditation may be
suspended until such time it accepts the findings of a DOH Accredited clinic. Also, it is important
to take note on the prohibitions on bonds and deposits. In no case shall the private agency
require any bond or cash deposit from the worker to guarantee the performance of his contract


or his/her repatriation, I think we have the same rule also with the LC with respect to land based
workers, di ka magrerequire ng bond. Save for certain occupations, such as security guards,
which is allowed by the DOLE.
(0:01) Please take note of that. Its either youre a Filipino Citizen, for single proprietorship, or
its a corporation, 75% of the authorized voting capital stock is owned and controlled by
Filipinos. I think this was asked yata sa Bar, maybe third time, not sure. But at least, alam natin.
Yung Capitalization natin, from P2 Million is now increased to P5 Million. Another requirement is
that, he is not disqualified by law. So who are those disqualified? Those who are engaged in the
business of travel agency, or sales agencies of airline companies, or persons with derogatory
records. Take note, a person with a derogatory record does not require a person to be convicted
of a crime of illegal recruitment. It is sufficient that there is a probable cause finding him liable
for illegal recruitment, kasama na sa persons with derogatory record. And, those whose licenses
have been revoked for violation of R.A. 8042 as amended, or those agencies whose licenses
have been cancelled for violation of the POEA Rules. And finally, those who we mentioned
earlier, those officials, employees of the DOLE, POEA, OWWA, and other agencies tasked to
implement the provisions of the Migrant Workers Act, and their relatives within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
(1:39) The Escrow requirement for Escrow deposit is the same, P1 Million. And we have the
P100,000 license fee. The application fee has been increased to P25,000. They now have
imposed qualification requirements, kung naalala niyo, doon sa D.O.141-14, may requirement
din na office space, diba? Dito, mayroon na din silang nirerequire. Lets say nakapag-comply ka
na with the doc requirements, citizenship qualification requirements, now, doon sa post-
qualification, i-ccheck nila kung mayroon kayong office space with at least 100 sq.m. tapos
mayroon kang lay-out na i-susubmit, and they have this inventory of furnitures that you should
submit. Kailangan dapat may number of chairs, mayroon kang conference room, you should
have a computer for that, meron silang requirement.
(02:25) With respect to Provisional License, the POEA issues a provisional license that shall be
valid for a non-extendible period of 2 years from the date of issuance. Provided that, yung dati
kasi, basta may provisional license, kahit anong klaseng job order, pwede mong tanggapin.
Pero ngayon, pag provisional license ka, di ka pwede mag-deploy ng overseas Filipino workers
or domestic helpers. So, bawal ang DH dito. But, if you want to upgrade your provisional license
to a regular license, you should have deployed 100 workers and submit some documentary
requirements. 100 workers within the duration of your provisional license. The validity of the
regular license is 4 years from the issuance of the provisional license. So, pasok parin siya. 2
years nalang yung regular license mo. And lets say, you want to renew your license, dapat 30
days prior to the expiration, mag-file ka na for renewal. And then, if you have pending cases,
this is a new provision, mayroon kang idadagdag na amount sa escrow deposit. Lets say, you
have 1-5 pending cases, P50,000 per case, idadagdag mo doon sa escrow deposit mo. But, in
no case shall exceed P2 Million.
(04:34) Lets say, Escrow deposit has been garnished on account of a labor case, you are
required to replenish it within 15 days from the time of garnishment otherwise, your
documentary processing will be suspended by the POEA. Actually, same rule as before. Fees,
still the same. You have documentary costs, placement fees. Those are the only things you can
collect from an Overseas Filipino Worker as distinguished from a local-based worker in D.O.
141-14, you are not allowed to collect any placement fee, finders fee, from an employee locally-
based. Kung i-dedeploy mo abroad, pwede, pero dalawang klase lang-documentation cost and
placement fee. When we say documentation cost, there is a set of enumerations set forth by


law, so yun yung NBI Clearance, Passport, NSO Authentication, Certificate of Competency by
TESDA, DOH Prescribed Examination only when na-advance na yung cost. Kasi diba ngayon,
yung employee na kukuha ng mga accreditation, medical exams, sila na yung pumipili. Yung sa
passport, you can do it electronically without assistance of a travel agency na. With regard to
placement fee, yung placement fee, there is a limitation, it should not exceed the 1 month salary
of the employee. Yun lang yung limitation na pwede mo i-charge sa placement fee. Except for,
domestic helpers, theres a D.O. prohibiting the collection of any placement fee from a domestic
helper, kahit saang country siya i-deploy. Or, in other occupations where the prevailing system
do not allow the charging of placement fees. What if walang placement fee pero nag salary
deduction ka abroad? The charging of placement fee is done indirectly and you may be held
liable for illegal recruitment under paragraph a thereof. The worker shall only be collected a
placement fee only after he has signed a contract of employment. Ibig sabihin, mangongolekta
ka lang sa tao kapag technically, paalis na siya. Kasi after you sign the pre-approved POEA
contract, then, the next thing you should do is buy a ticket na. Sandali lang naman iyon, dadaan
lang ng 1 day or 2 days for recording with the POEA then you buy a ticket na for the person to
be deployed.
(7:30) What about the cost that is chargeable against the principal? So, you have Visa fee, work
permit, transpo costs, air fare costs, lahat iyan shouldered ni employer. Skills test, medical
examination, we can only require the applicant to undergo medical testing or skill testing kapag
pre-qualified na siya. Meaning to say, na-interview na siya ni employer, acceptable na siya. So
the only thing you have to determine para ma-deploy siya is whether totoo bang kaya niya yung
trabaho based on the testing, doon sa skills training test, or fit to work ba siya. Kung okay na
siya doon sa dalawa, then, he/she can actually leave for abroad.
(8:26) Now, can a recruitment agency engage in recruitment activities in a place outside its
registered place of business? Yes. But, they have to secure a special recruitment authority from
the POEA. The validity niya is actually stated in the SRA na ma-iissue, depende sa POEA kung
ilang araw iyong isusulat mo doon at kung saan. Pero halimbawa, yung foreign principal mo,
gusto sumama sa pag-interview doon sa mga applicants, do you still need to secure any permit
or you have to inform the POEA regarding the same even if the recruitment activity is being
conducted in the registered place of business? Yes. They now require authority. They should
notify the administration of the participation of the foreign principal in the recruitment activity in
the registered place of business within 3 days prior to the conduct of activity. Dati kasi, wala.
Terminal reports are required to be submitted to the POEA only if you have been issued a
Special Recruitment Authority and after the termination of the activities in the SRA.
Advertisements, so advertisements, can you advertise job vacancies without the intervention or
permission from the POEA? Yes. Provided that, you are the recruitment agency. But, if you are
the foreign principal, di siya pwede, dapat through the agency. Mayroong certain requirements
for that, kailangan isusulat mo kung saan pupunta, ano yung job order, license number niyo,
registration niyo, skilled categories and number of positions. But lets say, wala ka pang job
order, yung accredited principal, wala pang job order kasi di pa na-aapprove, pero gusto mo na
mag-collect ng number of people, para pagdating niya, nakuha mo na siya, mag-ppresent ka
nalang ng tao for interview, pwede ba iyon? Kahit wala pang job order in your name? Yes, you
can, but your advertisement should specifically indicate that it is for manpower pooling only. Ibig
sabihin nun, nasulat mo naman yung prospective job, kung sino prospective employer, pero
ilalagay mo, manpower pooling. So in no case should money be collected against the applicant.
(11:24) Take note of Rule 10, Section 76 of the POEA Rules. In the POEA Rules, naalala niyo
yung separate prohibited acts? Yung separate prohibited acts doon, considered as illegal
recruitment in the admin case, in the 2016 rules. So, please take note of that. Pag criminal acts,


iba siya. Pag criminal case, yung mga granting of a loan exceeding 8% per annum, and if you
require them to issue a pst-dated check to pay for the same, thats not illegal recruitment per se.
So you cannot have a person prosecuted for violating 8042 as amended, but in so far as the
POEA is concerned, sa admin matters nila, that act, is now considered as illegal recruitment for
admin purposes only. So yung 7 sa admin, illegal recruitment siya. But please, do not get
confused.
(12:39) Accreditation. The accreditation to a foreign principal is valid for 4 years. Can a forefin
principal be accredited for two or more agencies? Yes. Provided that, they form package for the
same job order and then, it has at least 100 workers na kailangan. They are now required to
submit an undertaking that they will comply with the obligations of other licensed recruitment
agencies. In case, of course, of transfer of accreditation, that is found in Section 109 of the
POEA Rules, pwede din naman mag-transfer ng accreditation, basta no downgrading of
packages, and number two, the assumption of liabilities. But, with respect to the assumption of
liabilities, take note, yung liability ng foreign principal doon sa tao but not the liability of the
recruitment agency doon sa tao. The distinction here is the act committed. Lets say si agency,
nangongolekta ng placement fee more than the amount allowed by law. 1 month salary yung cut
niya, 2 months iyong sinisingil niya yung tao doon sa placement fee. Yung tao, napaalis na,
kaya lang, the person has been deployed for 2 years contract, after a year, nag-transfer ng
accreditation si foreign principal doon sa isang agency, sabi niya, mas maayos mga tao dito.
Natapos niya contract niya, our employee, bumalik sa Pilipinas, he filed a claim for illegal
dismissal against the foreign principal for whatever reason naisip niya, and then, he also files a
case for illegal recruitment against the agency for charging a fee excessive than the amount
allowed by law, so ano ang i-aassume na responsibility ng bagong agency, sa transfer of
accreditation? It would be the obligation of the foreign principal doon sa tao. Kung illegally
dismissed, reimburse the placement fee, pero yung act of illegal dismissal, yung kinolekta ng
agency against the person in excess of the required fee, without the participation of the foreign
principal, then, hindi niya ma-ttransfer yung liability. Walang assumption of liability iyan.
Kakasuhan mo yung original agency regardless of whether he is accredited or not with the
foreign principal. Kasi, iba yung cause of action, and iba yung act committed. Hindi na siya
related sa principal. So kung nag-transfer ng accreditation, ang na-transfer lang, yung liability ni
foreign principal doon sa tao. Kahit iba yung agency, di niya pinaalis yung tao, pero accredited
na siya sa foreign principal, then, the employee can run after the new agency with respect to its
claims against the foreign principal.
(0:01) Anti-Age Discrimination on Employment Act.
It is a relatively new law, I think it was passed 2016, also with the IRR. The IRR was passed on
2017- February 3, 2017. So heres a question, X advertised a job vacancy in his company for
the position of a company clerk. Y, 61 years of age, applied for the position. Can X, the
employer deny the application for employment of Y, a 61- year old senior citizen, on the ground
that he is too old for the job? Applying the provisions of this new law, sabi nila, he cannot.
Otherwise, he can be held criminally liable.
(1:00) What is the coverage? The D.O. says it covers all employers, publishers, labor
contractors or sub-contractors, labor organizations whether or not registered. And, these are the
prohibited acts: It shall be unlawful for the employer to publish or print or cause to be printed or


published in any form of media, including the internet, any notice or advertisement relating to
employment suggesting preferences, limitations, specifications, and discrimination based on
age; or, require the declaration of age or birthday, during the application process; or decline any
employment application because of an individuals age. Yung kaninang dinedecline niya, would
fall on the third prohibited act. Number four, discriminate against individual in terms of
compensation, terms and conditions or privileges of employment on account of such individuals
age. Number five, deny any employees promotion or opportunity for training because of age.
Sixth, forcibly lay-off an employee or worker because of old age, or impose early retirement on
the basis of such employee or workers age. With respect to contractors, it shall be unlawful for
labor contractors or sub-contractors of any to refuse or refer employment, or otherwise,
discriminate against any individual because of a persons age. Letter C, it shall be unlawful for a
labor organization to deny membership of any individual because of his age, exclude
membership of any individual because of such individuals age or cause, or attempt to cause an
employee to discriminate against an employee in violation of these rules.
(3:00) With respect to a publisher, print or publish any notice or advertisement relating to
employment suggesting preferences, limitations and specifications based on age. But of course,
there is an exception. Why? Because, lets say, Piloto. Kukuha ka ba ng more than 50 or 60
years old? Di naman siguro. It shall be lawful for the employer to set age limitations on
employment if: So, these are the exceptions. Age is a bona fide occupation qualification
reasonably necessary in the normal operation particularly in the business, or when
differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age. Lets say, pilots, flight attendants,
syempre, di tayo kukuha ng medyo may edad na flight attendants, with all due respect. Siguro,
pwede sila sa office. Number 2, the intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system
that does not defeat the purpose of this Rule. Lets say meron silang company practice, ilang
taon na itong tao sa company then, lets say 5 years na, regardless of age, dapat ma-promote
siya, kung mayroon silang ganon. Lets say si Mr. X, Senior Citizen na siya, tinanggap siya sa
trabaho pero performance niya, par lang, so hindi parin liable yung company if they have an
existing policy. Letter C, the intent is to observe the bona fide terms of employee retirement or
voluntary retirement plan consistent with the purpose of these Rules. Provided, the retirement
plan complies with the LC; or the action is duly certified with the Secretary of Labor after
consultation with stakeholders in accordance with the rules.
(04:52) Employment of Children, we will discuss that later. R.A. 7610.
So, this one, if you fail to comply with this act, theres a penalty. It is criminal in nature. What is
the penalty? Violation of R.A. 10911 shall be punished with a fine not less than P50,000 but not
more than P500, or imprisonment of not less than 3 months, but not more than 2 years, or both,
at the discretion of the court.
(0:01) Just remember, with respect to Employment of Minors, the following terms.
Who is a child? Any child is below 18 years of age. Child labor refers to any work or economic
activity performed by a child, that subjects him/her to any form of exploitation, or is harmful to
his/her health, safety, physical, mental or psychosocial development. Who is a working child? A
working child is any person below 18 years of age engaged in work or economic activity that is
not defined as child labor, and when a child below 15 years of age works early, or she is directly
under the responsibility of his parents or legal guardian, and where all the members of the
childs family are employed or in public entertainment agency, which explains why most of the
kids are there. And of course, this one is also important, Collective means of the family, it refers
to the basic needs such as food, shelter, light, water, clothing, education, medical,


transportation and other expenditures necessary for the survival of the family. In employment of
the child, you should know the minimum employment age, which is 15, save for the exceptions
we mentioned earlier, those who are under the sole responsibility of his/her parents, provided
that, only members of the family are employed or when the childs employment or participation
in public entertainment or information is essential regardless of the extent of the childs role.
Those children employed below 15 years of age needs to secure a work permit except for those
hired as extras. What about the working hours of the child? Below 15 years of age, not more
than 20 hours a week or 4 hours everyday and they are not allowed to work from 8 p.m to 6
a.m. But, if the child is 15 years of age but below 18 years of age, then he is required to work for
not more than 40 hours a day or 8 hours a week, and not allowed to work from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
We have this question, the net income of Ryzza Mae, an actor, for the year 2014 is P10 Million,
can Ryzza Maes mother use P5 Million from Ryzzas income to purchase a family home? What
would be your answer? Kasama ba siya sa collective means of the family? And, may limit yung
D.O. diyan, its 20%. Whats the answer? No. Only 20% of Ryzzas income will be used for the
collective means of the family. In this case, the amount spent by Ryzza Maes mother
constitutes 50% of their income. Take note that the childs income belongs to him. The parent is
only tasked to administer the income. Only a certain portion thereof may be used for the
collective means of the family.
(03:32) Can the DOLE order the immediate cessation of movie shooting if X, a child actor, was
tasked to jump from a five-story building without the assistance of a stunt man? Yes. This is one
form of worst forms of child labor, it exposes a child to physical danger, such as but not limited
to dangerous means of balancing, physical strength, or which requires transport of heavy load.
The Secretary of Labor may order the immediate closure of the establishment if there is
imminent danger to the life of the child in accordance with the occupational health and safety
standards. An imminent danger is a condition or practice that is reasonably expected to cause
death or physical harm. Lets say, si Ryzza Mae, wala siyang stunt, but during one of their
scenes, may scene na tinutulak siya ng elder para madapa, and because of that, Ryzza
suffered an injuries. Can the DOLE suspend the work permit issued in favor of Ryzza Mae?
Yes. Because in that case, the film director was negligent. Kung negligent siya, and harmful for
the child, it can be a cauase for the DOLE to suspend the work permit in favor of Ryzza Mae
and impose sanctions against the employer. Take note also of the other grounds in the
cancellation of work permit under Section 22 of D.O. 65-04, so, if there is fraud or
misrepresentation in the application for a work permit, and other supporting documents; if the
terms and conditions set forth in the childs employment contract and/or employers undertaking
have been violated; if the employer fails to institute measures for the protection, health, safety,
morals and other development of the child, or, if the employer fails to formulate and implement
the program for the education, training and skills acquisition of the child; or if the child has been
deprived of access to formal, non-formal, alternative learning system education. If you can
recall, I think I mentioned this last week with the Kasambahay Law, kaya doon sa provisions ng
Implementing Rules doon, ginamit nila yung word na shall, mandatorily have access to
education, is because of this one, R.A.7610. So, just a few important provisions sa Magna Carta
for Disabled Persons, you should know who a disabled person is. Those suffering from
restrictions or different disabilities as a result of mental, physical or sensory impairment, perform
an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being. You should
also know the distinction between Impairment and Handicap, kasi hindi ibig sabihin na mayroon
kang impairment, handicapped ka na agad.
(07:04) Kapag impairment, it means loss, diminution of physiological, psychological or

anatomical structure or function. But when we say handicap, it refers to the disadvantage given



to an individual because of an impairment or disability that limits or forfeits the function or
activity that is considered normal between the age and sex of an individual. Qualified Individuals
with Disability, this is important. And, I think this was the subject of the case of Bernardo vs.
NLRC, so who are these people? An individual with a disability with or without reasonable
accommodation can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such
individual holds or desires. Example, if you can remember the case of Bernardo vs. NLRC, Far
Eastern Bank, employed several deaf-mute, and they renewed their contracts successively. And
then, after a few years, na-terminate yung services nila prior to expiration of contract. And ang
reason nila, :Hindi naming empleyado yan, kasi na-accommodate lang yung employment niya in
compliance with the law, yung Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. Ang issue doon sa case, is
whether or not they are regular employees? Of course, the Court said they are regular
employees. The functions that they perform are necessary and desirable to the business of the
employer. Hindi naman nila kailangan ng assistance with respect to the cash, hindi naman
kailangan magsalita, they will just count the cash with their eyes only. In that case, yung cash
holders doon, na-pacify sila as qualified individuals with disability. Thats why the case is
relevant to the Magna Carta of Disabled Persons, kasi wala naman ibang case na-encounter
regarding this Magna Carta of Disabled Persons with respect to employment. Except for this
one na nagbigay sila ng example kung what type ang macoconsider as qualified individual with
disability. Just take note nalang na yung mga taong iyon, they can perform the task of a normal
individual despite the absence of essential functions. For their purposes, when they perform
their functions, di talaga sila disabled. Kasi kahit walang tulong, nagagawa nila yung trabaho
nila gaya ng isang taong walang kapansanan.
(10:09) What are the employment rights of a disabled person? They are entitled to equal
opportunity of employment, meaning to say, they are entitled to same terms and conditions,
same compensation, same benefits with able bodied persons. They can become learners and
apprentices. They can become apprentices provided that their disability or handicap does not
effectively impede the performance of the job operation for the position that they are hired. They
have the right to organize, same with all other employees. And, they have the right against
discrimination from employment. Heres a problem, Pizza Hut has a job opening for a delivery
man, it requires that the applicant should be able to read and write, with good communication
skills, and an experienced motorcycle driver. X is a deaf-mute, but an award-winning motorcycle
driver, applied for the position but his application was denied. Aggrieved, X claims that Pizza
Hut discriminated against him because the qualification standards used by Pizza Hut were
designed to leave out disabled people like him. Rule on Xs contention. X is incorrect. Pizza Hut
did not use qualification standards to leave out persons with disability because the standard of
being able to communicate with others, or with good communication skills is necessary for the
position of a delivery man. The job of a delivery man entails not only delivering the pizza at the
doorstep of its customers but also, verbally communicating to the persons to whom the pizza is
delivered, demanding for its payment.
(12:05) These are several examples of the acts of discrimination that can be committed against
the employee, we have, dismissing a disabled employee by reason of his disability, unless the
employer can prove that he impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the
prejudice of the business; Providing lesser wage to a person with disability; Favoring a non-
disabled employee from qualified disabled employee with respect to training, opportunities,
study grants, solely on the basis of the persons disability; Or, re-assigning or transferring a
disabled employee to a job or position he could not perform because of his disability. What
about incentives? Employers who hire disabled individuals are given by the law several
incentives. First, additional deduction from their gross income in the amount of 25% of the total
amount paid to salaries and wages of disabled persons provided that they submit the


documentary requirements that he actually employed a disabled person, and the disabled
person has proof of registration with the DOLE. The Second, the employer has modified and
improved their physical facilities, provide reasonable accommodation to disabled persons is
entitled to an additional deduction equivalent to 50% of direct cost of improvements and
modifications.
(13:44) Here is the salient features if D.O.174-17, ito yung sa contracting and sub-contracting.
Basically, wala naman masyadong changes. Ito lang. Yung capital, na-increase siya from P2
Million to P5 Million; the registration fee is increased to P100,000; Yung validity of the certificate
of registration is now 2 years. And now, before the renewal, you would be required to submit a
certification of no pending case from DOLE or NLRC, and, they would also require you to submit
certification of compliance with remitting contributions to the SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-Ibig. Pero
kahit may pending case ka sa DOLE, it would not prejudice the processing of your application.
Hindi naman outright denial yung application. In Section 5, what is labor only contracting? Its
actually the same but they clarified the wording of the provisions. Ngayon, sabi nila, Labor only
contracting refers to an arrangement where the contractors/contractor does not have substantial
capital or does not have substantial investment in the form of tools, equipments, machineries,
work premises among others and, contractors employees are recruited and placed, and
perform activities which are related in the main business and in the operation of the principal or
does not exercise the right of control over the performance of the employee. And they have this
new provision, Section 13. But, as you know, an employee of the contractor has the same rights
as a regular employee, so if you are to dismiss them, you would have to comply with the due
process requirement, substantial and procedural due process. Just cause, authorized cause,
tapos yung two-notice rule. Pero dito, sa Section 13, ang sabi dito, I think it is found in the
second paragraph, where the termination which results in the expiration of the service
agreement, or for the completion of the phase of the job/work for which the employee is
engaged, the latter may opt for re-employment and within 3 months, may resign and transfer to
another contractor employer. Failure of the contractor to provide new employment for the
employee shall entitle the latter to the payment of separation benefits as may be provided by
law, or the service agreement which is higher without prejudice to his entitlement, the
completion bonuses and other emoluments. The mere expiration of the service agreement shall
not be deemed as termination of employment of the contractor, subcontractors employee, or
rather, employees of the latter. Kasi dati, hindi nila nirerequire yung employer to provide them
with separation benefits kahit hindi na sila ma-assign sa iba. Ngayon, they specifically provided
for that.
(16:57) Effects of cancellation of registration. Same effect, It shall divest the contractor of his
legitimate status in contracting or sub-contracting. Pag yung cancellation is due to engaging in
labor only contracting, it will not impair the validity of existing legitimate contracting arrangement
that the contractor may have entered with any other principal prior to the cancellation of
registration. Same rule parin. Any valid subsisting agreement shall be respected until its
expiration. Thereafter, contracting with the contractor shall be the principal direct employer of all
employees in the service agreements. So basically, hindi naman talaga siya masyadong binago.
Hinigpitan lang nila yung sa contracting and sub-contracting. Tinaasan nila yung capital, mga
filing fee, tapos mas marami silang requirements in order to monitor the abuses committed by
the contractors and the principal, but actually, halos parehas lang talaga. Please note that,
theres this, I think its a labor advisory clarifying the applicability of D.O. 147-17. It does not
apply to information technology enabled services, so yung business na outsourcing, medical
transcriptions, construction industry, di siya applicable. Yung sa private security agency, they
have to comply with documentary requirements for the purpose of application. Pero, yung mga



rules governing the EE-ER relationship, yung existing rules parin ang mag-aapply. Its a 2015
rule regarding private security agency. And, the contractual relationships, such as contract of
sale, purchase, lease and carriage, di rin applicable yung D.O. 147-17. Finally, we have this
one, but, I suppose this was already discussed in your review class, yung amendment ng
retirement age sa surface mine workers. Please take note that the surface mine workers will
only include mill plant workers, electrical, mechanical, and tailings pond personnel, so, the
reduced retirement age is from 60 to 50 years old. Optional retirement age now is 50 provided
he has rendered at least 5years of services. Compulsory retirement age is 60 years of age,
parehas lang doon sa 22.5 days or half month pay natin sa retirement law which is existing now.
When you say one-half month pay, it is equivalent to 15 days salary, cash equivalent of SIL pay
for the year, 5 days to. The, 1/12th of 13th month pay, and other benefits the employer and
employee may agree upon shall be included in the computation of the employees retirement
pay.


2017 Pre-Bar Lecture: (1:27) First Off, The Migrant Worker's Act

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Pre-Bar Lecture: (1:27) First Off, The Migrant Worker's Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Pre-Bar Lecture

Labor Law (Special Labor Laws)

(1:27) First off, the Migrant Workers Act.

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

(21:07) Illegal recruitment and Estafa.

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

(44:16) Notwithstanding this ruling, na-declare na ng court na unconstitutional yung last

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

(0:01) Anti-Age Discrimination on Employment Act.

(04:52) Employment of Children, we will discuss that later. R.A. 7610.

(07:04) Kapag impairment, it means loss, diminution of physiological, psychological or

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

2017 LABOR LAW COMMITTEE

You might also like