Art 25-81 Labor Cases

Republic of the Philippines Administration.
On April 10, 1986, the POEA rendered judgment in favor of private

SUPREME COURT respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Manila
THIRD DIVISION WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainant and
G.R. No. 77279 April 15, 1988 against the respondent, ordering the latter to pay to the complainant:
MANUELA S. CATAN/M.S. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY, Petitioners, vs. THE
chanrobles virtual law library
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS

EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION and FRANCISCO D. REYES, Respondents. 1. SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE PESOS and 60/100
(P7,985.60), Philippine currency, representing disability benefits; chanrobles virtual law library
CORTES, J.: 2. TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND NINETY-SIX Philippine pesos and 20/100

Petitioner, in this special civil action for certiorari, alleges grave abuse of discretion (29,096.20) representing reimbursement for medical expenses; chanrobles virtual law library
on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in an effort to nullify the 3. Ten percent (10%) of the abovementioned amounts as and for attorney's
latters resolution and thus free petitioner from liability for the disability suffered by a fees. [NLRC Resolution, p. 1; Rollo, p. 16].
Filipino worker it recruited to work in Saudi Arabia. This Court, however, is not
persuaded that such an abuse of discretion was committed. This petition must On appeal, respondent NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA in a resolution
fail. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library
dated December 12, 1986. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The facts of the case are quite simple. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Not satisfied with the resolution of the POEA, petitioner instituted the instant special
civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Petitioner, a duly licensed recruitment agency, as agent of Ali and Fahd Shabokshi NLRC. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library
Group, a Saudi Arabian firm, recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as
a steelman. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
1. Petitioner claims that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that
petitioner was liable to private respondent for disability benefits since at the time he
The term of the contract was for one year, from May 15,1981 to May 14, 1982. was injured his original employment contract, which petitioner facilitated, had already
However, the contract provided for its automatic renewal: expired. Further, petitioner disclaims liability on the ground that its agency
agreement with the Saudi principal had already expired when the injury was
sustained.
FIFTH: The validity of this Contract is for ONE YEAR commencing from the date
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
the SECOND PARTY assumes hill port. This Contract is renewable

automatically if neither of the PARTIES notifies the other PARTY of his wishes There is no merit in petitioner's contention. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
to terminate the Contract by at least ONE MONTH prior to the expiration of the
contractual period. [Petition, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 7-8]. Private respondents contract of employment can not be said to have expired on May
14, 1982 as it was automatically renewed since no notice of its termination was
The contract was automatically renewed when private respondent was not given by either or both of the parties at least a month before its expiration, as so
repatriated by his Saudi employer but instead was assigned to work as a crusher provided in the contract itself. Therefore, private respondent's injury was sustained
plant operator. On March 30, 1983, while he was working as a crusher plant during the lifetime of the contract. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
operator, private respondent's right ankle was crushed under the machine he was
operating. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
A private employment agency may be sued jointly and solidarily with its foreign
principal for violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of
On May 15, 1983, after the expiration of the renewed term, private respondent employment:
returned to the Philippines. His ankle was operated on at the Sta. Mesa Heights
Medical Center for which he incurred expenses. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 10. Requirement before recruitment.- Before recruiting any worker, the
private employment agency shall submit to the Bureau the following documents:
chanroble s virtual la w library
On September 9, 1983, he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work. On May

15,1984, he was repatriated. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
(a) A formal appointment or agency contract executed by a foreign-based
employer in favor of the license holder to recruit and hire personnel for the
Upon his return, he had his ankle treated for which he incurred further expenses. chanroble svirtualawlibrary
former ... chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library
xxx xxx xxx

2. Power of the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the
On the basis of the provision in the employment contract that the employer shall principal or foreign-based employer for any of the violations of the
compensate the employee if he is injured or permanently disabled in the course of recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. [Section 10(a) (2)
employment, private respondent filed a claim, docketed as POEA Case No. 84- Rule V, Book I, Rules to Implement the Labor Code].
09847, against petitioner with respondent Philippine Overseas Employment
Thus, in the recent case of Ambraque International Placement & Services v. NLRC Furthermore, it has remained unrefuted by respondent that complainant's
[G.R. No. 77970, January 28,1988], the Court ruled that a recruitment agency was subsequent departure or return to Saudi Arabia on September 9, 1983 was with
solidarily liable for the unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment in the full knowledge, consent and assistance of the former. As shown in Exhibit
Saudi Arabia. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library "E" of the record, it was respondent who facilitated the travel papers of
complainant. [NLRC Resolution, p. 5; Rollo, p. 19].
Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency
agreement at the time private respondent was injured, petitioner may still be sued for WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit,
a violation of the employment contract because no notice of the agency agreement's with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
termination was given to the private respondent: Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Art 1921. If the agency has been entrusted for the purpose of contra with Manila
specified persons, its revocation shall not prejudice the latter if they were not THIRD DIVISION
given notice thereof. [Civil Code]. G.R. No. 90273-75 November 15, 1989
FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP., Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM INOCENCIO,
ET AL. AND EDWIN CARDONES, THE ADMINISTRATOR, PHILIPPINE
In this connection the NLRC elaborated:
OVERSEAS AND EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondents.
Suffice it to state that albeit local respondent M. S. Catan Agency was at the
time of complainant's accident resulting in his permanent partial disability was RESOLUTION
(sic) no longer the accredited agent of its foreign principal, foreign respondent FELICIANO, J.:
herein, yet its responsibility over the proper implementation of complainant's Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. ("Pan Pacific") is a private, fee-
employment/service contract and the welfare of complainant himself in the charging, recruitment and employment agency. T in accordance with the
foreign job site, still existed, the contract of employment in question not having requirements of Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations of the
expired yet. This must be so, because the obligations covenanted in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), Pan Pacific posted a
recruitment agreement entered into by and between the local agent and its surety bond issued by petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation ("Finman")
foreign principal are not coterminus with the term of such agreement so that if and was granted a license to operate by the POEA. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
either or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the responsibilities of
such parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not at
Private respondents William Inocencio, Perfecto Palero, Jr., Edwin Cardones and
all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the employment
one Edwin Hernandez filed with the POEA separate complaints against Pan Pacific
contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said
for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended and for refund
recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will render nugatory the very purpose
of placement fees paid to Pan Pacific. The complainants alleged that Pan Pacific
for which the law governing the employment of workers for foreign jobs abroad
charged and collected such fees from them but did not secure employment for them.
was enacted. [NLRC Resolution, p. 4; Rollo, p. 18]. (Emphasis supplied).
Acting on the complaints, the POEA Administrator motu proprio impleaded petitioner
2. Petitioner contends that even if it is liable for disability benefits, the NLRC gravely
Finman as party respondent in its capacity as surety for Pan Pacific. Separate
abused its discretion when it affirmed the award of medical expenses when the said
summonses were served upon Finman and Pan Pacific. The return of the summons
expenses were the consequence of private respondent's negligence in returning to
served on Pan Pacific at its official address registered in the POEA records, showed
work in Saudi Arabia when he knew that he was not yet medically fit to do so.
that Pan Pacific had moved out therefrom; no prior notice of transfer or change of
address was furnished by Pan Pacific to the POEA as required under POEA rules.
Again, there is no merit in this contention. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The POEA considered that constructive service of the complaints had been effected
upon Pan Pacific and proceeded accordingly. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
No evidence was introduced to prove that private respondent was not medically fit to
work when he returned to Saudi Arabia. Exhibit "B", a certificate issued by Dr. For its part, petitioner Finman filed an answer denying liability and pleading, by way
Shafquat Niazi, the camp doctor, on November 1, 1983, merely stated that private of special and affirmative defenses, that: (1) the POEA had no "jurisdiction over
respondent was "unable to walk properly, moreover he is still complaining [of] pain surety bonds," that jurisdiction being vested in the Insurance Commission or the
during walking and different lower limbs movement" [Annex "B", Reply; Rollo, p. 51]. regular courts; (2) it (Finman) had not violated Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor
Nowhere does it say that he was not medically fit to work. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Code and complainants' claims had accrued during the suspension of the principal
obligor, Pan Pacific; (3) complainants had no cause of action against Finman, since
Further, since petitioner even assisted private respondent in returning to work in it was not privy to the transactions between them and Pan Pacific and had not
Saudi Arabia by purchasing his ticket for him [Exhibit "E"; Annex "A", Reply to received any moneys from them; and (4) the amounts claimed by complainants had
Respondents' Comments], it is as if petitioner had certified his fitness to work. Thus, been paid by them as deposits and not as placement fees. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
the NLRC found:

A hearing was held by the POEA on 14 April 1988, at which time complainants The Secretary of Labor shall have the exclusive power to determine, decide,
presented their evidence. Petitioner Finman, though notified of this hearing, did not order or direct payment from, or application of, the cash and surety bond for any
appear. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library claim or injury covered and guaranteed by the bonds. (Emphasis supplied).
On 30 May 1989, the POEA Administrator issued an Order which, in its dispositive The tenor and scope of petitioner Finman's obligations under the bond it issued are
portion, said: set out in broad ranging terms by Section 4, Rule II, Book I of the POEA Rules and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered to pay Regulations:
jointly and severally complainants' claims as follows: chanrobles virtual law library
1. William Inocencio P6,000 .00 chanroble s virtual la w library
Section 4. Payment of Fees and Posting of Bonds. - Upon approval of the

2. Perfecto Palero, Sr. P5,500 .00 chanroble s virtual la w library
application by the Minister, the applicant shall pay an annual license fee of
3. Edwin Cardones P2,000 .00 chanroble s virtual la w library
P6,000.00. It shall also post a cash bond of P100,000.00 and a surety bond of
P150,000.00 from a bonding company acceptable to the Administration duly
Respondent agency is ordered to release Cardones' passport, the expenses or accredited by the Office of the Insurance Commission. The bonds shall answer
obtaining the same of which (sic) shall be deducted from the amount of for all valid and legal claims arising from violations of the conditions for the
P2,000.00 as it appears that it was respondent agency who applied for the grant and use of the license or authority and contracts of employment. The
processing thereof. The claim of Edwin Hernandez is dismissed without bonds shall likewise guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Labor
prejudice. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Code and its implementing rules and regulations relating to recruitment and
placement, the rules of the Administration and relevant issuances of the
For the established violations respondent agency is hereby imposed a penalty Ministry and all liabilities which the Administration may impose. The surety
fine in the amount of P60,000.00. Further, the ban earlier imposed upon it is bonds shall include the condition that notice of garnishment to the principal is
herein reiterated. SO ORDERED. notice to the surety. 1 (Emphasis supplied).
Petitioner Finman went on appeal to the Secretary of Labor insisting that: (1) the While petitioner Finman has refrained from attaching a copy of the bond it had
POEA had no authority to implead petitioner as party respondent in the proceedings issued to its Petition for Certiorari, there can be no question that the conditions of the
before the POEA; and that (2) the POEA had no authority to enforce directly the Finman surety bond Pan Pacific had posted with the POEA include the italicized
surety bond against petitioner. In an Order dated 3 August 1989, the Secretary of portions of Section 4, Rule 11, Book I quoted above. It is settled doctrine that the
Labor upheld the POEA Order appealed from and denied the appeal for lack of conditions of a bond specified and required in the provisions of the statute or
merit.chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library regulation providing for the submission of the bond, are incorporated or built into all
bonds tendered under that statute or regulation, even though not there set out in
Petitioner Finman now comes before this Court on a Petition for certiorari with prayer printer's ink. 2
for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, raising much the same
issues it had already ventilated before the POEA and the Secretary of Labor. It is In the case at bar, the POEA held, and the Secretary of Labor affirmed, that Pan
contended once again by petitioner Finman that the POEA had no authority to Pacific had violated Article 32 of the Labor Code, as amended
implead petitioner in the proceedings commenced by private respondents: and that
the POEA was not authorized to require, in those same proceedings, petitioner to Article 32. Fees to be paid by workers. - Any person applying with a private fee
pay private respondents' claims for refund against Pan Pacific on the basis of the charging employment agency for employment assistance shall not be charged
surety bond issued by petitioner. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
any fee until he has obtained employment through its efforts or has actually
commenced employment. Such fee shall be always covered with the approved
Petitioner's contentions are interrelated and will be dealt with together. They are, receipt clearly showing the amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall
however, quite bereft of merit and must be rejected. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library promulgate a schedule of allowable fees. (Emphasis supplied).
Petitioner cannot seriously dispute the direct and solidary nature of its obligations as well as Article 34 (a) of the same Code:
under its own surety bond. Under Section 176 of the Insurance Code, as amended,
the liability of a surety in a surety bond is joint and several with the principal obligor. Article 34. Prohibited practices. - It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity,
Petitioner's bond was posted by Pan Pacific in compliance with the requirements of licensee, or holder of authority:
Article 31 of the Labor Code, which states that -
(a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount than that specified in
Art. 31. Bonds. - All applicants for license or authority shall post such cash and the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to make
surety bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance a worker pay any amount greater than actually received by him as a loan or
with prescribed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and, advance. (Emphasis supplied)
conditions of employment as appropriate. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
There is, hence, no question that, both under the Labor Code 3 and the POEA Rules agencies. The Court will take judicial notice of the appealing frequency with which
and Regulations, 4 Pan Pacific had violated at least one of the conditions for the some, perhaps many, of such agencies have cheated workers avid for overseas
grant and continued use of the recruitment license granted to it. There can, similarly, employment by, e.g., collecting placement fees without securing employment for
be no question that the POEA Administrator and the Secretary of Labor are them at all, extracting exorbitant fees or "kickbacks" from those for whom
authorized to require Pan Pacific to refund the placement fees it had charged private employment is actually obtained, abandoning hapless and unlettered workers to
respondents without securing employment for them and to impose the fine of exploitative foreign principals, and so on. Cash and surety bonds are required by the
P60,000.00 upon Pan Pacific. Article 36 of the Labor Code authorizes the Secretary POEA and its predecessor agencies from recruitment and employment companies
of Labor "to restrict and regulate" the recruitment and placement activities of precisely as a means of ensuring prompt and effective recourse against such
agencies like Pan Pacific and "to issue orders and promulgate rules and regulations companies when held liable for applicants or workers' claims. Clearly that public
to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions of [Title I on "Recruitment policy will be effectively negated if POEA and the Department of Labor and
and Placement of Workers]," including of course, Article 32 on "Fees to be paid by Employment were held powerless to compel a surety company to make good on its
workers," quoted earlier. Upon the other hand, Section 13 of Rule VI, Book I of the solidary undertaking in the same quasi-judicial proceeding where the liability of the
POEA Rules and Regulations expressly authorize the POEA Administrator or the principal obligor, the recruitment or employment agency, is determined and fixed and
Secretary of Labor to impose fines "in addition to or in lieu of the penalties of where the surety is given reasonable opportunity to present any defenses it or the
suspension or cancellation" of the violator recruitment agency's license. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library principal obligor may be entitled to set up. Petitioner surety whose liability to private
respondents and the POEA is neither more nor less than that of Pan Pacific, is not
If Pan Pacific is liable to private respondents for the refunds claimed by them and to entitled to another or different procedure for determination or fixing of that liability
the POEA for the fine of P60,000.00, and if petitioner Finman is solidarily liable with than that which Pan Pacific is entitled and subject to. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Pan Pacific under the operative terms of the bond, it must follow that Finman is liable
both to the private respondents and to the POEA. Petitioner Finman asserts, WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction or
however, that the POEA had no authority to implead it in the proceedings against temporary restraining order is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against
Pan Pacific.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library petitioner. This Resolution is immediately executory.
Republic of the Philippines
We are not persuaded by this assertion. Clearly, petitioner Finman is a party-in- SUPREME COURT
interest in, certainly a proper party to, the proceedings private respondents had Manila
initiated against Pan Pacific the principal obligor. Since Pan Pacific had thoughtfully FIRST DIVISION
refrained from notifying the POEA of its new address and from responding to the G.R. No. L-79436-50 January 17, 1990
complaints, petitioner Finman may well I be regarded as an indispensable party to EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.
the proceedings before the POEA. Whether Finman was an indepensable or merely SECRETARY OF LABOR, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
a proper party to the proceedings, we believe and so hold that the POEA could ADMINISTRATION, ELVIRA VENTURA, ESTER TRANGUILLAN, et al.,
properly implead it as party respondent either upon the request of the private Respondents.
respondents or, as it happened, motu propio. Such is the situation under the NARVASA, J.:
Revised Rules of Court 5 and the application thereof, directly or by analogy, by the In connection with the application with the Philippine Overseas Employment
POEA can certainly not be regarded as arbitrary, oppressive or capricious. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Administration (POEA) of J & B Manpower Specialist, Inc. for a license to engage in
business as a recruitment agency, a surety bond was filed on January 2, 1985 by
the applicant and the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation, herein petitioner,
The fundamental argument of Finman is that its liability under its own bond must be
in virtue of which they both held themselves -
determined and enforced, not by the POEA or the Secretary of Labor, but rather by
. . . firmly bound unto (said) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
the Insurance Commission or by the regular courts. Once more, we are not moved
Ministry of Labor in the penal sum of PESOS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
by petitioner's argument.
THOUSAND ONLY . . . (Pl50,000.00) for the payment of which will and truly to
chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library
be made, . . . (they bound themselves, their) heirs, executors, administrators,

There appears nothing so special or unique about the determination of a surety's successors and assigns, jointly and severally . .
liability under its bond as to restrict that determination to the Office of the Insurance
Commissioner and to the regular courts of justice exclusively. The exact opposite is
The bond stipulated that:
strongly stressed by the second paragraph of Article 31 of the Labor Code:
a) it was "conditioned upon the true and faithful performance and observance of the .
. . principal (J & B Manpower Specialist, Inc.) of its duties and obligations in
Art. 31. Bonds. - ... ... chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
accordance with all the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Labor
The secretary of Labor shall have the exclusive power to determine, decide, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and with the terms and conditions
order or direct payment from, or application of, the cash or surety bond for any stipulated in the License; chanrobles virtual law library
claim or injury covered and guaranteed by the bonds. (Emphasis supplied) b) the liability of the . . . Surety (petitioner) shall in no case exceed the sum of
We believe and so hold that to compel the POEA and private respondents the PESOS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) ONLY, PHILIPPINE
beneficiaries of Finman's bond-to go to the Insurance Commissioner or to a regular CURRENCY; 1 chanrobles virtual law library
court of law to enforce that bond, would be to collide with the public policy which
requires prompt resolution of claims against private recruitment and placement
c) notice to the Principal is also a notice to the Surety; and chanrobles virtual law library Respondent was suspended on May 23, 1985, June 26, 1985 and January
17, 1986 all for illegal exaction. Considering its track record of illegal
d) LIABILITY of the surety . . . shall expire on JANUARY 02, 1986 and this bond exaction activities and considering further the gross violation of recruitment
shall be automatically cancelled ten (10) days after its expiration and the surety shall rules and regulations established against it in the instant cases, and the
not be liable for any claim not discovered and presented to it in writing within said expiration of its license on February 15, 1985, it is hereby forever banned
period of . . . from expiration and the obligee hereby expressly waives the rights to from participation in the overseas employment program. It is ordered to
file any court action against the Surety after termination of said period of . . . . above cease and desist from further engaging in recruitment activities otherwise it
cited. 2 chanrobles virtual law library
shall be prosecuted for illegal recruitment.')
As narrated by respondent Secretary of Labor, the facts are as follows: 3 (J & B filed a motion for reconsideration). On December 19, 1986, the then
deputy Minister of Labor and Employment denied the . . . Motion for
Reconsideration for lack of merit and affirmed the findings in the Order of the
From June 1983 to December 1985 . . . thirty three (33) . . . (persons) applied POEA Administrator finding no reversible error therein.
for overseas employment with . . . (J & B). In consideration of promised
deployment, complainants paid respondent various amounts for various fees.
Most of' the receipts issued were sighed by Mrs. Baby Bundalian, Executive On appeal by EASCO - J & B having as aforestated taken no part in the proceeding
Vice-President of . . . (J & B). despite due service of summons - the judgment was modified by the Secretary of
Labor, by Order dated July 1, 1987, disposing as follows: 4
Because of non-deployment . . . (the applicants) filed separate complaints with

the Licensing and Regulation Office of POEA against . . . (J & B) for violation of WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Resolution of the then Deputy
Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code between the months of April to October Minister of Labor dated December 19, 1986 affirming the Order of the POEA
1985. Administrator dated September 8, 1986 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent J &
B Manpower Specialist is directed to refund all thirty-three (33) complainants as
listed in the Order of September 8, 1986 in the amounts listed thereto with the
Despite summons/notices of hearing,, . . . (J & B) failed to file Answer nor modification that complainants Lucena Cabasal and Felix Rivero are both
appear in the hearings conducted. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
entitled only to P15,980 and not P15,980 each. Respondent Eastern Assurance
and Surety Corporation is hereby found jointly and severally liable with
In its separate Answer, . . . EASCO essentially disclaimed liability on the ground respondent J & B Manpower Specialist to refund nineteen (19) complainants in
that the claims were not expressly covered by the bond, that POEA had no the modified amounts . . . (particularly specified). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the bond, that some of the claims were paid
beyond or prior to the period of effectivity of the bond. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The other findings in the Order of the POEA Administrator dated September 8,
1986 affirmed in the Resolution of the then Deputy Minister . . . are also hereby
On September 8, 1986, the POEA Administrator issued the Order in favor of AFFIRMED. This Order is FINAL. No further Motion for Reconsideration hereof
complainants ruling thus: shall be entertained.
After careful evaluation, we find that the receipts and testimonies of It is noteworthy that EASCO's liability for the refund, jointly and severally with its
complainants, in the absence of controverting evidence substantially principal, was limited to 19 named complainants (in contrast to verdicts of the POEA
establish that respondent charged and collected fees from them in amounts and the Deputy Minister which both ordered payment to no less than 33
exceeding what is prescribed by this Administration. Complainants' non- complainants) and was correspondingly reduced from P308,751.75 and US $ 400.00
5
deployment strongly indicates that there was no employment obtained for to the aggregate amount of P 140,817.75. 6 chanrobles virtual law library
them. Hence, violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as

amended, is established against respondent. The claims of complainants The special civil action of certiorari at bar was thereafter instituted by EASCO 7
having arose (arisen) out of acts of the principal covered under the surety praying for the nullification of the POEA Administrator's Order of September 8, 1986,
(bond), the respondent surety is equally liable therefor. the Resolution of the Deputy Minister of Labor of' December 19, 1986, and the Order
of the Secretary of Labor of July 1, 1987, It theorizes that:
Except for complainants Ramos, Samson, de Leon and Rizada, whose claims 1) the POEA had no jurisdiction over the claims for refund filed by non-
were transacted prior to the effectivity of the bond, . . . EASCO was declared employees; chanrobles virtual law library
jointly and severally liable with . . . (J & B) to twenty-nine (29) complainants. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles
2) neither did the Secretary of Labor have jurisdiction of the claims; chanrobles virtual law library
3) assuming they had jurisdiction, both the POEA and Secretary of Labor also
virtual law library
committed legal errors and acted with grave abuse of discretion when they ruled
(The dispositive portion of the POEA Administrator's Order also contained the
that petitioner is liable on the claims.
following statement and direction, viz.:
EASCO contends that the POEA had no "adjudicatory jurisdiction" over the Implicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims of the
monetary claims in question because the same "did not arise from employer- offenses committed by the respondent agency or contractor, specially the refund or
employee relations." Invoked in support of the argument is Section 4 (a) of EO 797 reimbursement of such fees as may have been fraudulently or otherwise illegally
providing in part 8 that the POEA has - collected, or such money, goods or services imposed and accepted in excess of
what is licitly prescribed. It would be illogical and absurd to limit the sanction on an
. . . original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, offending recruitment agency or contractor to suspension or cancellation of its
involving employer-employee relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or license, without the concomitant obligation to repair the injury caused to its victims. It
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment including seamen .. would result either in rewarding unlawful acts, as it would leave the victims without
recourse, or in compelling the latter to litigate in another forum, giving rise to that
multiplicity of actions or proceedings which the law abhors. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The complaints are however for violation of Articles 32 and 34 a) of the Labor
Code. Article 32 and paragraph (a) of Article 34 read as follows:
Even more untenable is EASCO's next argument that the recruiter and its victims are
in pari delicto - the former for having required payment, and the latter for having
Art. 32. Fees to be paid by workers.-Any person applying with a private fee- voluntarily paid, "prohibited recruitment fees" - and therefore, said victims are barred
charging employment agency for employment assistance shall not be charged from obtaining relief. The sophistical, if not callous, character of the argument is
any fee until he has obtained employment through its efforts or has actually evident upon the most cursory reading thereof; it merits no consideration
commenced employment. Such fee shall be always covered with the approved whatever. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
receipt clearly showing the amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall
promulgate a schedule of allowable fees.
The Court is intrigued by EASCO's reiteration of its argument that it should not be
held liable for claims which accrued prior to or after the effectivity of its bond,
Art. 34. Prohibited practices.-It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, considering that the respondent Secretary had conceded the validity of part of said
licensee, or holder of authority: chanrobles virtual law library
argument, at least. The Secretary ruled that EASCO's "contention that it should not
be held liable for claims/payments made to respondent agency before the effectivity
a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that of the surety bond on January 2, 1985 is well taken." According to the Secretary: 12
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor,
or to make a worker pay any amount greater than actually received by him as a . . . A close examination of the records reveal(s) that respondent EASCO is not
loan or advance; . . . jointly and severally liable with respondent agency to refund complainants
Lucena Cabasal, Felix Rivero, Romulo del Rosario, Rogelio Banzuela, Josefina
The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed Ogatis, Francisco Sorato, Sonny Quiazon, Josefina Dictado, Mario del Guzman
for violations of the above quoted provisions, among others. And the Secretary of and Rogelio Mercado (10 in all). These complainants paid respondent agency
Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions, as well as in 1984, or before the effectivity of the bond on January 2, 1985 as evidence by
the authority, conferred by Section 36, not only, to "restrict and regulate the the reciept and their testimonies.
recruitment and placement activities of all agencies," but also to "promulgate rules
and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions" governing The related argument, that it is also not liable for claims filed after the expiry (on
said activities. Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted, the Secretary of January 2, 1986) of the period stipulated in the surety bond for the filing of claims
Labor gave the POEA 9 "on its own initiative or upon filing of a complaint or report or against the bond, must however be rejected, as the Secretary did. The Court
upon request for investigation by any aggrieved person, . . . (authority to) conduct discerns no grave abuse of discretion in the Secretary's statement of his reasons for
the necessary proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of the license or doing so, to wit:
authority of any agency or entity" for certain enumerated offenses including - chanrobles virtual law library
. . . While it may be true that respondent EASCO received notice of their claims
1) the imposition or acceptance, directly or indirectly, of any amount of money, after the ten (10) day expiration period from cancellation or after January 12,
goods or services, or any fee or bond in excess of what is prescribed by the 1986 as provided in the surety bond, records show that . . . EASCO's principal,
Administration, and chanrobles virtual law library
respondent agency, was notified/ summoned prior to the expiration period or

before January 12, 1986. Respondent agency received summons on July 24,
2) any other violation of pertinent provisions of the Labor Code and other relevant 1985 with respect to claims of complainants Penarroyo, dela Cruz and Canti. It
laws, rules and regulations. 10 also received summons on November 26, 1985 with respect to Giovanni
Garbillons' claim. Respondent agency was likewise considered constructively
The Administrator was also given the power to "order the dismissal of the notified of the claims of complainants Calayag, Danuco Domingo and Campena
case or the suspension of the license or authority of the respondent agency on October 6, 1985. In this connection, it may be stressed that the surety bond
or contractor or recommend to the Minister the cancellation thereof." 11 provides that notice to the principal is notice to the surety. Besides, it has been
held that the contract of a compensated surety like respondent EASCO is to be
interpreted liberally in the interest of the promises and beneficiaries rather than
strictly in favor of the surety (Acoustics Inc. v. American Surety, 74 Nev-6, 320 reducing his salary of US$800.00 per month to US$560.00, causing him to request
P2d. 626, 74 Am. Jur. 2d). for his repatriation to the Philippines. Although repatriated, he claims that he failed to
receive payment for the following:
So, too, EASCO's claim that it had not been properly served with summons as 1. Salary for November which is equivalent to US$800.00; chanrobles virtual law library
regards a few of the complaints must be rejected, the issue being factual, and the 2. Leave pay equivalent to his salary for 16.5 days in the sum of US$440.00; chanrobles virtual law library
Court having been cited to no grave error invalidating the respondent Secretary's 3. Salary differentials which is equivalent to US$240.00 a month for four (4)
conclusion that summons had indeed been duly served. months and one (1) week in the total sum of US$1,020,00; chanrobles virtual law library
4. Fixed overtime pay equivalent to US$240.00 a month for four (4) months and
one (1) week in the sum of US$1,020.00; chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, EASCO's half-hearted argument that its liability should be limited to the 5. Overtime pay for 14 Sundays equivalent to US$484.99; chanrobles virtual law library
maximum amount set in its surety bond, i.e., P150,000.00, is palpably without merit, 6. Repatriation cost of US$945.46; chanrobles virtual law library
since the aggregate liability imposed on it, P140,817.75, supra, does not in fact 7. Petitioner's cash bond of P20,000.00. 1 chanrobles virtual law library
exceed that limit.

In resolving aforesaid case, the Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Overseas

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and this decision is Employment Administration or POEA found that petitioner-complainant's total
declared to be immediately executory. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. monthly emolument is US$800.00 inclusive of fixed overtime as shown and proved
Republic of the Philippines in the Wage Scale submitted to the Accreditation Department of its Office which
SUPREME COURT would therefore not entitle petitioner to any salary differential; that the version of
Manila complainant that there was in effect contract substitution has no grain of truth
THIRD DIVISION because although the Employment Contract seems to have corrections on it, said
G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989 corrections or alterations are in conformity with the Wage Scale duly approved by
NORBERTO SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING the POEA; that the withholding of a certain amount due petitioner was justified to
CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS answer for his repatriation expenses which repatriation was found to have been
COMMISSION (Second Division), Respondents. requested by petitioner himself as shown in the entry in his Seaman's Book; and that
petitioner deposited a total amount of P15,000.00 only instead of P20,000.00 cash
FERNAN, C.J.: bond. 2 chanroble s virtual la w library
This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision of public
respondent National Labor Relations Commission affirming the decision of the Accordingly, respondent POEA ruled as follows:
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration in POEA Case No. (M)85-12-0953
entitled "Norberto Soriano v. Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation and Knut VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, respondents are hereby
Knutsen O.A.S.", which denied petitioner's claim for salary differential and overtime ordered to pay complainant, jointly and severally within ten (10) days from
pay and limited the reimbursement of his cash bond to P15,000.00 instead of receipt hereof the amount of P15,000.00 representing the reimbursement of the
P20,000.00. cash bond deposited by complainant less US$285.83 (to be converted to its
peso equivalent at the time of actual payment). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
In search for better opportunities and higher income, petitioner Norberto Soriano, a
licensed Second Marine Engineer, sought employment and was hired by private Further, attorney's fees equivalent to 10 % of the aforesaid award is assessed
respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized shipping agent in the against respondents. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation. As evidenced by the Crew

Agreement, petitioner was hired to work as Third Marine Engineer on board Knut All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a conduction basis for a period of
fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six (6)
Dissatisfied, both parties appealed the aforementioned decision of the POEA to the
months by mutual agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that
National Labor Relations Commission. Complainant-petitioner's appeal was
he will be promoted to Second Engineer. Thus, while it appears that petitioner joined
dismissed for lack of merit while respondents' appeal was dismissed for having been
the aforesaid vessel on July 23, 1985 he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to
filed out of time.
the alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote
petitioner to the position of Second Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce
petitioner's basic salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was made to Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence this recourse.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
shoulder his return airfare to Manila. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner submits that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion

In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by disregarding the alteration of the
Administration (POEA for short), a complaint against private respondent for payment employment contract made by private respondent. Petitioner claims that the
of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary for November, 1985 and refund of alteration by private respondent of his salary and overtime rate which is evidenced
his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20,000.00 contending by the Crew Agreement and the exit pass constitutes a violation of Article 34 of the
therein that private respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by Labor Code of the Philippines. 6 chanrobles virtual law library
On the other hand, public respondent through the Solicitor General, contends that, (of injustice or absurdity) and that therefore "a literal interpretation is to be rejected if
as explained by the POEA: "Although the employment contract seems to have it would be unjust or lead to absurd results." 18 chanrobles virtual law library
corrections, it is in conformity with the Wage Scale submitted to said office. 7 chanroble s virtual la w library
There is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the

Apparently, petitioner emphasizes the materiality of the alleged unilateral alteration approval of the Department of Labor is a serious violation of law. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
of the employment contract as this is proscribed by the Labor Code while public
respondent finds the same to be merely innocuous. We take a closer look at the Specifically, the law provides:
effects of these alterations upon petitioner's right to demand for his differential,
overtime pay and refund of his return airfare to Manila. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Article 34 paragraph (i) of the Labor Code reads: chanrobles virtual law library
A careful examination of the records shows that there is in fact no alteration made in Prohibited Practices. - It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or
the Crew Agreement 8 or in the Exit Pass. 9 As the original data appear, the figures holder of authority:
US$800.00 fall under the column salary, while the word "inclusive" is indicated under
xxxx
the column overtime rate. With the supposed alterations, the figures US$560.00
(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the

were handwritten above the figures US$800.00 while the figures US$240.00 were Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to
also written above the word "inclusive". chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual la w library
and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the
Department of Labor.
As clearly explained by respondent NLRC, the correction was made only to specify In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations
the salary and the overtime pay to which petitioner is entitled under the contract. It Commission correctly analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an
was a mere breakdown of the total amount into US$560.00 as basic wage and alteration of the original employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by
US$240.00 as overtime pay. Otherwise stated, with or without the amendments the no stretch of the imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted law.
total emolument that petitioner would receive under the agreement as approved by Under similar circumstances, this Court ruled that as a general proposition,
the POEA is US$800.00 monthly with wage differentials or overtime pay included. 10
exceptions from the coverage of a statute are strictly construed. But such
construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable, sensible and fair. Hence,
Moreover, the presence of petitioner's signature after said items renders improbable to rule out from the exemption amendments set forth, although they did not
the possibility that petitioner could have misunderstood the amount of compensation materially change the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit, was held to
he will be receiving under the contract. Nor has petitioner advanced any explanation be unreasonable and unjust, and not in accord with the declared purpose of the
for statements contrary or inconsistent with what appears in the records. Thus, he Margin Law. 19 chanrobles virtual law library
claimed: [a] that private respondent extended the duration of the employment
contract indefinitely, 11 but admitted in his Reply that his employment contract was The purpose of Article 34, paragraph 1 of the Labor Code is clearly the protection of
extended for another six (6) months by agreement between private respondent and both parties. In the instant case, the alleged amendment served to clarify what was
himself: 12 [b] that when petitioner demanded for his overtime pay, respondents agreed upon by the parties and approved by the Department of Labor. To rule
repatriated him 13 which again was discarded in his reply stating that he himself otherwise would go beyond the bounds of reason and justice. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
requested for his voluntary repatriation because of the bad faith and insincerity of
private respondent; 14 [c] that he was required to post a cash bond in the amount of As recently laid down by this Court, the rule that there should be concern, sympathy
P20,000.00 but it was found that he deposited only the total amount of P15,000.00; and solicitude for the rights and welfare of the working class, is meet and proper.
[d] that his salary for November 1985 was not paid when in truth and in fact it was That in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising
petitioner who owes private respondent US$285.83 for cash advances 15 and on from the evidence or in the interpretation of agreements and writings should be
November 27, 1985 the final pay slip was executed and signed; 16 and [e] that he resolved in the former's favor, is not an unreasonable or unfair rule. 20 But to
finished his contract when on the contrary, despite proddings that he continue disregard the employer's own rights and interests solely on the basis of that concern
working until the renewed contract has expired, he adamantly insisted on his and solicitude for labor is unjust and unacceptable. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
termination. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, it is well-settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the

Verily, it is quite apparent that the whole conflict centers on the failure of respondent National Labor Relations Commission which have acquired expertise because their
company to give the petitioner the desired promotion which appears to be jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect
improbable at the moment because the M/V Knut Provider continues to be laid off at but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. 21 chanrobles virtual law library
Limassol for lack of charterers. 17 chanrobles virtual law library
In fact since Madrigal v. Rafferty 22 great weight has been accorded to the
It is axiomatic that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one which interpretation or construction of a statute by the government agency called upon to
defeats the very purpose for which they were passed. This Court has in many cases implement the same. 23 chanrobles virtual law library
involving the construction of statutes always cautioned against narrowly interpreting

a statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed that it is of the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the National
essence of judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such a deplorable result Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines 2. Josefina Mamon 3,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 19. Elsie Penarubia 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SUPREME COURT 3. Jenelyn Casa 3,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 20. Antonia Navarro 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Manila 4. Peachy Laniog 13,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 21. Selfa Palma 3,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SECOND DIVISION 5. Verdelina Belgira 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 22. Lenirose Abangan 13,300.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[G.R. No. 109583. September 5, 1997] 6. Elma Flores 2,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 23. Paulina Cordero 1,400.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE 7. Ramona Liturco 2,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 24. Nora Maquiling 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SECRETARY OF LABOR, ROSELLE CASTIGADOR, JOSEFINA MAMON, 8. Grace Sabando 3,500.00 25. Rosalie Sondia 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
JENELYN CASA, PEACHY LANIOG, VERDELINA BELGIRA, ELMA FLORES, 9. Gloria Palma 1,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 26. Ruby Sepulvida 3,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
RAMONA LITURCO, GRACE SABANDO, GLORIA PALMA, AVELYN ALVAREZ, 10. Avelyn Alvarez 1,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 27. Marjorie Macate 1,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
CANDELARIA NONO,NITA BUSTAMANTE, CYNTHIA ARANDILLO, SANDIE 11. Candelaria Nono 1,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 28. Estelita Biocos 3,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AGUILAR, DIGNA PANAGUITON, VERONICA BAYOGOS, JULIANITA 12. Nita Bustamante 5,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 29. Zita Galindo 3,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ARANADOR, LEONORA CABALLERO, NANCY BOLIVAR, NIMFA BUCOL, ZITA 13. Cynthia Arandillo 1,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 30. Nimfa Bucol 1,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
GALINDO, ESTELITA BIOCOS, MARJORIE MACATE, RUBY SEPULVIDA, 14. Sandie Aguilar 3,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 31. Nancy Bolivar 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ROSALIE SONDIA, NORA MAQUILING, PAULINA CORDERO, LENIROSE 15. Digna Panaguiton 2,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 32. Leonora Caballero 13,900.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ABANGAN, SELFA PALMA, ANTONIA NAVARRO, ELSIE PENARUBIA, IRMA 16. Veronica Bayogos 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 33. Julianita Aranador 14,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SOBREQUIL, SONY JAMUAT, CLETA MAYO, Respondents. 17. Sony Jamuat 4,500.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ROMERO, J.: The complaints of Ma. Luz Alingasa, Nimfa Perez, and Cleta Mayo are hereby
dismissed in view of their desistance.
chanroble svirtualawlibrary
The issue presented in the case at bar is whether or not the Secretary of Labor and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Employment has jurisdiction to cancel or revoke the license of a private fee-charging

employment agency. The following complaints are hereby dismissed for failure to appear/prosecute: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
1. Jiyasmin Bantillo 6. Edna Salvante

From July 24 to September 9, 1987, petitioner Trans Action Overseas Corporation, a chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
private fee-charging employment agency, scoured Iloilo City for possible recruits for 2. Rosa de Luna Senail 7. Thelma Beltiar chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
alleged job vacancies in Hongkong. Private respondents sought employment as 3. Elnor Bandojo 8. Cynthia Cepe chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
domestic helpers through petitioners employees, Luzviminda Aragon, Ben Hur 4. Teresa Caldeo 9. Rosie Pavillon chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Domincil and his wife Cecille. The applicants paid placement fees ranging from 5. Virginia Castroverde chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
P1,000.00 to P14,000.00, but petitioner failed to deploy them. Their demands for
refund proved unavailing; thus, they were constrained to institute complaints against The complaints filed by the following are hereby dismissed for lack of evidence: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
petitioner for violation of Articles 32 and 34(a)[1] of the Labor Code, as amended. 1. Aleth Palomaria 5. Mary Ann Beboso chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. Emely Padrones 6. Josefina Tejero

3. Marybeth Aparri 7. Bernadita Aprong

Petitioner denied having received the amounts allegedly collected from respondents,
4. Lenia Biona 8. Joji Lull

and averred that Aragon, whose only duty was to pre-screen and interview
applicants, and the spouses Domincil were not authorized to collect fees from the Respondent agency is liable for twenty eight (28) counts of violation of Article 32 and
applicants. Accordingly, it cannot be held liable for the money claimed by five (5) counts of Article 34 (a) with a corresponding suspension in the aggregate
respondents. Petitioner maintains that it even warned respondents not to give any period of sixty six (66) months. Considering however, that under the schedule of
money to unauthorized individuals. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
penalties, any suspension amounting to a period of 12 months merits the imposition

of the penalty of cancellation, the license of respondent TRANS ACTION
POEA Regional Extension Unit Coordinator Edgar Somes testified that although he OVERSEAS CORPORATION to participate in the overseas placement and
was aware that petitioner collected fees from respondents, the latter insisted that recruitment of workers is hereby ordered CANCELLED, effective immediately. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
they be allowed to make the payments on the assumption that it could hasten their
deployment abroad. He added that Mrs. Honorata Manliclic, a representative of SO ORDERED.[2] (Underscoring supplied)
petitioner tasked to oversee the conduct of the interviews, told him that she was
leaving behind presigned receipts to Aragon as she cannot stay in Iloilo City for the
screening of the applicants. Manliclic, however, denied this version and argued that On April 29, 1991, petitioner filed its Motion for Temporary Lifting of Order of
it was Somes who instructed her to leave the receipts behind as it was perfectly Cancellation alleging, among other things, that to deny it the authority to engage in
alright to collect fees. placement and recruitment activities would jeopardize not only its contractual
relations with its foreign principals, but also the welfare, interests, and livelihood of
recruited workers scheduled to leave for their respective assignments. Finally, it

On April 5, 1991, then Labor Undersecretary Nieves R. Confesor rendered the manifested its willingness to post a bond to insure payment of the claims to be
assailed order, the dispositive portion of which reads: chanroble svirtualawlibrary
awarded, should its appeal or motion be denied. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the Finding the motion to be well taken, Undersecretary Confesor provisionally lifted the
following claims: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
cancellation of petitioners license pending resolution of its Motion for

1. Rosele Castigador P14,000.00 18. Irma Sobrequil 2,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanroble svirtualawlibrary
Reconsideration filed on May 6, 1991. On January 30, 1992, however, petitioners The Administrator was also given the power to order the dismissal of the case or the
motion for reconsideration was eventually denied for lack of merit, and the April 5, suspension of the license or authority of the respondent agency or contractor or
1991, order revoking its license was reinstated. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary recommend to the Minister the cancellation thereof.[8] (Underscoring supplied) chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Petitioner contends that Secretary Confesor acted with grave abuse of discretion in This power conferred upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment was echoed in
rendering the assailed orders on alternative grounds, viz.: (1) it is the Philippine People v. Diaz,[9] viz.: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) which has the exclusive and original
jurisdiction to hear and decide illegal recruitment cases, including the authority to A non-licensee or non-holder of authority means any person, corporation or entity
cancel recruitment licenses, or (2) the cancellation order based on the 1987 POEA which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and
Schedule of Penalties is not valid for non-compliance with the Revised placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been
Administrative Code of 1987 regarding its registration with the U.P. Law Center. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary. (Underscoring

supplied) chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Under Executive Order No. 797[3] (E.O. No. 797) and Executive Order No. 247
(E.O. No. 247),[4] the POEA was established and mandated to assume the functions In view of the Courts disposition on the matter, we rule that the power to suspend or
of the Overseas Employment Development Board (OEDB), the National Seamen cancel any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment is
Board (NSB), and the overseas employment function of the Bureau of Employment concurrently vested with the POEA and the Secretary of Labor.
Services (BES). Petitioner theorizes that when POEA absorbed the powers of these
agencies, Article 35 of the Labor Code, as amended, was rendered ineffective. chanroble svirtualawlibrary
As regards petitioners alternative argument that the non-filing of the 1987 POEA
Schedule of Penalties with the UP Law Center rendered it ineffective and, hence,
The power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit employees for cannot be utilized as basis for penalizing them, we agree with Secretary Confesors
overseas employment is vested upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment. explanation, to wit:
Article 35 of the Labor Code, as amended, which provides:
On the other hand, the POEA Revised Rules on the Schedule of Penalties was
ART. 35. Suspension and/or Cancellation of License or Authority. - The Minister of issued pursuant to Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended. The same merely
Labor shall have the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit amplified and particularized the various violations of the rules and regulations of the
employees for overseas employment for violation of rules and regulations issued by POEA and clarified and specified the penalties therefore (sic). Indeed, the
the Ministry of Labor, the Overseas Employment Development Board, and the questioned schedule of penalties contains only a listing of offenses. It does not
National Seamen Board, or for violation of the provisions of this and other applicable prescribe additional rules and regulations governing overseas employment but only
laws, General Orders and Letters of Instructions. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
detailed the administrative sanctions imposable by this Office for some enumerated
prohibited acts. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the case of Eastern Assurance and Surety Corp. v. Secretary of Labor,[5] we held
that: chanroble svirtualawlibrary
Under the circumstances, the license of the respondent agency was cancelled on
the authority of Article 35 of the Labor Code, as amended, and not pursuant to the
The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed 1987 POEA Revised Rules on Schedule of Penalties.[10]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
for violations of the above quoted provisions, among others. And the Secretary of
Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions, as well as
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
the authority, conferred by Section 36, not only to restrict and regulate the
Accordingly, the decision of the Secretary of Labor dated April 5, 1991, is
recruitment and placement activities of all agencies, but also to promulgate rules and
AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions governing said
activities. Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted, the Secretary of Labor Republic of the Philippines
gave the POEA,[6] on its own initiative or upon filing of a complaint or report or upon SUPREME COURT
request for investigation by any aggrieved person, x x (authority to) conduct the Manila
necessary proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of the license or authority FIRST DIVISION
of any agency or entity for certain enumerated offenses including - [G.R.No.120835-40.April 10, 1997]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.TAN TIONG MENG alias
"TOMMY TAN", Accused-Appellant.

1) the imposition or acceptance, directly or indirectly, of any amount of money,
goods or services, or any fee or bond in excess of what is prescribed by the DECISION
Administration, and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
PADILLA, J.: chanroble svirtualawlibrary
Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias "Tommy Tan" was charged with Illegal
2) any other violation of pertinent provisions of the Labor Code and other relevant Recruitment in Large Scale and six (6) counts of estafa. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
laws, rules and regulations.[7]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The information for large scale illegal recruitment reads: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"That on or about the period comprising June 1993 to August, 1993, in the City of "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, using a business name RAINBOW SIM FACTORY, a 1.In Criminal Case No.278-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond
private employment recruiting agency, and misrepresenting himself to have the reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale defined and
capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad penalized under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended in relation to Article 39
with the ability to facilitate the issuance and approval of the necessary papers in thereof, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a
connection therewith, when in fact he did not possess the authority or license from fine of P100,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to do so, did, then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly for a fee, recruit in a large scale and promise
employment in Taiwan to the following persons, to wit: chanroble svirtualawlibrary
2.In Criminal Case No.277-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2)
(a) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to a penalty of
Ernesto Orcullo y Nicolas - P15,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary
imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as the maximum; and to
Manuel Latina y Nicanor - P15,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
pay ERNESTO ORCULLO the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as
Neil Mascardo y Guiraldo - P15,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
moral and exemplary damages;

Librado C.Pozas - P15,000.00
Edgardo Tolentino y Vasquez - P15,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Gavino Asiman - P15,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary

(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of
as in fact, the said persons gave and delivered the abovestated amount, imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as the maximum, and to
respectively, to the herein accused who know fully well that the aforesaid persons pay NEIL MASCARDO the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as
could not be sent to Taiwan, to the damage and prejudice of said aforementioned moral and exemplary damages;
private complainants."[1]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The informations for estafa aver substantially the same allegations as follows: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(a) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to a penalty of
"In Criminal Case No.277-93: chanroble svirtualawlibrary
imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and to pay
MANUEL LATINA the sum of P15,000 as actual damages, and P15,000 as moral
and exemplary damages;
That on or about June 7, 1993, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means
of false representations that he can secure an employment in Taiwan for Ernesto 5.In Criminal Case No.343-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond
Orcullo y Nicolas as a factory worker induced the latter to entrust to him the amount reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2)
of P15,000.00, in consideration of the promised employment, but the herein (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of
accused, once in possession of the amount, with intent to defraud, with grave abuse imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and to pay
of confidence and without fulfilling his promise, did, then and there, wilfully, RICARDO GREPO the sum of P20,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral
unlawfully and knowingly, misapply, misappropriate and convert the same to his own and exemplary damages; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
personal use and benefit and notwithstanding repeated demands made upon him for
the return of the amount, accused herein failed and refused to do so, to the damage 6.In Criminal Case No.365-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond
and prejudice of Ernesto Orcullo y Nicolas in the amount of P15,000.00, Philippine reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2)
Currency."[2]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanroble svirtualawlibrary (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum and to pay
The other informations for estafa involve the following complainants and amounts. chanroble svirtualawlibrary
LIBRADO POZAS the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as moral
1) Neil Mascardo - P15,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary
and exemplary damages; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2) Manuel Latina - P15,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3) Ricardo Grepo - P20,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary

4) Librado Pozas - P15,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary
5) Gavino Asiman - P15,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary
(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and to pay
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the informations and all seven (7) cases GAVINO ASIMAN the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as moral
were tried jointly. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
and exemplary damages.
On 12 May 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City rendered a
decision* the dispositive part of which reads: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In addition to the foregoing penalties, the accused being an alien, shall be deported for illegal recruitment on 28 August 1993.On 31 August 1993, he, Manuel Latina and
without further proceedings after service of sentence. chanroble svirtualawlibrary Ernesto Orcullo went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
where they found out that accused-appellant was not a licensed or authorized
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time during overseas recruiter. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
which he underwent preventive imprisonment, provided he voluntarily agreed in

writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, Ricardo Grepo testified that on 11 August 1993, he went to Borja's house where he
otherwise, he shall be credited with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof (Article 29, RPC, as met with accused-appellant who received from him P15,000.00 for placement and
amended by RA No.6127 and BP Blg.85).
SO ORDERED."[3]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanroblesvirtualawlibrary processing fees.Accused-appellant told him he could get a job as a factory worker in
Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20,000.00.Accused-appellant gave him a signed
typewritten receipt[7] and assured him he could leave for Taiwan on 28 August
On appeal to this Court, accused-appellant assigns a single error allegedly
1993.Accused-appellant later told him that his visa was not yet ready and he
committed by the trial court, thus:
thereafter learned from Jose Borja that accused-appellant had been arrested for
illegal recruitment activities.Grepo filed his complaint on 30 August 1993. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL
Lucita Mascardo-Orcullo testified that she is the wife of Ernesto Orcullo, one of the
RECRUITMENT IN A LARGE SCALE UNDER CRIMINAL CASE NO.278-93 AND
complainants.She stated that on 7 June 1993, she went with her husband to Borja's
ESTAFA IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS.277-93, 279-93, 280-93, 343-93, 365-93, AND
house where they gave Ernesto's passport and other papers to accused-appellant
371-93." [4]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
who assured them that Ernesto could get a job as a factory worker in Taiwan.Lucita
further averred that they paid P15,000.00 to accused-appellant for placement and
The case for the prosecution averred the following facts: chanroble svirtualawlibrary
processing fees as shown by a receipt signed by accused-appellant.[8]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Gavino Asiman testified that a certain Jose Percival Borja who was a friend of his Dionisa Latina testified that she is the wife of complainant Manuel Latina.She stated
relative informed him that a job recruiter would be at Borja's house at Capt.Villareal that on 9 June 1993, she and her husband went to Borja's house to meet accused-
St., Cavite City, in case anyone was interested in an overseas job in Taiwan.Asiman appellant who told them that Manuel could get a job at a toy factory in Taiwan.They
further recalled that on 18 August 1993, he and his friend, Librado Pozas went to paid P15,000.00 to accused-appellant who issued a receipt[9] and assured them
Borja's house where they met the accused-appellant who told them he could get Manuel could leave on 30 June 1993.After said date, accused-appellant kept on
them jobs as factory workers in Taiwan with a monthly salary of promising them that Manuel would be able to leave for Taiwan.The promises were
P20,000.00.Accused-appellant required them to submit their passport, bio-data and never fulfilled. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
their high school diploma as well as to pay P15,000.00 each for placement and
processing fees.The former issued two (2) receipts which he signed in the presence
Angelina de Luna, a Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, testified that
of Asiman and Pozas.[5] Accused-appellant assured them that they could leave for
their office received a subpoena from the trial court requiring the issuance of a
Taiwan twelve (12) days later.Asiman stated that they filed the complaints for illegal
certification stating whether or not Tan Tiong Meng alias Tommy Tan was authorized
recruitment when they learned that accused-appellant was arrested for illegal
by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.De Luna presented a
recruitment activities.
certification signed by Ma.Salome S.Mendoza, Chief, Licensing Branch of the POEA
dated 7 July 1994 stating that accused-appellant is neither licensed nor authorized
Librado Pozas corroborated the testimony of Asiman.He added that Borja had no by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.[10]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
participation in the offense as his house was merely used as a meeting place by
accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias Tommy Tan was the only witness for the
defense.He testified that he is a Singaporean national married to Estelita Oribiana, a

Neil Mascardo testified that he met accused-appellant through a friend and also Filipino-Chinese.He added that he works as a sales representative for Oribiana
through Jose Borja.Mascardo narrated that on 7 July 1993, he went to Borja's house Laboratory Supplies, a company owned by his brother-in-law which sells laboratory
to meet accused-appellant who assured him of getting him an employment in equipment to various schools in Cavite. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Taiwan at the Rainbow Ship Co., a marble and handicraft factory with a monthly
salary of P20,000.00.He further testified that he paid P15,000.00 to accused-
appellant for placement and processing fees as shown by a receipt signed by Tan alleged that Jose Percival Borja was introduced to him by a certain Malou
accused-appellant.[6] Accused-appellant first told him he could leave on 15 July Lorenzo at the office of their laboratory supplies in Sta.Cruz, Manila.Lorenzo
1993.When he later inquired about his departure date, accused-appellant told him allegedly told him that Borja needed his help in processing job applications for
he could leave by the end of July 1993.After July, accused-appellant told him he abroad.When he talked to Borja, the latter told him that he could help in convincing
would leave on 15 August 1993 together with his uncle Manuel Latina.When he applicants that they could work in Taiwan.Borja offered him a P1,000.00 commission
failed to leave on the last mentioned date and accused-appellant told him he would from the amount paid by each applicant. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
leave on 28 August 1993, Mascardo told accused-appellant he wanted his money

back.Accused-appellant told him that a refund was not possible since he had already Tan admitted having received money from all the complainants but he said that all
sent the money to his brother-in-law in Taiwan.Mascardo decided to file a complaint the money was turned over to Borja after deducting his commission.Tan likewise
admitted that he and his wife are respondents in about seventy (70) cases of estafa two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement."
and illegal recruitment but that it was Lorenzo who was the main recruiter. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is clear that accused-appellant's acts of accepting placement fees from job

The prosecution presented Jose Percival Borja as a rebuttal witness.Borja testified applicants and representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan
that Tan was introduced to him by Malou Lorenzo.Accused-appellant told him that constitute recruitment and placement under the above provision of the Labor
they were direct recruiters for jobs in Taiwan and that he has relatives there.Tan's Code. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
offer was attractive considering that he charged only P15,000.00 while the prevailing
rate for job placements was P45,000.00-P60,000.00.Borja added that he even told
The Labor Code prohibits any person or entity, not authorized by the POEA, from
his friends and relatives to apply with accused-appellant.Tan had told him that he
engaging in recruitment and placement activities thus:
sometimes comes to Cavite to deliver laboratory equipment.When Tan called him up
to tell him he was in the area, Borja told him to come to his house.It was at his house
where Tan accepted money from several job applicants most of whom he (Borja) did "(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under
not know.When Borja realized that Tan had cheated the applicants, he helped set up Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
a trap and had Tan arrested by his neighbor Tony Guinto, a Cavite City authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code x x x x ch
policeman.Borja later learned that Tan had victimized several people in Batangas
and Metro Manila. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
In the present appeal, accused-appellant would have the Court believe that he accordance with Article 39 hereof. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
merely acted as a collector of money for the principal recruiter Borja who made the
representations that he (Tan) could give the applicants jobs in Taiwan.He maintains Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of
that he merely received commissions from the transactions and that the deceit was three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in
employed not by him but by Borja who introduced him as a job recruiter. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under
the first paragraph hereof.Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
The Court is not impressed by such bizarre pretensions. chanroble svirtualawlibrary
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group."[14]
Several revealing circumstances belie the version for the defense, namely: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The POEA having certified that accused-appellant is not authorized to recruit
1.Neil Mascardo testified that accused-appellant told him he could no longer workers for overseas employment, it is clear that the offense committed against the
return his money because he had already sent it to his brother-in-law Lee Shut six (6) complainants in this case is illegal recruitment in large scale punishable under
Kua in Taiwan; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code with life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred
2.All the receipts issued to complainants were signed by accused-appellant; chanroble svirtualawlibrary
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3.Tan admitted that he and his wife are respondents in about seventy (70)
cases for estafa and illegal recruitment in Batangas; [11]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanroble svirtualawlibrary Accused-appellant's guilt of six (6) separate crimes of estafa has likewise been
4.Tan executed a sworn statement dated 13 September 1993 before SPO2 proven.
Eduardo G.Nover, Jr.in the presence of his lawyer Atty.Florendo C.Medina
wherein he admitted receiving P15,000.00 from Gavino Asiman;
The argument that the deceit was employed by Jose Percival Borja and not by
[12]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
accused-appellant is specious, even ridiculous.All the complainants agreed that it

5.The complainants all pointed to Tan and not Borja as the one who had was accused-appellant Tan who assured them of jobs in Taiwan.The assurances
represented to them that he could give them jobs in Taiwan. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
were made intentionally to deceive the would-be job applicants to part with their
money. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
There is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives against Tan other
than to bring him to the bar of justice.The testimonies of the witnesses for the In People v.Calonzo,[15] the Court reiterated the rule that a person convicted for
prosecution were straight-forward, credible and convincing.The constitutional illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be convicted for violation of the
presumption of innocence in Tan's favor has been overcome by proof beyond Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa provided the elements of the crime are
reasonable doubt and we affirm his convictions. chanroble svirtualawlibrary
present.In People v.Romero[16] the elements of the crime were stated thus: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement thus: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of

deceit, and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"(A)ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or

procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; Provided, that any offended party or third person.
person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to
Both elements have been proven in this case. chanroble svirtualawlibrary 06. T: Paano naman naganap ang pangyayari? chanrobles virtual law library
One final point.The names of a certain Malou Lorenzo and Chit Paulino have been S. Pagkagaling ko sa Japan ipinatawag niya ako. Kinuha
mentioned by accused-appellant as being illegal recruiters whom he contends are ang PECC Card ko at sinabing hahanapan ako ng
either the main recruiters or their agents.It also appears that accused-appellant's booking sa Japan. Mag 9 month's na ako sa Phils. ay
wife Estelita Oribiana who is a co-accused in the other illegal recruitment complaints hindi pa niya ako napa-alis. So lumipat ako ng ibang
may be a part of a large syndicate operating in Batangas, Cavite and Metro company pero ayaw niyang ibigay and PECC Card
Manila.There is nothing on the record to show that attempts were made to ko.
investigate these three (3) people. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. On November 3, 1987, public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez to whom

The campaign and drive against illegal recruiters should be continuous and said complaint was assigned, sent to the petitioner the following telegram:
unrelenting.Government should not be content with bringing to justice but a number
of these diabolic denizens of society who thrive on the dreams of our countrymen of YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE FERDIE
having a better life.Only when the last of their tribe has been convicted and punished MARQUEZ POEA ANTI ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT UNIT 6TH FLR. POEA
can the government rightfully claim that it has fulfilled the constitutional mandate to BLDG. EDSA COR. ORTIGAS AVE. MANDALUYONG MM ON
protect the rights and promote the welfare of workers.[17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
NOVEMBER 6, 1987 AT 10 AM RE CASE FILED AGAINST YOU. FAIL
NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding accused-appellant Tan Tiong
Meng alias "Tommy Tan" guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts 4. On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no
of estafa, is hereby AFFIRMED.Costs against accused-appellant.SO ORDERED. license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent
Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his challenged
Republic of the Philippines CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER NO. 1205 which reads:
SUPREME COURT
Manila HORTY SALAZAR
EN BANC No. 615 R.O. Santos St.
G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990 Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
HORTENCIA SALAZAR, Petitioner, vs. HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his
capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment

Administration, and FERDIE MARQUEZ, Respondents. Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Presidential Decree
No. 1920 and Executive Order No. 1022, I hereby order the
CLOSURE of your recruitment agency being operated at No. 615
R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the seizure of
SARMIENTO, J.: the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be
This concerns the validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having
arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal verified that you have -
recruitment. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The facts are as follows: (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and
xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library
Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; chanrobles virtual law library
1. On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro of 177 Tupaz Street, Leveriza, Pasay
City, in a sworn statement filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New
Administration (POEA for brevity) charged petitioner Hortencia Salazar, viz: Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
04. T: Ano ba ang dahilan at ikaw ngayon ay narito at

nagbibigay ng salaysay.
This ORDER is without prejudice to your criminal prosecution under
existing laws.
S: Upang ireklamo sa dahilan ang aking PECC Card ay

ayaw ibigay sa akin ng dati kong manager. - Horty
Done in the City of Manila, this 3th day of November, 1987.
Salazar - 615 R.O. Santos, Mandaluyong, Mla.
5. On January 26, 1988 POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Atty.

05. T: Kailan at saan naganap and ginawang panloloko sa
Estelita B. Espiritu issued an office order designating respondents Atty.
iyo ng tao/mga taong inireklamo mo?
Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara and Atty. Ernesto Vistro as members of a team
tasked to implement Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205. Doing so, the group
S. Sa bahay ni Horty Salazar. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen Lito Castillo of the People's 7. On February 2, 1988, before POEA could answer the letter, petitioner filed
Journal and Ernie Baluyot of News Today proceeded to the residence of the the instant petition; on even date, POEA filed a criminal complaint against her
petitioner at 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. There it was with the Pasig Provincial Fiscal, docketed as IS-88-836. 1 chanrobles virtual law library
found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. Before entering the
place, the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora On February 2, 1988, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the acts
Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs. Flora sought to be barred are already fait accompli, thereby making prohibition too late, we
Salazar informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with consider the petition as one for certiorari in view of the grave public interest
Moreman Development (Phil.). However, when required to show credentials, involved.
she was unable to produce any. Inside the studio, the team chanced upon
twelve talent performers - practicing a dance number and saw about twenty
more waiting outside, The team confiscated assorted costumes which were duly The Court finds that a lone issue confronts it: May the Philippine Overseas
receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue warrants of
Salazar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code? It is also an issue
squarely raised by the petitioner for the Court's resolution. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
6. On January 28, 1988, petitioner filed with POEA the following letter: chanrobles virtual law library
Under the new Constitution, which states:

. . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
Gentlemen: chanrobles virtual law library
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or

affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
On behalf of Ms. Horty Salazar of 615 R.O. Santos, Mandaluyong, Metro particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
Manila, we respectfully request that the personal properties seized at her seized. 2 chanrobles virtual law library
residence last January 26, 1988 be immediately returned on the ground that it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. 3 In one case, it was
said seizure was contrary to law and against the will of the owner thereof. declared that mayors may not exercise this power:
Among our reasons are the following: xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library
But it must be emphasized here and now that what has just been described is
1. Our client has not been given any prior notice or hearing, hence the the state of the law as it was in September, 1985. The law has since been
Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 dated November 3, 1987 violates "due altered. No longer does the mayor have at this time the power to conduct
process of law" guaranteed under Sec. 1, Art. III, of the Philippine preliminary investigations, much less issue orders of arrest. Section 143 of the
Constitution. Local Government Code, conferring this power on the mayor has been
abrogated, rendered functus officio by the 1987 Constitution which took effect
on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification by the Filipino people. Section 2,
2. Your acts also violate Sec. 2, Art. III of the Philippine Constitution which Article III of the 1987 Constitution pertinently provides that "no search warrant or
guarantees right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
whatever nature and for any purpose." chanrobles virtual law library
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the person or things to be seized." The constitutional
3. The premises invaded by your Mr. Ferdi Marquez and five (5) others proscription has thereby been manifested that thenceforth, the function of
(including 2 policemen) are the private residence of the Salazar family, and determining probable cause and issuing, on the basis thereof, warrants of arrest
the entry, search as well as the seizure of the personal properties or search warrants, may be validly exercised only by judges, this being
belonging to our client were without her consent and were done with evidenced by the elimination in the present Constitution of the phrase, "such
unreasonable force and intimidation, together with grave abuse of the color other responsible officer as may be authorized by law" found in the counterpart
of authority, and constitute robbery and violation of domicile under Arts. 293 provision of said 1973 Constitution, who, aside from judges, might conduct
and 128 of the Revised Penal Code. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
preliminary investigations and issue warrants of arrest or search warrants. 4 chanrobles virtual law library
Unless said personal properties worth around TEN THOUSAND PESOS Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body:
(P10,000.00) in all (and which were already due for shipment to Japan) are
returned within twenty-four (24) hours from your receipt hereof, we shall We agree that the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force exercises, or was
feel free to take all legal action, civil and criminal, to protect our client's meant to exercise, prosecutorial powers, and on that ground, it cannot be said
interests. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
to be a neutral and detached "judge" to determine the existence of probable
cause for purposes of arrest or search. Unlike a magistrate, a prosecutor is
We trust that you will give due attention to these important matters. naturally interested in the success of his case. Although his office "is to see that
justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person
accused," he stands, invariably, as the accused's adversary and his accuser. To
permit him to issue search warrants and indeed, warrants of arrest, is to make
him both judge and jury in his own right, when he is neither. That makes, to our The Solicitor General's reliance on the case of Morano v. Vivo 9 is not well-taken.
mind and to that extent, Presidential Decree No. 1936 as amended by Vivo involved a deportation case, governed by Section 69 of the defunct Revised
Presidential Decree No. 2002, unconstitutional. 5 chanrobles virtual law library Administrative Code and by Section 37 of the Immigration Law. We have ruled that
in deportation cases, an arrest (of an undesirable alien) ordered by the President or
Section 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, as now written, was entered as an his duly authorized representatives, in order to carry out a final decision of
amendment by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1920 and 2018 of the late President deportation is valid. 10 It is valid, however, because of the recognized supremacy of
Ferdinand Marcos, to Presidential Decree No. 1693, in the exercise of his legislative the Executive in matters involving foreign affairs. We have held: 11
powers under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. Under the latter, the then xxx xxx xxx
Minister of Labor merely exercised recommendatory powers: The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens (Chuoco Tiaco
vs. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 57 L. Ed. 960, 40 Phil. 1122, 1125). That power may
be exercised by the Chief Executive "when he deems such action necessary for
(c) The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representative shall have the the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation." Justice Johnson's opinion is
power to recommend the arrest and detention of any person engaged in illegal that when the Chief Executive finds that there are aliens whose continued
recruitment. 6chanrobles virtual law library
presence in the country is injurious to the public interest, "he may, even in the
absence of express law, deport them". (Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco and
On May 1, 1984, Mr. Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree No. 1920, with the Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534, 568, 569; In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
avowed purpose of giving more teeth to the campaign against illegal recruitment. The right of a country to expel or deport aliens because their continued
The Decree gave the Minister of Labor arrest and closure powers: presence is detrimental to public welfare is absolute and unqualified (Tiu Chun
Hai and Go Tam vs. Commissioner of Immigration and the Director of NBI, 104
(b) The Minister of Labor and Employment shall have the power to cause the Phil. 949, 956). 12
arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after

proper investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously,
national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job- exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) can not be made to extend to other
seekers. The Minister shall order the closure of companies, establishment and cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts.
entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas
employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so. 7 chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, the search and seizure order in question, assuming, ex gratia argumenti,
that it was validly issued, is clearly in the nature of a general warrant:
On January 26, 1986, he, Mr. Marcos, promulgated Presidential Decree No. 2018,
giving the Labor Minister search and seizure powers as well: Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Presidential Decree No. 1920 and
Executive Order No. 1022, I hereby order the CLOSURE of your recruitment
(c) The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized agency being operated at No. 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such and the seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to
non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that
his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead you have -
to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Minister shall order the search of the
office or premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and
other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; chanrobles virtual law library
companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New
of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code.
authorized to do so. 8 chanrobles virtual law library
This ORDER is without prejudice to your criminal prosecution under existing

laws.
The above has now been etched as Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code.
virtual law library
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
We have held that a warrant must identify clearly the things to be seized, otherwise,
The decrees in question, it is well to note, stand as the dying vestiges of it is null and void, thus:
authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
xxx xxx xxx
Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration

constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants.
We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue
The search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in this wise:
search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial
1) All printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo equipment,
process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code,
typewriters, cabinets, tables, communications/ recording equipment, tape
unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
recorders, dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the printing of
chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
the "WE FORUM" newspaper and any and all documents/communications,

letters and facsimile of prints related to the "WE FORUM" newspaper.
library
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search
and Seizure Order No. 1205. No costs. SO ORDERED.
2) Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other Republic of the Philippines
publications to promote the objectives and purposes of the subversive SUPREME COURT
organizations known as Movement for Free Philippines, Light-a-Fire Manila
Movement and April 6 Movement; and chanrobles virtual law library
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 100641 June 14, 1993
FARLE P. ALMODIEL, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
3) Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the "WE FORUM" COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), RAYTHEON PHILS., INC., Respondents.
and other subversive materials and propaganda, more particularly, chanrobles virtual law library
NOCON, J.:
1) Toyota-Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No. NKA 892; chanrobles virtual law library Subject of this petition for certiorari is the decision dated March 21, 1991 of the
2) DATSUN, pick-up colored white with Plate No. NKV 969; chanrobles virtual law library National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No.
3) A delivery truck with Plate No. NBS 542; chanrobles virtual law library 00-00645-89 which reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision dated
4) TOYOTA-TAMARAW, colored white with Plate No. PBP 665; and
library
chanrobles virtual law September 27, 1989 and ordered instead the payment of separation pay and
5) TOYOTA Hi-Lux, pick-up truck with Plate No. NGV 472 with marking financial assistance of P100,000.00. Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion on
"Bagong Silang." the part of the Commission and prays for the reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter's
decision which declared his termination on the ground of redundancy illegal. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
In Stanford v. State of Texas, the search warrant which authorized the search
for "books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, Petitioner Farle P. Almodiel is a certified public accountant who was hired in
recordings and other written instruments concerning the Communist Parties of October, 1987 as Cost Accounting Manager of respondent Raytheon Philippines,
Texas, and the operations of the Community Party in Texas," was declared void Inc. through a reputable placement firm, John Clements Consultants, Inc. with a
by the U.S. Supreme Court for being too general. In like manner, directions to starting monthly salary of P18,000.00. Before said employment, he was the
"seize any evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or accounts executive of Integrated Microelectronics, Inc. for several years. He left his
otherwise" have been held too general, and that portion of a search warrant lucrative job therein in view of the promising career offered by Raytheon. He started
which authorized the seizure of any "paraphernalia which could be used to as a probationary or temporary employee. As Cost Accounting Manager, his major
violate Sec. 54-197 of the Connecticut General Statutes (the statute dealing duties were: (1) plan, coordinate and carry out year and physical inventory; (2)
with the crime of conspiracy)" was held to be a general warrant, and therefore formulate and issue out hard copies of Standard Product costing and other
invalid. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search cost/pricing analysis if needed and required and (3) set up the written Cost
warrants in question cannot be characterized differently. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Accounting System for the whole company. After a few months, he was given a
regularization increase of P1,600.00 a month. Not long thereafter, his salary was
In the Stanford case, the U.S. Supreme court calls to mind a notable chapter in increased to P21,600.00 a month. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
English history; the era of disaccord between the Tudor Government and the
English Press, when "Officers of the Crown were given roving commissions to On August 17, 1988, he recommended and submitted a Cost Accounting/Finance
search where they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of Reorganization, affecting the whole finance group but the same was disapproved by
dissent both Catholic and Puritan." Reference herein to such historical episode the Controller. However, he was assured by the Controller that should his position or
would not be relevant for it is not the policy of our government to suppress any department which was apparently a one-man department with no staff becomes
newspaper or publication that speaks with "the voice of non-conformity" but untenable or unable to deliver the needed service due to manpower constraint, he
poses no clear and imminent danger to state security. 14 chanrobles virtual law library
would be given a three (3) year advance notice. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the following principles: In the meantime, the standard cost accounting system was installed and used at the
Raytheon plants and subsidiaries worldwide. It was likewise adopted and installed in
1. Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no the Philippine operations. As a consequence, the services of a Cost Accounting
other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search: chanrobles virtual law library
Manager allegedly entailed only the submission of periodic reports that would use
computerized forms prescribed and designed by the international head office of the
Raytheon Company in California, USA.
2. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested,

following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. On January 27, 1989, petitioner was summoned by his immediate boss and in the
presence of IRD Manager, Mr. Rolando Estrada, he was told of the abolition of his
position on the ground of redundancy. He pleaded with management to defer its
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor
action or transfer him to another department, but he was told that the decision of
Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are
management was final and that the same has been conveyed to the Department of
Labor and Employment. Thus, he was constrained to file the complaint for illegal
dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the National Capital Region, NLRC, undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the
Department of Labor and Employment. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library separation pay shall be equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or at least one-
half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of
On September 27, 1989, Labor Arbiter Daisy Cauton-Barcelona rendered a decision, at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
There is no dispute that petitioner was duly advised, one (1) month before, of the
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainant's termination of his employment on the ground of redundancy in a written notice by his
termination on the ground of redundancy is highly irregular and without legal immediate superior, Mrs. Magdalena B.D. Lopez sometime in the afternoon of
and factual basis, thus ordering the respondents to reinstate complainant to his January 27, 1989. He was issued a check for P54,863.00 representing separation
former position with full backwages without lost of seniority rights and other pay but in view of his refusal to acknowledge the notice and the check, they were
benefits. Respondents are further ordered to pay complainant P200,000.00 as sent to him thru registered mail on January 30, 1989. The Department of Labor and
moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus ten percent (10%) Employment was served a copy of the notice of termination of petitioner in
of the total award as attorney's fees. 1 accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code and the implementing
rules.
Raytheon appealed therefrom on the grounds that the Labor Arbiter committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying its rights to dismiss petitioner on the ground of The crux of the controversy lies on whether bad faith, malice and irregularity crept in
redundancy, in relying on baseless surmises and self-serving assertions of the the abolition of petitioner's position of Cost Accounting Manager on the ground of
petitioner that its act was tainted with malice and bad faith and in awarding moral redundancy. Petitioner claims that the functions of his position were absorbed by the
and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Payroll/Mis/Finance Department under the management of Danny Ang Tan Chai, a
resident alien without any working permit from the Department of Labor and
Employment as required by law. Petitioner relies on the testimony of Raytheon's

On March 21, 1991, the NLRC reversed the decision and directed Raytheon to pay witness to the effect that corollary functions appertaining to cost accounting were
petitioner the total sum of P100,000.00 as separation pay/financial assistance. The dispersed to other units in the Finance Department. And granting that his
dispositive portion of which is hereby quoted as follows: department has to be declared redundant, he claims that he should have been the
Manager of the Payroll/Mis/Finance Department which handled general accounting,
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside. In its stead, Order is payroll and encoding. As a B. S. Accounting graduate, a CPA with M.B.A. units, 21
hereby issued directing respondent to pay complainant the total separation years of work experience, and a natural born Filipino, he claims that he is better
pay/financial assistance of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). SO qualified than Ang Tan Chai, a B.S. Industrial Engineer, hired merely as a Systems
ORDERED. Analyst Programmer or its equivalent in early 1987, promoted as MIS Manager only
during the middle part of 1988 and a resident alien. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
From this decision, petitioner filed the instant petition averring that:
On the other hand, Raytheon insists that petitioner's functions as Cost Accounting
The public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to (lack Manager had not been absorbed by Ang Tan Chai, a permanent resident born in this
of) or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring as valid and justified the termination country. It claims to have established below that Ang Tan Chai did not displace
of petitioner on the ground of redundancy in the face of clearly established petitioner or absorb his functions and duties as they were occupying entirely different
finding that petitioner's termination was tainted with malice, bad faith and and distinct positions requiring different sets of expertise or qualifications and
irregularity. 3 discharging functions altogether different and foreign from that of petitioner's
abolished position. Raytheon debunks petitioner's reliance on the testimony of Mr.
Estrada saying that the same witness testified under oath that the functions of the
Termination of an employee's services because of redundancy is governed by Cost Accounting Manager had been completely dispensed with and the position
Article 283 of the Labor Code which provides as follows: itself had been totally abolished.
Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. - The employer Whether petitioner's functions as Cost Accounting Manager have been dispensed
may also terminate the employment of any employee due to installation of labor- with or merely absorbed by another is however immaterial. Thus, notwithstanding
saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or the dearth of evidence on the said question, a resolution of this case can be arrived
cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is at without delving into this matter. For even conceding that the functions of
for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written petitioner's position were merely transferred, no malice or bad faith can be imputed
notice on the worker and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one from said act. A survey of existing case law will disclose that in Wiltshire File Co.,
(1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to Inc. v. NLRC, 4 the position of Sales Manager was abolished on the ground of
installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby redundancy as the duties previously discharged by the Sales Manager simply added
shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay for to the duties of the General Manager to whom the Sales Manager used to report. In
every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent adjudging said termination as legal, this Court said that redundancy, for purposes of
losses and in cases of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or our Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is
reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. The employment permit is required for entry into the country for employment purposes
characterization of an employee's services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and is issued after determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines
and therefore, properly terminable, was an exercise of business judgment on the who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the services
part of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of such characterization or decision for which the alien is desired. Since Ang Tan Chai is a resident alien, he does not fall
was not subject to discretionary review on the part of the Labor Arbiter nor of the within the ambit of the provision. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
NLRC so long, of course, as violation of law or merely arbitrary and malicious action
is not shown.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner also assails Raytheon's choice of Ang Tan Chai to head the
Payroll/Mis/Finance Department, claiming that he is better qualified for the position.
In the case of International Macleod, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 this Court It should be noted, however, that Ang Tan Chai was promoted to the position during
also considered the position of Government Relations Officer to have become the middle part of 1988 or before the abolition of petitioner's position in early 1989.
redundant in view of the appointment of the International Heavy Equipment Besides the fact that Ang Tan Chai's promotion thereto is a settled matter, it has
Corporation as the company's dealer with the government. It held therein that the been consistently held that an objection founded on the ground that one has better
determination of the need for the phasing out of a department as a labor and cost credentials over the appointee is frowned upon so long as the latter possesses the
saving device because it was no longer economical to retain said services is a minimum qualifications for the position. In the case at bar, since petitioner does not
management prerogative and the courts will not interfere with the exercise thereof as allege that Ang Tan Chai does not qualify for the position, the Court cannot
long as no abuse of discretion or merely arbitrary or malicious action on the part of substitute its discretion and judgment for that which is clearly and exclusively
management is shown. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library management prerogative. To do so would take away from the employer what rightly
belongs to him as aptly explained in National Federation of Labor Unions v. NLRC: 8
In the same vein, this Court ruled in Bondoc v. People's Bank and Trust Co., 6 that
the bank's board of directors possessed the power to remove a department manager It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the
whose position depended on the retention of the trust and confidence of employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. The determination of the
management and whether there was need for his services. Although some vindictive qualification and fitness of workers for hiring and firing, promotion or
motivation might have impelled the abolition of his position, this Court expounded reassignment are exclusive prerogatives of management. The Labor Code and
that it is undeniable that the bank's board of directors possessed the power to its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different
remove him and to determine whether the interest of the bank justified the existence Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority. The employer is
of his department. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library free to determine, using his own discretion and business judgment, all elements
of employment, "from hiring to firing" except in cases of unlawful discrimination
Indeed, an employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are or those which may be provided by law. There is none in the instant case.
necessary for the operation of its business. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that a
cost accounting system was installed and used at Raytheon subsidiaries and plants Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations
worldwide; and that the functions of his position involve the submission of periodic Commission in reversing and annulling the decision of the Labor Arbiter and that on
reports utilizing computerized forms designed and prescribed by the head office with the contrary, the termination of petitioner's employment was anchored on a valid and
the installation of said accounting system. Petitioner attempts to controvert these authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the instant petition for
realities by alleging that some of the functions of his position were still indispensable certiorari must fail. SO ORDERED.
and were actually dispersed to another department. What these indispensable Republic of the Philippines
functions that were dispersed, he failed however, to specify and point out. Besides, SUPREME COURT
the fact that the functions of a position were simply added to the duties of another Manila
does not affect the legitimacy of the employer's right to abolish a position when done EN BANC
in the normal exercise of its prerogative to adopt sound business practices in the G.R. No. L-2216 January 31, 1950
management of its affairs. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, CONGRESS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (CLO), KAISAHAN NG
Considering further that petitioner herein held a position which was definitely MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA PILIPINAS and JULIAN LUMANOG AND
managerial in character, Raytheon had a broad latitude of discretion in abolishing his HIS WORK-CONTRACT LABORERS, Respondents.
position. An employer has a much wider discretion in terminating employment
relationship of managerial personnel compared to rank and file employees. 7 The TUASON, J.: chanrobles virtual law library
reason obviously is that officers in such key positions perform not only functions Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. assails the validity of an order of the Court of Industrial
which by nature require the employer's full trust and confidence but also functions Relations. The order made upon petitioner's request for authority to hire" about
that spell the success or failure of an enterprise. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
twelve(12) more laborers from time to time and on a temporary basis," contains the
proviso that "the majority of the laborers to be employed should be native." The
petition was filed pending settlement by the court of a labor dispute between the
Likewise destitute of merit is petitioner's imputation of unlawful discrimination when
petitioner and Kaisahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas.
Raytheon caused corollary functions appertaining to cost accounting to be absorbed
At the outset, the appellant takes exception to the finding of the court below that Dee
by Danny Ang Tan Chai, a resident alien without a working permit. Article 40 of the
C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. is capitalized with foreign descent. This question has little or
Labor Code which requires employment permit refers to non-resident aliens. The
no bearing on the case and may well be passed over except incidentally as a point between employees or strikes arising from the difference as regards wages,
of argument in relation to the material issues. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library compensation, and other labor conditions which it may take cognizance of." (Central
Azucarera de Tarlac vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 40 Off. Gaz., 3rd Supp., 319,
It is next said that "The Court of Industrial Relations cannot intervene in questions of 324.)2 Thus it has jurisdiction to determine the number of men to be laid off during
selection of employees and workers so as to impose unconstitutional restrictions," off-seasons. By the same token, the court may specify that a certain proportion of
and that "The restrictions of the number of aliens that nay be employed in any the additional laborers to be employed should be Filipinos, if such condition, in the
business, occupation, trade or profession of any kind, is a denial of the equal court's opinion, "is necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling disputes or
protection of the laws." Although the brief does not name the persons who are doing justice to the parties."chanrobles virtual law library
supposed to be denied the equal protection of the laws, it is clearly to be inferred

that aliens in general are in petitioner's mind. certainly, the order does not, directly or The order in question has that specific end in view. In parallel view the court
indirectly, immediately or remotely, discriminate against the petitioner on account of observed: "Undoubtedly, without the admonition of the Court, nothing could prevent
race or citizenship. The order could have been issued in a case in which the petitioner from hiring purely alien laborers, and there is no gainsaying the fact that
employer was a Filipino. As a matter of fact the petitioner insists that 75 % of its further conflict or dispute would naturally ensue. To cope with this contingency, and
shares of stock are held by Philippine citizens, a statement which is here assumed acting within the powers granted by the organic law, the court, believing in the
to be correct.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library necessity and expediency of making patent its desire to avoid probable and possible
further misunderstanding between the parties, issued the order." chanrobles virtual law library
But is petitioner entitled to challenge the constitutionality of a law or an order which

does not adversely affect it, in behalf of aliens who are prejudiced thereby? The We are not prepared to declare that the order is not conducive to the aim pursued.
answer is not in doubt. An alien may question the constitutionality of a statute (or The question is a practical one depending on facts with which the court is best
court order) only when and so far as it is being, or is about to be, applied to his familiar. The fact already noted should not be lost sight of - that there is a pending
disadvantage. (16 C.J.S. 157 et seq.) The prospective employees whom the strike and besides, that the employment of temporary laborers was opposed by the
petitioner may contemplate employing have not come forward to seek redress; their striking employees and was the subject of a protracted hearing. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
identity has not even been revealed. Clearly the petitioner has no case in so far as it
strives to protect the rights of others, much less others who are unknown and We can not agree with the petitioner that the order constitutes an unlawful intrusion
undetermined. U.S. vs. Wong Ku Ark, 169 U.S. 649; Truax vs. Reich, 239 U.S. 39 60 into the sphere of legislation, by attempting to lay down a public policy of the state or
Law ed., 131., and other American decisions cited do not support the petitioner for to settle a political question. In the first place, we believe, as we have already
the very simple reasons that in those cases it was the persons themselves whose explained, that the court's action falls within the legitimate scope of its jurisdiction. In
rights and immunities under the constitution were being violated that invoked the the second place, the order does not formulate a policy and is not political in
protection of the courts. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
character. It is not a permanent, all-embracing regulation. It is a compromise and

emergency measure applicable only in this case and calculated to bridge a
The petitioner is within its legitimate sphere of interest when it complains that the temporary gap and to adjust conflicting interests in an existing and menacing
appealed order restrains it in its liberty to engage the men it pleases. This complaint controversy. The hiring of Chinese laborers by the petitioner was rightly considered
merits a more detailed examination. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library by the court likely to lead the parties away from the reconciliation which it was the
function of the court to effectuate. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
That the employer's right to hire labor is not absolute has to be admitted. "This
privilege of hiring and firing ad libitum is, of course, being subjected to restraints As far as the petitioner is concerned, the requirement that majority of the laborers to
today." Statutes are cutting in on it. And so does Commonwealth Act No. 103. The be employed should be Filipinos is certain not arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust. The
regulations of the hours of labor of employees and of the employment of women and petitioner's right to employ labor or to make contract with respect thereto is not
children are familiar examples of the limitation of the employer's right in this regard. unreasonably curtailed and its interest is not jeopardized. We take it that the
The petitioner's request for permission to employ additional; laborers is an implicit nationality of the additional laborers to be taken in is immaterial to the petitioner. In
recognition of the correctness of the proposition. The power of the legislature to its application for permission to employ twelve temporary laborers it expressly says
make regulations is subject only to the condition that they should be affected with that these could be Filipinos or Chinese. On the face of this statement, assuming the
public interest and reasonable under the circumstances. The power may be same to be sincere, the petitioner objection to the condition imposed by the court
exercised directly by the law-making body or delegated by appropriate rules to the would appear to be academic and a trifle. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
courts or administrative agencies. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
We should not close without adverting to the fact that the petitioner does not so
We are of the opinion that the order under consideration meets the test of much as pretend that the hiring of additional laborers is its prerogative as a matter of
reasonableness and public interest. The passage of Commonwealth Act No. 103 right. It seems to be conceded that during the pendency of the dispute the petitioner
was "in conformity with the constitutional objective and . . . the historical fact that could employ temporary laborers only with the permission of the Court of Industrial
industrial and agricultural disputes have given rise to disquietude, bloodshed and Relations. The granting of the application thus lies within the sound judgment of the
revolution in our country." (Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. vs. Court of Industrial court, and if the court could turn it down entirely, as we think it could, its authority to
Relations, 40 Off. Gaz., 8th Supp., 173.)1 "Commonwealth Act No. 103 has precisely quality the permission should be undeniable, provided only that the qualification is
vested the Court of Industrial Relations with authority to intervene in all disputes not arbitrary, against law, morals, or established public policy, which it is not; it is an
expedient and emergency step designed to relieve petitioner's own difficulties. Also It is sheer usurpation of legislative power for the court to enact or make laws. Its
important to remember is that it is not compulsory on petitioner's part to take power is confined to interpreting and applying the laws enacted by the legislature.
advantage of the order. Being a permute petitioner is the sole judge of whether it
should take the order as it is, or leave it if it does not suit its interest to hire new
The case of Truax vs. Reich (600 law. ed., 131), which was decided by the Supreme
laborers other than Chinese.
Court of the United States on November 1, 1915, is of pertinent and persuasive
application to the question at issue in that, in our opinion, it emphasizes the utter
The order appealed from is affirmed with costs to this appeal against the petitioner- lack of power of the court to impose the condition here complained of; for in said
appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
case Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Legislature of the State of
Arizona could not validly enact a law similar to the supposed unwritten law which the
Separate Opinions chanrobles virtual law library
Court of Industrial Relations has conceived and has tried to enforce. The law
OZAETA, J., with whom concur PARAS, MONTEMAYOR, and REYES, JJ., involved in said case pertinently reads as follows:
dissenting: chanrobles virtual law library
During the trial of an industrial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent SEC. 1. Any company, corporation, partnership, association or individual who is,
labor union, the former applied to the Court of Industrial Relations for authority "to may hereafter become, an employer of more than five (5) workers at any one
hire about twelve more laborers from time to time and on a temporary basis, to be time, in the state of Arizona, regardless of kind or class of work, or sex of
chosen by the petitioner from either Filipinos or Chinese." the court granted the workers, shall employ not less than (80) per cent qualified electors or native-
authority applied for but imposed as a condition that the majority of the twelve new born citizens of the United States or some subdivision thereof. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
laborers to be hired "should be native and only a nominal percentage thereof alien."
In imposing such condition the court said:
SEC. 2. Any company, corporation, partnership, association or individual, their
agent or agents, found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this act shall be
The hiring of laborers who are not native or Filipino should be discouraged, as it
subject to a fine of not less than one hundred ($100) dollars, and imprisoned for
is being discouraged by this court. In these critical moments of unemployment,
not less than thirty (30) days.
any competition of alien and native labor would be destructive of our Nation that
is in the making. By the act of God, this nation is the Philippines, her soil is the
patrimony of the Filipino people, and in this Philippine soil the Filipino laborers Mike Raich, a native of Austria and an inhabitant of the State of Arizona, but not a
must have priority and preference. No capitalistic management can violate this qualified elector, was employed as a cook by William Truax in his restaurant, where
written law, unless it wants to court trouble and conflict. In the hiring, therefore, he had nine employees, of whom seven were neither native-born citizens of the
of laborers, it is the opinion of this court that management, in employing aliens, United States nor qualified electors. After the passage of said law Raich was
should be prudent and cautious and should, as much as possible, employ only a informed by his employer that because of its requirements and because of the fear
small percentage thereof limited to those absolutely necessary and confidential. of the penalties that would be incurred in case of its violation, he would be
discharged. Thereupon Raich sued Truax and the Attorney General of Arizona to
enjoin them from enforcing the law on the ground that it was unconstitutional
The power of the Court of Industrial Relations to impose such condition as to limit
because it denied him the equal protection of the laws. Both the District Court and
the authority of the employer to hire laborers than Filipinos is challenged by the
the Supreme Court of the United States upheld his contention. The court said that
petitioner. "The petitioner is within its legitimate sphere of interest when it complains
the complainant was entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the equal
that the appealed order restrains it in liberty to engage the men it pleases," says the
protection of the laws of Arizona. "These provisions," said the court, "are universal in
majority opinion, and we add - "regardless of race or nationality." It is true that no
their application, to all person within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any
alien laborer who may be adversely affected by the order has been made a party
differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal laws. . . . The
herein. Under the circumstances of the case he could not be expected to have
discrimination defined by the act does not pertain to the regulation or distribution of
intervened in the incident which gave rise to the order complained of. But his
the public domain, or of the common property or resources of the people of the
intervention is not necessary in order to determine whether or not the Court of
state, the enjoyment of which may be limited to its citizens as against both aliens
Industrial Relations is empowered by law to impose the condition above mentioned.
and the citizens of other states." The court said further:
If the court has no power to discriminate against a certain class of laborers on
account of their race or nationality, it has no power to impose the condition in
question, and the employer has legitimate right to complain against such imposition. It is sought to justify this act as an exercise of the power of the state to make
reasonable classifications in legislating to promote the health, safety, morals,
and welfare of those within its jurisdiction. But this admitted authority, with the
The Court of Industrial Relations impliedly admits the nonexistence of any statue
broad range of legislative discretion that it implies, does not go so far as to
providing that Filipino laborers must be preferred over aliens; but it claims or adopts
make it possible for the state to deny to lawful inhabitants, because of their race
an "unwritten law" to that effect and says that "no capitalistic management can
or nationality, the ordinary means of earning a livelihood. It requires no
violate this unwritten law, unless it wants to court trouble and conflict." Who made
argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations
such unwritten law? Certainly the Congress of the Philippines, the only entity
of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and
authorized by the Constitution to make laws, and which does not promulgate
opportunity that it was the purpose of the Amendment to secure. . . . If this could
unwritten laws, did not do so. The court, therefore, cannot take cognizance of, and
be refused solely upon the ground of race or nationality, the prohibition of the
much less apply, such supposed unwritten law. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws would be a barren form Chauffeurs League vs. Bachrach Motor Co., G. R. No. 49138;2 Pampanga Bus Co.
of words. It is no answer to say, as it is argued, that the act proceeds upon the vs. Pampanga Bus Co. Employees' Union, G. R. No. 46739;3 National Labor Union
assumption that 'the employment of aliens, unless restrained, was a peril to the vs. San Miguel Brewery, CIR case No. 26-V, June 12, 1947)." chanrobles virtual law library
public welfare. The discrimination against aliens in the wide range of

employments to which the acts relates is made an end in itself, and thus the Thus the Court of Industrial Relations itself correctly held that the respondent labor
authority to deny to aliens, upon the mere fact of their alienage, the right to union has no right to encroach upon the prerogative of the company to determine
obtain support in the ordinary fields of labor, is necessarily involved. and adopt its own policy in the selection of its employees and workers, and that the
court itself should not intervene in such selection because there was no proof of
Our own Constitution contains a provision similar to the Fourteenth Amendment to discrimination or retaliation on the part of the company. Yet in the dispositive part of
the Constitution of the United States. Section 1 of Article III provides: its order the court not only intervenes in such selection but compels the company to
discriminate against a certain class of laborers. The inconsistency and illegality of
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the order appealed from are too patent fro argument. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
To hold that the Court of Industrial Relations may, under section 13, impose any
It is patent that if the lawmaking body itself cannot validly enact the supposed unwrit- condition in its order or award in order to prevent further industrial disputes,
ten law conceived or adopted by the lower court, much less could the latter do so. regardless of whether or not such condition is in violation of law or of the
Constitution, is, in our opinion, thinkable. It goes without saying that industrial
dispute must be settled in accordance with law and justice. Suppose that the
Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, invoked by the trial court and by majority members of a labor union should demand of an employer that 80 per cent of the new
of this court as authorizing the imposition of the discriminatory condition contained in laborers the latter may hire should be Filipinos, or that all of them should be
the order appealed from, reads as follows: Tagalogs or Ilocanos, and should threaten to declare a strike unless such demand
be complied with; would the court be justified in granting such demand under section
SEC. 13. Character of the award. - In making an award, order or decision, under 13 on the ground that by doing so it would prevent a or strike or lockout and settle an
the provision of section four of this Act, the Court shall not be restricted to the industrial dispute? The negative answer can hardly be disputed, since
specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial or unreasonableness or illegal demands should not be countenanced by the court. Yet
agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order or decision any matter the affirmance by this Court of the order appealed from in effect authorizes the Court
or determination which may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of Industrial Relations hereafter to commit such arbitrariness. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
of setting the dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural dispute.

For the foregoing reasons, we vote to modify the appealed order by eliminating
As correctly stated by Judge Lanting of the lower court in his dissenting opinion: therefrom the discriminatory condition in question.
Republic of the Philippines
The reference in the resolution of the majority to section 13 of Commonwealth SUPREME COURT
Act No. 103, authorizing this Court to include in its awards, orders or decisions Manila
"any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or expedient for FIRST DIVISION
the purpose of setting the dispute or of preventing further . . . disputes", is G.R. No. 114337 September 29, 1995
farfetched. This provision certainly does not authorize this Court to go beyond NITTO ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
its prescribed powers and issue an order which grossly violates the fundamental COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI, Respondents.
law. More specifically, it cannot make any ruling which will produce the effect of
discriminating against and oppressing a person or class of persons and deny KAPUNAN, J.: chanrobles virtual law library
them the equal protection of the laws, aside from curtailing their individual This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the
freedom and their right to live. decision 1 rendered by public respondent National Labor Relations Commission,
which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
As matter of fact the respondent labor union "manifested its conformity to the hiring Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:
of additional laborers, provided that it be consulted by the petitioner and that it be
given the privilege of recommending the twelve new laborers that are to be hired."
And Judge Roldan in his order overruled that proposition by saying : "The stand Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in the sale of glass and aluminum
taken by the respondent labor union is not correct, because it attempts to encroach products, hired Roberto Capili sometime in May 1990 as an apprentice machinist,
upon the prerogative of the company to determine and adopt its own policy in the molder and core maker as evidenced by an apprenticeship agreement 2 for a period
selection of its employees and workers, and the Court should only intervene in of six (6) months from May 28, 1990 to November 28, 1990 with a daily wage rate of
questions of this nature when there is discrimination or retaliation on the part of the P66.75 which was 75% of the applicable minimum wage.
company, which has not been proven or even alleged in the case bar (Manila
Trading & Supply Co. vs. Judge Francisco Zulueta et al., G. R. No. 46853;1 Manila
At around 1:00 p.m. of August 2, 1990, Roberto Capili who was handling a piece of Three days after, or on August 6, 1990, private respondent formally filed before the
glass which he was working on, accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office NLRC Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal
secretary who was treated at a nearby hospital. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library and payment of other monetary benefits. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Later that same day, after office hours, private respondent entered a workshop On October 9, 1991, the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision finding the termination
within the office premises which was not his work station. There, he operated one of of private respondent as valid and dismissing the money claim for lack of merit. The
the power press machines without authority and in the process injured his left thumb. dispositive portion of the ruling reads:
Petitioner spent the amount of P1,023.04 to cover the medication of private
respondent. chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the termination is valid and for cause, and
the money claims dismissed for lack of merit. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The following day, Roberto Capili was asked to resign in a letter 3 which reads:
August 2, 1990 The respondent however is ordered to pay the complainant the amount of
Wala siyang tanggap ng utos mula sa superbisor at wala siyang experiensa P500.00 as financial assistance. SO ORDERED. 5
kung papaano gamitin and "TOOL" sa pagbuhat ng salamin, sarili niyang
desisyon ang paggamit ng tool at may disgrasya at nadamay pa ang isang

sekretarya ng kompanya. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on gave two reasons for ruling that the dismissal of
Roberto Capilian was valid. First, private respondent who was hired as an
apprentice violated the terms of their agreement when he acted with gross
Sa araw ding ito limang (5) minute ang nakakalipas mula alas-singko ng negligence resulting in the injury not only to himself but also to his fellow worker.
hapon siya ay pumasok sa shop na hindi naman sakop ng kanyang Second, private respondent had shown that "he does not have the proper attitude in
trabaho. Pinakialaman at kinalikot ang makina at nadisgrasya niya ang employment particularly the handling of machines without authority and proper
kanyang sariling kamay. training. 6
Nakagastos ang kompanya ng mga sumusunod:

On July 26, 1993, the National Labor Relations Commission issued an order
reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Emergency and doctor fee P715.00
Medecines (sic) and others 317.04 WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside. The respondent is
hereby directed to reinstate complainant to his work last performed with
Bibigyan siya ng kompanya ng Siyam na araw na libreng sahod hanggang backwages computed from the time his wages were withheld up to the time he
matanggal ang tahi ng kanyang kamay. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
is actually reinstated. The Arbiter of origin is hereby directed to further hear
complainant's money claims and to dispose them on the basis of law and
evidence obtaining. SO ORDERED. 7
Tatanggapin niya ang sahod niyang anim na araw, mula ika-30 ng Hulyo at
ika-4 ng Agosto, 1990. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The NLRC declared that private respondent was a regular employee of

petitioner by ruling thus:
Ang kompanya ang magbabayad ng lahat ng gastos pagtanggal ng tahi ng
kanyang kamay, pagkatapos ng siyam na araw mula ika-2 ng Agosto. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
As correctly pointed out by the complainant, we cannot understand how an

library
apprenticeship agreement filed with the Department of Labor only on June 7,

Sa lahat ng nakasulat sa itaas, hinihingi ng kompanya ang kanyang 1990 could be validly used by the Labor Arbiter as basis to conclude that the
resignasyon, kasama ng kanyang comfirmasyon at pag-ayon na ang lahat complainant was hired by respondent as a plain "apprentice" on May 28, 1990.
sa itaas ay totoo. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Clearly, therefore, the complainant was respondent's regular employee under

Article 280 of the Labor Code, as early as May 28,1990, who thus enjoyed the
Naiintindihan ko ang lahat ng nakasulat sa itaas, at ang lahat ng ito ay security of tenure guaranteed in Section 3, Article XIII of our 1987
aking pagkakasala sa hindi pagsunod sa alintuntunin ng kompanya. Constitution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
(Sgd.) Roberto Capili The complainant being for illegal dismissal (among others) it then behooves
Roberto Capili upon respondent, pursuant to Art. 227(b) and as ruled in Edwin Gesulgon vs.
NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 90349, March 5, 1993, 3rd Div., Feliciano, J.) to prove
On August 3, 1990 private respondent executed a Quitclaim and Release in favor of that the dismissal of complainant was for a valid cause. Absent such proof, we
petitioner for and in consideration of the sum of P1,912.79. 4 cannot but rule that the complainant was illegally dismissed. 8
On January 28, 1994, Labor Arbiter Libo-on called for a conference at which only Employment. The Ministry shall develop standard model programs of
private respondent's representative was present. chanroble s virtual la w library apprenticeship. (emphasis supplied)
On April 22, 1994, a Writ of Execution was issued, which reads: In the case at bench, the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private
NOW, THEREFORE, finding merit in [private respondent's] Motion for Issuance respondent was executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the latter as an
of the Writ, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises of apprentice in the trade of "care maker/molder." On the same date, an apprenticeship
[petitioner] Nitto Enterprises and Jovy Foster located at No. l 74 Araneta program was prepared by petitioner and submitted to the Department of Labor and
Avenue, Portero, Malabon, Metro Manila or at any other places where their Employment. However, the apprenticeship Agreement was filed only on June 7,
properties are located and effect the reinstatement of herein [private 1990. Notwithstanding the absence of approval by the Department of Labor and
respondent] to his work last performed or at the option of the respondent by Employment, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it was signed.
virtual law library
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
payroll reinstatement. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
You are also to collect the amount of P122,690.85 representing his backwages
Based on the evidence before us, petitioner did not comply with the requirements of
as called for in the dispositive portion, and turn over such amount to this Office
the law. It is mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer
for proper disposition.
and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program
duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed

Hence, the instant petition - for certiorari. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine quo non before an
apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The issues raised before us are the following:

I chanrobles virtual law library
The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE and Employment is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not
OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS NOT AN instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice relationship. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
APPRENTICE.
II
Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State aims to "establish a national
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE

apprenticeship program through the participation of employers, workers and
OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT ADEQUATELY
government and non-government agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship
PROVEN THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID CAUSE IN TERMINATING THE SERVICE
standards for the protection of apprentices." To translate such objectives into
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
existence, prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship program has to be
secured as a condition sine qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can
We find no merit in the petition.
be fully enforced. The role of the DOLE in apprenticeship programs and agreements
cannot be debased. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner assails the NLRC's finding that private respondent Roberto Capili cannot
plainly be considered an apprentice since no apprenticeship program had yet been
Hence, since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private
filed and approved at the time the agreement was executed.
respondent has no force and effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program
duly approved by the DOLE, private respondent's assertion that he was hired not as
Petitioner further insists that the mere signing of the apprenticeship agreement an apprentice but as a delivery boy ("kargador" or "pahinante") deserves credence.
already established an employer-apprentice relationship. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
He should rightly be considered as a regular employee of petitioner as defined by
Article 280 of the Labor Code:
Petitioner's argument is erroneous. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written

The law is clear on this matter. Article 61 of the Labor Code provides: agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement
of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary
Contents of apprenticeship agreement. - Apprenticeship agreements, including or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
the main rates of apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued by the Minister employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion
of Labor and Employment. The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of
months. Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below the legal the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
minimum wage, which in no case shall start below 75% per cent of the nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in accordance with
apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the Petitioner cannot disguise the summary dismissal of private respondent by
preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least orchestrating the latter's alleged resignation and subsequent execution of a
one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be Quitclaim and Release. A judicious examination of both events belies any
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is spontaneity on private respondent's part. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
(Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion committed by public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
and pursuant to the constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and SO ORDERED.
promote their welfare." 9 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Petitioner further argues that, there is a valid cause for the dismissal of private Manila
respondent. THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992
FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, Petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE
There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled that the twin requirements
APPELLATE COURT, HON. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO, in his capacity as Judge of
of due process, substantive and procedural, must be complied with, before valid
the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Roxas City and POTENCIANO
dismissal exists. 10 Without which, the dismissal becomes void.
KAPUNAN, SR., Respondents.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: chanrobles virtual law library
process. This simply means that the employer shall afford the worker ample The private respondents, heirs of the late Potenciano Kapunan, seek
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his reconsideration of the decision rendered by this Court on October 16, 1990 (Filamer
representative, if he so desires.chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Christian Institute v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 477) reviewing the appellate
court's conclusion that there exists an employer-employee relationship between the
Ample opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord petitioner and its co-defendant Funtecha. The Court ruled that the petitioner is not
the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense including legal liable for the injuries caused by Funtecha on the grounds that the latter was not an
representation. 11 authorized driver for whose acts the petitioner shall be directly and primarily
answerable, and that Funtecha was merely a working scholar who, under Section
14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code is
As held in the case of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC: 12 not considered an employee of the petitioner. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The private respondents assert that the circumstances obtaining in the present case
The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be call for the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code since Funtecha is no doubt
dismissed with two (2) written notices before termination of employee can be an employee of the petitioner. The private respondents maintain that under Article
legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or 2180 an injured party shall have recourse against the servant as well as the
omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice petitioner for whom, at the time of the incident, the servant was performing an act in
which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him (Sec. 13, furtherance of the interest and for the benefit of the petitioner. Funtecha allegedly did
BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the not steal the school jeep nor use it for a joy ride without the knowledge of the school
Labor Code as amended). Failure to comply with the requirements taints the authorities.
dismissal with illegality. This procedure is mandatory, in the absence of which,

any judgment reached by management is void and in existent (Tingson, Jr. vs. After a re-examination of the laws relevant to the facts found by the trial court and
NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990]; National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA the appellate court, the Court reconsiders its decision. We reinstate the Court of
122; Ruffy vs. NLRC. 182 SCRA 365 [1990]). Appeals' decision penned by the late Justice Desiderio Jurado and concurred in by
Justices Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Serafin E. Camilon. Applying Civil Code
The fact is private respondent filed a case of illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter provisions, the appellate court affirmed the trial court decision which ordered the
only three days after he was made to sign a Quitclaim, a clear indication that such payment of the P20,000.00 liability in the Zenith Insurance Corporation policy,
resignation was not voluntary and deliberate. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
P10,000.00 moral damages, P4,000.00 litigation and actual expenses, and
P3,000.00 attorney's fees. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Private respondent averred that he was actually employed by petitioner as a delivery

boy ("kargador" or "pahinante"). chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It is undisputed that Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and a
scholar of petitioner Filamer. He was, in relation to the school, an employee even if
He further asserted that petitioner "strong-armed" him into signing the he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning
aforementioned resignation letter and quitclaim without explaining to him the of each school day. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
contents thereof. Petitioner made it clear to him that anyway, he did not have a
choice. 13
Having a student driver's license, Funtecha requested the driver, Allan Masa, and Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules implementing the Labor Code, on which the
was allowed, to take over the vehicle while the latter was on his way home one late petitioner anchors its defense, was promulgated by the Secretary of Labor and
afternoon. It is significant to note that the place where Allan lives is also the house of Employment only for the purpose of administering and enforcing the provisions of
his father, the school president, Agustin Masa. Moreover, it is also the house where the Labor Code on conditions of employment. Particularly, Rule X of Book III
Funtecha was allowed free board while he was a student of Filamer Christian provides guidelines on the manner by which the powers of the Labor Secretary shall
Institute.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library be exercised; on what records should be kept; maintained and preserved; on payroll;
and on the exclusion of working scholars from, and inclusion of resident physicians
Allan Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after driving down a road, in the employment coverage as far as compliance with the substantive labor
negotiating a sharp dangerous curb, and viewing that the road was clear. (TSN, April provisions on working conditions, rest periods, and wages, is concerned. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
4, 1983, pp. 78-79) According to Allan's testimony, a fast moving truck with glaring
lights nearly hit them so that they had to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. In other words, Rule X is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law
Upon swerving, they heard a sound as if something had bumped against the vehicle, on labor. The Court, thus, makes the distinction and so holds that Section 14, Rule
but they did not stop to check. Actually, the Pinoy jeep swerved towards the X, Book III of the Rules is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damages instituted by
pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his lane in the direction against an injured person during a vehicular accident against a working student of a school
vehicular traffic, and hit him. Allan affirmed that Funtecha followed his advise to and against the school itself. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
swerve to the right. (Ibid., p. 79) At the time of the incident (6:30 P.M.) in Roxas City,
the jeep had only one functioning headlight. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The present case does not deal with a labor dispute on conditions of employment
between an alleged employee and an alleged employer. It invokes a claim brought
Allan testified that he was the driver and at the same time a security guard of the by one for damages for injury caused by the patently negligent acts of a person,
petitioner-school. He further said that there was no specific time for him to be off- against both doer-employee and his employer. Hence, the reliance on the
duty and that after driving the students home at 5:00 in the afternoon, he still had to implementing rule on labor to disregard the primary liability of an employer under
go back to school and then drive home using the same vehicle. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Article 2180 of the Civil Code is misplaced. An implementing rule on labor cannot be
used by an employer as a shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of
Driving the vehicle to and from the house of the school president where both Allan the Civil Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
and Funtecha reside is an act in furtherance of the interest of the petitioner-school.

Allan's job demands that he drive home the school jeep so he can use it to fetch There is evidence to show that there exists in the present case an extra-contractual
students in the morning of the next school day. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library obligation arising from the negligence or reckless imprudence of a person "whose
acts or omissions are imputable, by a legal fiction, to other(s) who are in a position to
It is indubitable under the circumstances that the school president had knowledge exercise an absolute or limited control over (him)." (Bahia v. Litonjua and Leynes, 30
that the jeep was routinely driven home for the said purpose. Moreover, it is not Phil. 624 [1915]) chanrobles virtual law library
improbable that the school president also had knowledge of Funtecha's possession
of a student driver's license and his desire to undergo driving lessons during the time Funtecha is an employee of petitioner Filamer. He need not have an official
that he was not in his classrooms. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library appointment for a driver's position in order that the petitioner may be held
responsible for his grossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at
In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan's the time of the incident was for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that
house, Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride. Funtecha was not driving for Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of his janitorial
the purpose of his enjoyment or for a "frolic of his own" but ultimately, for the service duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the presumption juris
for which the jeep was intended by the petitioner school. (See L. Battistoni v. tantum that there was negligence on its part either in the selection of a servant or
Thomas, Can SC 144, 1 D.L.R. 577, 80 ALR 722 [1932]; See also Association of employee, or in the supervision over him. The petitioner has failed to show proof of
Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. v. Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc. 124 SCRA 618 its having exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family over its
[1983]). Therefore, the Court is constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in employees Funtecha and Allan. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
taking over the steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for
which act the petitioner-school cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was The Court reiterates that supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and
done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties. The clause "within the scope of their regulations for the guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper instructions
assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer, intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has
includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the relations through his employees. (Bahia v. Litonjua and Leynes, supra, at p. 628;
employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury Phoenix Construction, v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 353 [1987]) chanrobles virtual law library
or damage. (Manuel Casada, 190 Va 906, 59 SE 2d 47 [1950]) Even if somehow,

the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the act, the existence of An employer is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary discipline
a presumptive liability of the employer is determined by answering the question of called for in the performance of any act indispensable to the business and beneficial
whether or not the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in to their employer.
furtherance of his master's business. (Kohlman v. Hyland, 210 NW 643, 50 ALR
1437 [1926]; Jameson v. Gavett, 71 P 2d 937 [1937]) chanrobles virtual law library
In the present case, the petitioner has not shown that it has set forth such rules and
guidelines as would prohibit any one of its employees from taking control over its
vehicles if one is not the official driver or prohibiting the driver and son of the Filamer
president from authorizing another employee to drive the school vehicle.
Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to prove that it had imposed sanctions or
warned its employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the
driver.
The petitioner, thus, has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising from the
unskilled manner by which Funtecha drove the vehicle. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad
Co., 38 Phil. 768, 772 [1918]). In the absence of evidence that the petitioner had
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its
employees, the law imposes upon it the vicarious liability for acts or omissions of its
employees. (Umali v. Bacani, 69 SCRA 263 [1976]; Poblete v. Fabros, 93 SCRA 200
[1979]; Kapalaran Bus Liner v. Coronado, 176 SCRA 792 [1989]; Franco v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 178 SCRA 331 [1989]; Pantranco North Express, Inc.
v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384 [1989]) The liability of the employer is, under Article 2180,
primary and solidary. However, the employer shall have recourse against the
negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It is an admitted fact that the actual driver of the school jeep, Allan Masa, was not
made a party defendant in the civil case for damages. This is quite understandable
considering that as far as the injured pedestrian, plaintiff Potenciano Kapunan, was
concerned, it was Funtecha who was the one driving the vehicle and presumably
was one authorized by the school to drive. The plaintiff and his heirs should not now
be left to suffer without simultaneous recourse against the petitioner for the
consequent injury caused by a janitor doing a driving chore for the petitioner even for
a short while. For the purpose of recovering damages under the prevailing
circumstances, it is enough that the plaintiff and the private respondent heirs were
able to establish the existence of employer-employee relationship between Funtecha
and petitioner Filamer and the fact that Funtecha was engaged in an act not for an
independent purpose of his own but in furtherance of the business of his employer.
A position of responsibility on the part of the petitioner has thus been satisfactorily
demonstrated. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of the decision dated October 16,
1990 is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent appellate court affirming
the trial court decision is REINSTATED. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.

Art 25-81 Labor Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Art 25-81 Labor Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines Administration.

On April 10, 1986, the POEA rendered judgment in favor of private

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS

CORTES, J.: 2. TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND NINETY-SIX Philippine pesos and 20/100

the SECOND PARTY assumes hill port. This Contract is renewable

On September 9, 1983, he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work. On May

xxx xxx xxx

the NLRC found:

1. William Inocencio P6,000 .00 chanroble s virtual la w library

Section 4. Payment of Fees and Posting of Bonds. - Upon approval of the

be made, . . . (they bound themselves, their) heirs, executors, administrators,

Because of non-deployment . . . (the applicants) filed separate complaints with

them. Hence, violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as

respondent agency, was notified/ summoned prior to the expiration period or

exceed that limit.

In resolving aforesaid case, the Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Overseas

Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation. As evidenced by the Crew

Petitioner submits that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion

There is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the

(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the

termination. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Finally, it is well-settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the

Limassol for lack of charterers. 17 chanrobles virtual law library

involving the construction of statutes always cautioned against narrowly interpreting

Employment has jurisdiction to cancel or revoke the license of a private fee-charging

1. Jiyasmin Bantillo 6. Edna Salvante

2. Emely Padrones 6. Josefina Tejero

3. Marybeth Aparri 7. Bernadita Aprong

4. Lenia Biona 8. Joji Lull

penalties, any suspension amounting to a period of 12 months merits the imposition

recruited workers scheduled to leave for their respective assignments. Finally, it

awarded, should its appeal or motion be denied. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

cancellation of petitioners license pending resolution of its Motion for

suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary. (Underscoring

"TOMMY TAN", Accused-Appellant.

PADILLA, J.: chanroble svirtualawlibrary

laws, rules and regulations.[7]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

moral and exemplary damages;

Edgardo Tolentino y Vasquez - P15,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Gavino Asiman - P15,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary

2) Manuel Latina - P15,000.00 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

3) Ricardo Grepo - P20,000.00 chanroble svirtualawlibrary

which he underwent preventive imprisonment, provided he voluntarily agreed in

illegal recruitment activities.Grepo filed his complaint on 30 August 1993. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY

defense.He testified that he is a Singaporean national married to Estelita Oribiana, a

leave on 28 August 1993, Mascardo told accused-appellant he wanted his money

It is clear that accused-appellant's acts of accepting placement fees from job

accused-appellant is specious, even ridiculous.All the complainants agreed that it

The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement thus: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of

"(A)ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or

2. On November 3, 1987, public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez to whom

capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment

04. T: Ano ba ang dahilan at ikaw ngayon ay narito at

S: Upang ireklamo sa dahilan ang aking PECC Card ay

5. On January 26, 1988 POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Atty.

Under the new Constitution, which states:

cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or

arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after

This ORDER is without prejudice to your criminal prosecution under existing

Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration

the "WE FORUM" newspaper and any and all documents/communications,