PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION

MOVEMENT (PRRM) vs. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR

Facts: PRRM is a non-stock, non-profit, non-
governmental organization. Pulgar was the manager of
PRRMs branch office the Tayabas Bay Field Office
(TBFO) in Quezon Province. When Pulgar was
reassigned to PRRMs central office, PRRM, through
Goyena Solis (Solis), conducted an investigation into
alleged financial anomalies committed at the TBFO
The PRRM management sent Pulgar a copy of the
report, together with a memorandum, asking him to
explain these findings.

PRRM maintains that while the investigation was
ongoing, Pulgar went on leave on March 3-10, March 20-
25, and April 1-15, 1997. After the lapse of his last leave
on April 15, 1997, Pulgar no longer reported to work,
leading PRRM to believe that Pulgar had abandoned his
work to evade any liability arising from the
investigation. PRRM was therefore surprised to learn
that Pulgar had filed an illegal dismissal case.

Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.
PRRM did not terminate Pulgars employment. On the
contrary, what appears from the evidence is that it was
Pulgar himself who terminated his employment with
PRRM when he filed an illegal dismissal complaint
against the organization while he was on leave.

While the Constitution is committed to the policy of
social justice and the protection of the working class, it
should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management
also has its rights which are entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its
concern for those with less privileges in life, the
Supreme Court has inclined, more often than not,
toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts
with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not
blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case
for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.

ROMERO V. PEOPLE
Facts: PRIVATE respondent Romulo Padlan went to
petitioner Delia D. Romero to inquire about securing a
job in Israel. Convinced by petitioners words of
encouragement and inspired by the potential salary of
US$700 to US$1,200 a month, respondent raised the
amount of US$3,600, which he gave to petitioner so that
his papers could be processed.
Respondent left for Israel and secured a job with a
monthly salary of US$650. Unfortunately, after two and
a half months, he was caught by Israels immigration
police and deported for lack of a working visa.
On his return, respondent demanded from petitioner the
return of his money but the later refused. Respondent
filed a complaint for Illegal Recruitment against
petitioner.

Ruling: petitioner is guilty of Illegal recruitment.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and
placement as: any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two
elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid
license or authority required by law to enable one to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within
the meaning of recruitment and placement defined
under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.
x x x
Thus, the trial court did not err in considering the
certification from the Department of Labor and
Employment-Dagupan District Office stating that
petitioner has not been issued any license by the POEA
nor is a holder of an authority to engage in recruitment
and placement activities.
x x x
From the above testimonies, it is apparent that petitioner
was able to convince the private respondents to apply
for work in Israel after parting with their money in
exchange for the services she would render. The said act
of the petitioner, without a doubt, falls within the
meaning of recruitment and placement as defined in
Article 13 (b) of the Labor.

ABD OVERSEAS MANPOWER CORPORATION vs.
NLRC
Facts: respondent Macaraya applied for employment as
a dressmaker with respondent Mars International
Manpower, Inc. (MARS). After paying MARS
processing or recruitment fee, she signed a two-year
employment contract whereby she would earn a
monthly salary of US$250.00. Without her knowledge,
however, MARS submitted to the POEA an overseas
contract worker information sheet stating that she would
be employed as a domestic helper for two years with a
monthly salary of US$200.00.

Macaraya was deployed to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Her
employer took the only copy of her employment
contract and never returned it to her. She was made to
work as a domestic helper over her objections and in
violation of the contract she signed in Manila. After
working for three months and thirteen days, Macaraya
was dismissed by her employer, paid merely 700.00
Saudi riyals, and repatriated to the Philippines.
Immediately upon her arrival in the Philippines,
Macaraya filed with the POEA a complaint for illegal
dismissal and salary underpayment/ nonpayment
against MARS, M.S. Al Babtain Recruitment Office and
Times Surety and Insurance Co.
On January 9, 1992, MARS filed a manifestation and
motion praying that petitioner ABD Overseas
Manpower Corporation be impleaded in the case,
because the latter apparently became the accredited
recruitment agency in this country of M.S. Al Babtain
Recruitment Office

Issue: Can an accredited transferee recruitment agent of
a foreign employer/recruitment office be held liable
under POEA Rules and Regulations (POEA Rules) for
the illegal dismissal of an overseas worker who filed the
case prior to the transferee agents accreditation?

Ruling: Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules
which states as follows:
SEC. 6. Transfer of Accreditation. The accreditation of a
principal or a project may be transferred to another agency
provided that transfer shall not involve any diminution of
wages and benefits of workers.
The transferee agency in these instances shall comply with the
requirements for accreditation and shall assume full and
complete responsibility for all contractual obligations of the
principals to its workers originally recruited and processed by
the former agency. Prior to the transfer of accreditation, the
Administration shall notify the previous agency and principal
of such application.

A cursory reading of this provision lends the impression
that an accreditation transferee assumes the contractual
responsibility of the transferor under all circumstances,
without qualification.

Basic principles of justice and equity, however, dictate
that MARS should not be totally cleared of its liability to
Macaraya under the peculiar circumstances of this
case. Section 6, Rule II, Book III of the POEA Rules may
not be used as a shield against liability by a recruitment
agency that has been substituted by a foreign principal
as its local recruitment agency after it has clearly
incurred liability in favor of an overseas worker. After
all, the POEA is presumed by law to have intended right
and justice to prevail in promulgating its
rules. Consequently, considering that it was MARS with
whom Macaraya entered into a contract and that it had
been accorded due process at the proceedings before the
POEA, it is but meet and just that MARS be the one to be
held accountable for her claims.

WHEREFORE, respondent Mars International
Manpower, Inc. shall reimburse petitioner ABD
Overseas Manpower Corporation.

AGGA V. NLRC
Facts: Private respondent (PR) Supply Oilfield Services,
Inc. (SOS) hired petitioners to work on board SEDCO/BP
471, a drillship owned and operated by private
respondent Underseas Drilling, Inc. (UDI).

The employment contracts ran for 1 year with
petitioners enjoying 2 months' off with pay for every 2
months' duty. The contracts also provided that for
service of 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in a two-shift
24-hour operation, petitioners would receive a fixed
monthly compensation covering "basic rate, allowances,
privileges, travel allowances and benefits granted by law
during and after employment with the company."
In a complaint filed with the POEA, petitioners claimed
that PR failed to pay them OT pay, holiday pay, rest day
pay, 13th month pay and night shift differential. They
likewise alleged that PR did not comply with the
mandatory insurance requirement of the rules governing
overseas employment. They further averred that while
PR made them use passports for overseas contract
workers whenever they departed for, and returned
from, overseas employment, they were also instructed to
use seaman's books upon reaching port for transfer to,
and while aboard, the oilrig. Petitioners opined that this
practice entitled them to the benefits granted by law to
both land-based workers and seamen.

PR said that the benefits referred to in the employment
contracts already included overtime pay, holiday pay,
termination pay and 13th month pay. They likewise
denied that petitioners were entitled to night shift
differential since no proof was submitted to show that
any of them, at any time, had actually worked from
10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. In addition, private respondents
belied petitioners' claim that they did not comply with
the mandatory insurance requirement. They alleged
that petitioners were insured with Blue Cross (Asia-
Pacific) Insurance, Ltd. against death and permanent
disability. Lastly, private respondents contended that
petitioners, as offshore oilriggers, had nothing to do
with manning a vessel or sea navigation. Hence,
petitioners were merely land-based workers, not
seamen.

Issue/s: WON lumpsum mode of payment of salaries
is illegal

Held: No. As correctly observed by the respondents,
none of the aforemetioned laws and rules prohibit the
subject payment scheme. The cited articles of the New
Civil Code merely provide that agreements in violation
of law or public policy cannot be entered into and have
legal effect. The cited provisions of PD 442 simply
declare that night shift differential and additional
remuneration for overtime, rest day, Sunday and
holiday work shall be computed on the basis of the
employee's regular wage. In like fashion, the 1991
POEA Rules merely require employers to guarantee
payment of wages and overtime pay. Thus, petitioners'
stance is bereft of any legal support.