LABOR STANDARDS

1.) People vs Panis

- As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor
to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is
that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is
dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise
of employment is made in the course of the canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. The number of persons dealt
with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers.
Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment
and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays
down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or
offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing
with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The
words shall be deemed create that presumption.
-

In the instant case, the word shall be deemed should by the same token be given the
force of a disputable presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment
and placement.

2.) Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp vs Secretary of Labor

- The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed 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 the authority,
conferred by Section 36, not only to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement
activities of all agencies, but also to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the
objectives and implement the provisions, governing said activities. Pursuant to this rulemaking power thus granted, the Secretary of Labor gave the POEA, on its own initiative
or upon filing of a complaint or report or upon request for investigation by any aggrieved
person, x x (authority to) conduct the necessary proceedings for the suspension or
cancellation of the license or authority of any agency or entity for certain enumerated
offenses.
- Implicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims of the offenses
committed by the respondent agency or contractor, specially the refund or reimbursement
of such fees as may have been fraudulently or otherwise illegally 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 offending recruitment agency or
contractor to suspension or cancellation of its license, without the concomitant obligation
to repair the injury caused to its victims. It 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.
- Even more untenable is EASCOs next argument that the recruiter and its victims are in
pari delictothe former for having required payment, and the latter for having
voluntarily paid, prohibited recruitment feesand therefore, said victims are barred
from obtaining relief. The sophistical, if not callous, character of the argument is evident
upon the most cursory reading thereof; it merits no consideration whatever.

So, too, EASCOs claim that it had not been properly served with summons as regards a
few of the complaints must be rejected, the issue being factual, and the Court having been
cited to no grave error invalidating the respondent Secretarys conclusion that summons
had indeed been duly served.

3.) People vs Baltazar De Leon

- The information charges the appellant with the crime of Illegal Recruitment under P.D.
No. 2018 (Large Scale). However, this decree merely further amended Articles 38 and
39 of the Labor Code by making large-scale illegal recruitment, i.e., committed against
three or more persons individually or collectively, a crime of economic sabotage and
punishable with life imprisonment. More precisely then, the information should have
been for the violation of Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code, as
amended. Although this error seems to be innocuous since the body of the complaint
recites the elements of large-scale illegal recruitment, proof beyond reasonable doubt of
which would sustain a conviction under Articles 38 and 39 of the said Code, we,
nevertheless, make these observations by way of advice to prosecutors to exercise the
greatest care in the preparation of informations.
-

Complainant Noeta Perez categorically declared that the appellant and his wife told her
and her companions that they sent people abroad, in Micronesia, hired [sic] there as
chambermaid and roomboy and that she gave the money demanded in connection with
the application of her brother and sister to Marietta in the presence of the appellant.
Complainant Eugenia Cruz declared that when she and her companions, Elma Conde and
Adelaida Cabungkay, were in the house of the appellant filling up the papers in
connection with their application for employment abroad, the latter help [sic] us how to
file the papers given to them and told them that they would be receiving salary of
$2.15/hour, and that she gave P6,380.00 to Marietta in the presence of the appellant.
Complainant Flordeliza Beo testified that when she accompanied her husband to apply
for employment, the appellant explained to them the terms of employment and was
present when she gave the amount of P6,380.00 to Marietta. Complainant Alfredo
Gutierrez was directly introduced to the appellant by Mila and the appellant himself
asked from him various sums, amounting to P3,500.00, ostensibly in connection with his
application for employment, and personally received it from Alfredo. Complainant Cesar
Cortes was also directly introduced to the appellant and paid the various sums demanded
from him to Marietta in the presence of the appellant. Complainant Lourdes Bernabe
testified that the appellant offered her the job of domestic helper in Singapore, informed
her of the requirements for her application, and, together with his wife, received her
payment of P2,500.00 purportedly for the processing of her papers. All these acts of the
appellant and his wife conclusively established a common criminal design mutually
deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves.

Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers for or promising them
overseas employment, which are among the acts of recruitment embraced in Article 13
(b) of the Labor Code, as amended. The furnishing of the victims with certain documents
which they were required to fill up allegedly in connection with their overseas
employment, which actually did not exist, also constitutes the violation of paragraph (b),
Article 34 of the same Code. Since the appellant does not have the license or authprity to
recruit and he committed the said acts against at least three individuals, he is guilty of
large-scale illegal recruitment under Article 38, which offense is penalized with life
imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 in the succeeding Article 39.

What is clear to us is that illegal recruiters cannot flout our laws and prey on the hard lot
of others if the Government had the will to resolutely enforce the laws against illegal
recruitment and to be merciless against the violators. They do not deserve any mercy.
Large-scale illegal recruitment is a crime which is not difficult to discover, prosecute and
prove, for it cannot be done in absolute secrecy. That there must be an end to illegal
recruitment is a matter of public policy for not only must the State protect those who,
because of economic difficulties or lack of employment opportunities in the country, seek
greener pastures in foreign lands and from whose earnings the State itself benefits, it
must also punish to the fullest extent of the law illegal recruiters, especially those
engaged in syndicated or large-scale illegal recruitment, who continue to wreak havoc on
our economy. It is thus earnestly wished that the Government flex its muscles to eradicate
this pernicious evil.

4.) Soriano vs Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation

- It is axiomatic that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one which
defeats the very purpose for which they were passed. This Court has in many cases
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 essence of
judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such a deplorable result (of injustice or
absurdity) and that therefore a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust
or lead to absurd results.
-

In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission
correctly analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an alteration of the
original employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the
imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted law. Under similar
circumstances, this Court ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the
coverage of a statute are strictly construed. But such construction nevertheless must be at
all times reasonable, sensible and fair. Hence, to rule out from the exemption
amendments set forth, although they did not materially change the terms and conditions
of the original letter of credit, was held to be unreasonable and unjust, and not in accord
with the declared purpose of the Margin Law.

As recently laid down by this Court, the rule that there should be concern, sympathy and
solicitude for the rights and welfare of the working class, is meet and proper. That in
controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the
evidence or in the interpretation of agreements and writings should be resolved in the
formers favor, is not an unreasonable or unfair rule. But to disregard the employers own
rights and interests solely on the basis of that concern and solicitude for labor is unjust
and unacceptable.

5.) Vir-jen Shipping vs NLRC

- After mature and careful deliberation, We have arrived at the conclusion that the
shortened period of ten (10) days fixed by Article 223 contemplates calendar days and not
working days. We are persuaded to this conclusion, if only because We believe that it is
precisely in the interest of labor that the law has commanded that labor cases be
promptly, if not peremptorily, disposed of. Long periods for any acts to be done by the
contending parties can be taken advantage of more by management than by labor. Most
labor claims are decided in their favor and management is generally the appellant. Delay,
in most instances, gives the employers more opportunity not only to prepare even

ingenious defenses, what with well-paid talented lawyers they can afford, but even to
wear out the efforts and meager resources of the workers, to the point that not
infrequently the latter either give up or compromise for less than what is due them.
-

All the foregoing notwithstanding, and bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances of this
case, particularly, the fact that private respondents must have been misled by the
implementing rules aforementioned, We have opted to just the same pass on the merits of
the substantial issues herein, even as We admonish all concerned to henceforth act in
accordance with our foregoing view. Verily, the Minister of Labor has no legal power to
amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law itself unequivocally specifies or
fixes.

To begin with, let it be borne in mind that seamens contracts of the nature We have
before Us now are not ordinary ones. There are special laws and rules governing them
precisely due to the peculiar circumstances that surround them.

Comparing these two decisions, We do not hesitate to hold that the NLRC over stepped
the boundaries of its reviewing authority and was overlenient. Whether or not
respondents had breached their contract with petitioner is a factual issue, the peculiar
nuances of which were better known to the NSB, the fact-finding authority. Indeed, even
if it was nothing more than the interpretation of the cablegram sent by respondents to
petitioner on March 23, 1979 that were the only question to be resolved, that is, whether
or not it carried with it or connoted a threat which naturally panicked petitioner, which, to
be sure, could be a question of law, still, as We see it, the conclusion of the NLRC cannot
be justified.

At first glance it might seem that the judgment of the NLRC should have more weight
than that of NSB. Having in view, however, the set up and relationship of these two
entities framed by the Labor Code, the NSB is not only charged directly with the
administration of shipping companies in the hiring of seamen for overseas employment
by seeing to it that our seamen secure the best possible terms and employment for
contract seamen workers and secure compliance therewith. Its composition as of the
time this controversy arose is worth noting-for it is made up of the Minister of Labor as
Chairman, the Deputy Minister as Vice Chairman, and a representative each of the
Ministries of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Education and Culture, the Central Bank,
the Bureau of Employment Service, a workers organization and an employees
organization and the Executive Director of the Overseas Employment Development
Board. (Article 23, Labor Code) It is such a board that has to approve all contracts of
Filipino seamen (Article 18, Labor Code).

And after such approval, the contract becomes unalterable, it being unlawful under
Article 34 of the Code for any individual, entity, licensee or holder of authority: (i) to
substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by Department of Labor
from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of
expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor. In other words,
it is not only that contracts may not be altered or modified or amended without mutual
consent of the parties thereto; it is further necessary to have the change approved by the
Department, otherwise, the guilty parties would be penalized.
The power of the NLRC in relation to the works and actuations of the NSB is only
appellate, according to Article 20 (b), read in relation to Article 233, principally, over

questions of law, since as to factual matters, it may exercise such appellate jurisdiction
only if errors in the findings of fact are raised which would cause grave or irreparable
damage or injury to the appellant.
-

It is of insubstantial moment that the side agreement or addendum was not made known
to or presented as evidence before the NSB. We are persuaded that more or less the NSB
knows that the general practice is to have such side contracts. More importantly, the said
side contracts are not meant at all to alter or modify the contracts approved by the NSB.
Rather, they are precisely purported to enforce them to the letter, making it clearer that
even if the ships have to call at ITF controlled ports, the same shall remain to be the real
and binding agreement between the parties, in intentional disregard of whatever the ITF
may exact.

We hold that there was no bad faith in having said side contracts, the intent thereof being
to put into effect the NSB directed arrangements that would protect the ship manning
industry from unjust and ruinning effects of ITF intervention. Indeed, examining the said
side agreements, it is not correct to say that the respondents were caught unaware, or by
surprise when they were advised that the ship would proceed to Kwinana, Australia, even
assuming they had been somehow informed that they would sail to the Caribbean.

It is timely to add here in closing that situations wherein employers are practically laid in
ambush or placed in a position not unlike those in a highjack whether in the air, land or
midsea must be considered to be what they really are: acts of coercion, threat and
intimidation against which the victim has generally no recourse but to yield at the peril of
irreparable loss. And when such happenings affect the national economy, as pointed out
by the Solicitor General, they must be treated to be in the nature of economic sabotage.
They should not be tolerated. This Court has to be careful not to sanction them.

6.) Suzara vs NLRC

- There is nothing in the public and private respondents pleadings, to support the
allegations that the petitioners used force and violence to secure the special agreement
signed in Vancouver, British Columbia. There was no need for any form of intimidation
coming from the Filipino seamen because the Canadian Brotherhood of Railways and
Transport Workers (CBRT), a strong Canadian labor union, backed by an international
labor federation was actually doing all the influencing not only on the ship-owners and
employers but also against third world seamen themselves who, by receiving lower
wages and cheaper accommodations, were threatening the employment and livelihood of
seamen from developed nations.
- The bases used by the respondent NSB to support its decision do not prove that the
petitioners initiated a conspiracy with the ITF or deliberately sought its assistance in
order to receive higher wages. They only prove that when ITF acted in petitioners behalf
for an increase in wages, the latter manifested their support. This would be a logical and
natural reaction for any worker in whose benefit the ITF or any other labor group had
intervened. The petitioners admit that while they expressed their conformity to and their
sentiments for higher wages by means of placards, they, nevertheless, continued working
and going about their usual chores. In other words, all they did was to exercise their
freedom of speech in a most peaceful way. The ITF people, in turn, did not employ any
violent means to force the private respondent to accede to their demands. Instead, they
simply applied effective pressure when they intimated the possibility of interdiction

should the shipowner fail to heed the call for an upward adjustment of the rates of the
Filipino seamen. Interdiction is nothing more than a refusal of ITF members to render
service for the ship, such as to load or unload its cargo, to provision it or to perform such
other chores ordinarily incident to the docking of the ship at a certain port. It was the fear
of ITF interdiction, not any action taken by the seamen on board the vessel which led the
shipowners to yield.
-

The NSBs conclusion that it is ITFs policy not to intervene with the plight of
crewmembers of a vessel unless its intervention was sought is without basis. This Court
is cognizant of the fact that during the period covered by the labor controversies in
Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Minister of Labor (102 SCRA 835 [1981]; Vir-Jen
Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC (supra) and these consolidated petitions, the
ITF was militant worldwide especially in Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, and various
European countries, interdicting foreign vessels and demanding wage increases for third
world seamen. There was no need for Filipino or other seamen to seek ITF intervention.
The ITF was waiting on its own volition in all Canadian ports, not particularly for the
petitioners vessel but for all ships similarly situated. As earlier stated, the ITF was not
really acting for the petitioners out of pure altruism. The ITF was merely protecting the
interests of its own members. The petitioners happened to be pawns in a higher and
broader struggle between the ITF on one hand and shipowners and third world seamen,
on the other. To subject our seamen to criminal prosecution and punishment for having
been caught in such a struggle is out of the question.

Given these factual situations, therefore, we cannot affirm the NSB and NLRCs findings
that there was violence, physical or otherwise employed by the petitioners in demanding
for additional wages. The fact that the petitioners placed placards on the gangway of their
ship to show support for ITFs demands for wage differentials for their own benefit and
the resulting ITFs threatened interdiction do not constitute violence. The petitioners were
exercising their freedom of speech and expressing sentiments in their hearts when they
placed the placard We want ITF Rates. Under the facts and circumstances of these
petitions, we see no reason to deprive the seamen of their right to freedom of expression
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the fundamental law of Canada where they
happened to exercise it.

We likewise, find the public respondents conclusions that the acts of the petitioners in
demanding and receiving wages over and above the rates appearing in their NSBapproved contracts is in effect an alteration of their valid and subsisting contracts because
the same were not obtained through mutual consent and without the prior approval of the
NSB to be without basis, not only because the private respondents consent to pay
additional wages was not vitiated by any violence or intimidation on the part of the
petitioners but because the said NSB-approved form contracts are not unalterable
contracts that can have no room for improvement during their effectivity or which ban
any amendments during their term.

7.) Seagull Maritime Corp vs Balatogan

- The supplementary contract of employment was entered into between petitioner and
private respondent to modify the original contract of employment. The reason why the
law requires that the POEA should approve and verify a contract under Article 34(i) of

the Labor Code is to insure that the employee shall not thereby be placed in a
disadvantageous position and that the same are within the minimum standards of the
terms and conditions of such employment contract set by the POEA. This is why a
standard format for employment contracts has been adopted by the Department of Labor.
However, there is no prohibition against stipulating in a contract more benefits to the
employee than those required by law. Thus, in this case wherein a supplementary
contract was entered into affording greater benefits to the employee than the previous
one, and although the same was not submitted for the approval of the POEA, the public
respondents properly considered said contract to be valid and enforceable. Indeed, said
pronouncements of public respondents have the effect of an approval of said contract.
-

Moreover, as said contract was voluntarily entered into by the parties the same is binding
between them. Not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public
order, its validity must be sustained. By the same token, the court sustains the ruling of
public respondents that the provision in the supplementary contract whereby private
respondent waives any claim against petitioners for damages arising from death or
permanent disability is against public policy, oppressive and inimical to the rights of
private respondent. The said provision defeats and is inconsistent with the duty of
petitioners to insure private respondent against said contingencies as clearly stipulated in
the said contract.