Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To promote and maintain a state of full employment through improved manpower training, allocation and utilization;
To protect every citizen desiring to work locally or overseas by securing for him the best possible terms and conditions of
employment;
To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons seeking work in conformity with the national interest;
To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in conformity with the national interest;
To regulate the employment of aliens, including the establishment of a registration and/or work permit system;
To strengthen the network of public employment offices and rationalize the participation of the private sector in the
recruitment and placement of workers, locally and overseas, to serve national development objectives;
To insure careful selection of Filipino workers for overseas employment in order to protect the good name of the
Philippines abroad.
"Worker" means any member of the labor force, whether employed or unemployed.
"Recruitment and placement" refers to 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.
"Private fee-charging employment agency" means any person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement of
workers for a fee which is charged, directly or indirectly, from the workers or employers or both.
"License" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or entity to operate a private
employment agency.
"Private recruitment entity" means any person or association engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers,
locally or overseas, without charging, directly or indirectly, any fee from the workers or employers.
"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to engage in
recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.
"Emigrant" means any person, worker or otherwise, who emigrates to a foreign country by virtue of an immigrant visa or
resident permit or its equivalent in the country of destination.
Art. 14. Employment promotion. The Secretary of Labor shall have the power and authority:
To organize and establish new employment offices in addition to the existing employment offices under the Department
of Labor as the need arises;
To organize and establish a nationwide job clearance and information system to inform applicants registering with a
particular employment office of job opportunities in other parts of the country as well as job opportunities abroad;
To develop and organize a program that will facilitate occupational, industrial and geographical mobility of labor and
provide assistance in the relocation of workers from one area to another; and
To require any person, establishment, organization or institution to submit such employment information as may be
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
Art. 16. Private recruitment. Except as provided in Chapter II of this Title, no person or entity other than the public
employment offices, shall engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
Art. 18. Ban on direct-hiring. No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the Boards
and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps, international
organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.
The OEDB shall be composed of the Secretary of Labor and Employment as Chairman, the Undersecretary of Labor as
Vice-Chairman, and a representative each of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defense, the
Central Bank, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the National Manpower and Youth Council, the Bureau of
Employment Services, a workers organization and an employers organization and the Executive Director of the OEDB as
members.
The National Seamen Board shall be composed of the Secretary of Labor and Employment as Chairman, the
Undersecretary of Labor as Vice-Chairman, the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard, and a representative each of
the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the Central Bank, the Maritime
Industry Authority, the Bureau of Employment Services, a national shipping association and the Executive Director of the
NSB as members.
The members of the Boards shall receive allowances to be determined by the Board which shall not be more than
P2,000.00 per month.
The Boards shall be attached to the Department of Labor for policy and program coordination. They shall each be
assisted by a Secretariat headed by an Executive Director who shall be a Filipino citizen with sufficient experience in
manpower administration, including overseas employment activities. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Labor and shall receive an annual salary as
fixed by law. The Secretary of Labor shall appoint the other members of the Secretariat.
The Auditor General shall appoint his representative to the Boards to audit their respective accounts in accordance with
auditing laws and pertinent rules and regulations.
Art. 24. Boards to issue rules and collect fees. The Boards shall issue appropriate rules and regulations to carry out their
functions. They shall have the power to impose and collect fees from employers concerned, which shall be deposited in
the respective accounts of said Boards and be used by them exclusively to promote their objectives.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Art. 36. Regulatory power. The Secretary of Labor shall have the power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and
placement activities of all agencies within the coverage of this Title and is hereby authorized to issue orders and
promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions of this Title.
Art. 37. Visitorial Power. The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives may, at any time, inspect the
premises, books of accounts and records of any person or entity covered by this Title, require it to submit reports
regularly on prescribed forms, and act on violation of any provisions of this Title.
Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken
by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The
Department of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
and/or confederating with one another in 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 committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest
and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities
constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Secretary
shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other
implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishments and entities found to be
engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so.
The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal
recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein;
Any licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing another to violate any provision of this Title or its
implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
two years nor more than five years or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000, or both such imprisonment
and fine, at the discretion of the court;
Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating any provision thereof or its
implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both such
imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court;
If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the officer or
officers of the corporation, partnership, association or entity responsible for violation; and if such officer is an alien, he
shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings;
In every case, conviction shall cause and carry the automatic revocation of the license or authority and all the permits and
privileges granted to such person or entity under this Title, and the forfeiture of the cash and surety bonds in favor of the
Overseas Employment Development Board or the National Seamen Board, as the case may be, both of which are
authorized to use the same exclusively to promote their objectives.
Art. 40. Employment permit of non-resident aliens. Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines for employment
purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall
obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a determination of the
non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the
services for which the alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said employment permit may be issued upon
recommendation of the government agency charged with the supervision of said registered enterprise.
Art. 41. Prohibition against transfer of employment.
After the issuance of an employment permit, the alien shall not transfer to another job or change his employer without
prior approval of the Secretary of Labor.
Any non-resident alien who shall take up employment in violation of the provision of this Title and its implementing rules
and regulations shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Articles 289 and 290 of the Labor Code.
In addition, the alien worker shall be subject to deportation after service of his sentence.
Art. 42. Submission of list. Any employer employing non-resident foreign nationals on the effective date of this Code shall
submit a list of such nationals to the Secretary of Labor within thirty (30) days after such date indicating their names,
citizenship, foreign and local addresses, nature of employment and status of stay in the country. The Secretary of Labor
shall then determine if they are entitled to an employment permit.
RULE I
Definitions of Terms
(d) "Private recruitment entity" means any person or entity engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers
locally or overseas, without charging, directly or indirectly, any fee against the worker.cralaw
(e) "Private employment agency" means any person or entity engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers for
a fee which is charged directly against the workers or employers, or both.cralaw
(f) "Authority" means a document issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment authorizing a person or association
to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.cralaw
(g) "License" means a document issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment authorizing a person or entity to
operate a private employment agency.cralaw
(h) "Employment permit" means the authority issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment to a non-resident alien
to work in the Philippines or to an employer engaged in business in the Philippines to employ such alien.cralaw
(i) "Beneficiary" means a person designated by a contract worker or seaman employed overseas to receive his monthly
remittance.cralaw
(j) "Non-resident alien" means any alien already in the Philippines or seeking admission to the Philippines to obtain
employment in any public or private enterprise.cralaw
(l) "Understudy" means any qualified Filipino citizen designated by a local employer to be trained by a foreign national
allowed to work in the country by virtue of an employment permit granted to him by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment under an approved understudy training program.cralaw
(m) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising employment locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which in any manner, offers or promises employment for a
fee to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.cralaw
(n) "Foreign exchange earnings" means the earnings abroad of contract workers and seamen or their recruiters or local
employers or agents in terms of US dollars or any other internationally acceptable currency.cralaw
(o) "Remittance" means the amount of the foreign exchange earnings remitted by a contract worker or seaman to any
beneficiary in the Philippines through the Philippine banking system.cralaw
(p) "Placement fees" means the amount charged by a private employment agency from an applicant worker for its
services in the recruitment and placement of said worker.cralaw
(q) "Mobilization fee" means the amount charged by a licensee or authority holder from its foreign employer-
principal/partner to cover costs of recruitment, processing and documentation of its recruits for overseas
employment.cralaw
(r) "Service fee" means the amount charged by a licensee or authority holder from its foreign employer-principal/partner
as payment for actual services rendered in relation to the recruitment and employment of workers for said
principal/partner.cralaw
(w) Contracting partner. refers to a foreign party to any service agreement or project contract entered into by a
service contractor or construction contractor.cralaw
(x) Contract Worker. means any person working or who has worked overseas under a valid employment contract and
shall include seamen.cralaw
(y) Directorate. means the executive body of the Administration composed of its administrators and Directors.cralaw
(z) Director LRO. refers to the Director of the Licensing and Regulation Office.cralaw
(aa) Director MPDO. refers to the Director of the Market Development and Placement Office.cralaw
(bb) Director WAAO. refers to the Director of the Worker's Assistance and Adjudication Office.cralaw
(cc) Employer. refers to any person, partnership or corporation, whether local or foreign directly engaging the services
of the Filipino workers overseas.cralaw
(ff) Manning Agency. refers to any person or entity duly licensed by the Secretary to recruit seamen for vessels plying
international waters and for related maritime activities.cralaw
(gg) Name Hire. is a worker who is able to secure employment overseas on his own without the assistance or
participation of any agency or entity.cralaw
(hh) Non-licensee or Non-holder of Authority. refers to any person, partnership or corporation which has not been
issued a valid license or authority, has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the Administrator or Secretary.cralaw
(ii) One-Stop Processing Center. refers to an inter-agency servicing body designed to facilitate the employment and
subsequent deployment of contract workers for work overseas.cralaw
(jj) Overseas employment. means employment of a worker outside the Philippines including employment on board
vessels plying international waters, covered by a valid employment contract.cralaw
(kk) Principal. refers to any foreign person, partnership or corporation hiring Filipino workers through an
agency.cralaw
(ll) Regional Director. refers to the Directors of the Regional Office of the Department.cralaw
(mm) Regional Labor Center or RLC. refers to an overseas field office of the Administration.
RULE II
Employment Promotion
SECTION 1. Powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Secretary shall have the power and authority to:
(a) Organize and establish, as the need arises, new public employment offices in addition to or in place of existing ones
for the efficient, systematic and coordinated recruitment and placement of workers for local and overseas
employment.cralaw
(b) Organize and establish a nationwide job clearance and information system to inform applicants registering with a
particular employment office of job opportunities in other parts of the country as well as overseas.cralaw
(c) Develop and organize programs that will facilitate occupational, industrial and geographical mobility of labor and
provide assistance in the relocation of workers from one area to another.cralaw
(d) Require any person, establishment, organization or institution to submit such employment information as may be
necessary; and chan robles virtual law library
(e) Issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to regulate and supervise private sector participation in the
recruitment and placement of workers, locally or overseas, in the context of a comprehensive national employment
program.cralaw
SECTION 2. Free placement services. The public employment offices shall provide free placement of workers applying
for both domestic and overseas placement. Applicants shall accomplish appropriate information sheets and submit such
other documents as may be prescribed by the Bureau for the purpose.cralaw
SECTION 3. Placement of workers. Any applicant registering for employment with a public employment office shall be
interviewed to determine his occupational qualifications. The public employment office shall refer him to any appropriate
job for vacancy.cralaw
SECTION 4. Vocational guidance and testing. The public employment offices shall provide adequate vocational
guidance and testing service to persons seeking help in choosing or changing an occupation. Each office shall at least
have one (1) vocational guidance and testing officer to undertake these tasks.cralaw
SECTION 5. Occupational classification of registered applicants. The public employment office shall classify registered
applicants in accordance with job-titles and codes of the Philippine Standard Classification. They shall also maintain a
registry of skills using such forms as may be appropriate for the purpose.cralaw
SECTION 6. Occupational-industrial mobility of workers. The public employment offices shall arrange for the training
or retraining of unemployed applicants in occupations or trades where they are suitably qualified and have greater
prospect of employment.cralaw
SECTION 7. Geographical movement of workers. The public employment office shall arrange for the inter-area
placement of unemployed workers through a nationwide job-clearance and information system. The transfer of workers
shall be arranged by the public employment office where the applicant is registered and the office where the vacancy
exists.cralaw
SECTION 8. Job-clearance and information system. The public employment office shall furnish lists of registered job
applicants and job openings to the Bureau which shall act as the national job-clearing house.cralaw
SECTION 9. Submission of reports. At the end of each month, every employer with at least six (6) employees shall
submit to the nearest public employment office the following:
Issue: Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was
accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he
claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or
offered any employment for a fee. "
"Recruitment and placement" refers to 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 view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned in this
article should involve dealings with two or mre persons as an indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the
petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement
consists of an offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The other acts
mentioned in the body of the article may involve even only one person and are not necessarily for profit.
Held: 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) win 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.
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.
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against
illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a
foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be
awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of theirown countrymen.
HELLENIC PHILIPPINE SHIPPING, INC. vs. EPIFANIO C. SIETE and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC)
Siete was employed on as Master of M/V Houda G by Sultan Shipping Co., Ltd., through its crewing agent, herein
petitioner.
The petitioner alleged in its answer that the complainant had been dismissed because of his failure to complete with
the instruction of Sultan Shipping to erase the timber load line on the vessel and for his negligence in the discharge
of the cargo at Tripoli that endangered the vessel and stevedores. Siete denied these averments in his reply dated
September 23, 1985, and reiterated that he had not earlier been informed of the cause of his dismissal and
repatriation, either in Cyprus or later in Manila.
ISSUE: Private respondent was illegally dismissed because, first, he was not accorded a fair investigation as required
by law, and second, because the grounds invoked for his separation have not been proved by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner argues that whatever defects might have tainted the private respondent's dismissal were
subsequently cured when the charges against him were specified and sufficiently discussed in the position papers
submitted by the parties to the POEA.
3. The Court reiterates the ruling that private employment agencies are jointly and severally liable with the
foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or the contract of employment.
Held: the private respondent was indeed not notified of the charges against him and that no investigation was
conducted to justify his dismissal. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to prove that Siete had been instructed to erase
the timber load lines and that he had been negligent in the cargo unloading at Tripoli.
The Court notes that the reports submitted by the petitioner to prove its charges were all prepared after the fact of
Siete's dismissal and were signed by its own employees.
Sec. 1. Security of tenure and due process. No worker shall be dismissed except for a just or
authorized cause provided by law and after due process.
Sec. 2. Notice of dismissal. Any employer who seeks to dismiss a worker shall furnish him a
written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal. In
cases of abandonment of work, the notice shall be served at the worker's last known address.
2. The issue before the POEA was in fact the lack of due process in Siete's dismissal. The law requires that the
investigation be conducted before the dismissal, not after. That omission cannot be corrected by the investigation
later conducted by the POEA. As the Solicitor General correctly maintained, the due process requirement in the
dismissal process is different from the due process requirement in the POEA proceeding. Both requirements must be
separately observed.
the case at bar because our findings here is that the dismissal was not justified.
3. The reason for the above-mentioned requirement is obvious. Were the rule otherwise, employees with legitimate
demands against the employer would be helpless to enforce them because the latter has no office or properties in
this jurisdiction. Violation of the employment contract would remain unredressed. It was precisely to correct this
difficulty that the recruiting agent is now required, as a condition for the issuance to it of a license to operate, to
assure the employee that he has remedies available in this country even if the culpable employer is beyond the reach
of our courts.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused.
NELLY D. AGUSTIN
Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10,
1987. Said certification states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor authorized to
recruit workers for overseas.
Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed nor
authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies that she was in any way guilty
of illegal recruitment.
It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a
neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and facilitated
by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart,
she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under
the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment.
Issue: appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple
does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of
the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce
spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants.
2. , appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for
illegal recruitment.
Held: referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a
selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented herself as the manager of the Clover
Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while
Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented herself as "nagpapaalis papunta
sa Oman." Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agency, working together with
the Goce couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker
abroad." It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the
power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the
money she demanded in order to be so employed.
It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose of their applications. Her act
of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees,
medical tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the
law.
2. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive
the complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis for
appellant's conviction as discussed above.
In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant
concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than
herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly
taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course of procedure should not apply in this case.
Firstly, appellant posits that he cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment because of the absence of receipts
indicating that complainants did pay him fees in consideration of his services
Although not all of the amounts testified to by complainants were covered by receipts, the fact that there were no
receipts for some of the amounts delivered to him does not mean that appellant did not accept or receive such
payments. This Court has ruled in several cases that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment
does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.[18] As long as the
witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the
prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts.
The finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is justified whenever the following elements are present:
(1) that the offender engages in the recruitment and placement of workers as defined in Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the same code;
(2) that the offender does not have a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
overseas; and (3) that the offender commits the same against three
(3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[19] Article 13(b) characterizes 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.
It will readily be noted, as earlier explained, that the exhibition of receipts is not necessary for the successful
prosecution of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale. Since all of the above elements were satisfactorily
proven by the prosecution before the court a quo through the testimonies of its witnesses and by competent
documents, then the non-presentation of receipts should not in any way hinder the conviction of appellant.
Secondly, appellant faults the lower court for giving credence to the testimony of complainant Garcia. He claims that
aside from the testimony of Garcia, there is no other evidence presented by the prosecution to show that there was a
recruitment agreement between them and that money was received by appellant. His alleged companion in Saipan,
Aquilino Espino, was not even presented to corroborate his story
It has been held that the non-presentation of certain witnesses by the prosecution is not a plausible defense and the
matter of whom to present as witnesses for the prosecution lies in the sound discretion of the prosecutor handling
the case.
The alleged inconsistencies are too insignificant to adversely affect the testimony of witness Garcia. Given the natural
frailties of the human mind and its incapacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, slight
inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their probative value.
TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. petitioner for violation of Articles 32 and 34(a)[1] of the
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, ROSELLE Labor Code, as amended.
CASTIGADOR, JOSEFINA MAMON, JENELYN CASA, PEACHY
LANIOG, VERDELINA BELGIRA, ELMA FLORES, RAMONA Petitioner denied having received the amounts allegedly
LITURCO, GRACE SABANDO, GLORIA PALMA, AVELYN collected from respondents, and averred that Aragon,
ALVAREZ, CANDELARIA NONO,NITA BUSTAMANTE, whose only duty was to pre-screen and interview
CYNTHIA ARANDILLO, SANDIE AGUILAR, DIGNA applicants, and the spouses Domincil were not authorized
PANAGUITON, VERONICA BAYOGOS, JULIANITA to collect fees from the applicants. Accordingly, it cannot be
ARANADOR, LEONORA CABALLERO, NANCY BOLIVAR, held liable for the money claimed by respondents.
NIMFA BUCOL, ZITA GALINDO, ESTELITA BIOCOS, Petitioner maintains that it even warned respondents not to
MARJORIE MACATE, RUBY SEPULVIDA, ROSALIE SONDIA, give any money to unauthorized individuals.
NORA MAQUILING, PAULINA CORDERO, LENIROSE
ABANGAN, SELFA PALMA, ANTONIA NAVARRO, ELSIE POEA Regional Extension Unit Coordinator Edgar Somes
PENARUBIA, IRMA SOBREQUIL, SONY JAMUAT, CLETA testified that although he was aware that petitioner
MAYO, respondents. collected fees from respondents, the latter insisted that they
be allowed to make the payments on the assumption that it
DECISION could hasten their deployment abroad. He added that Mrs.
Honorata Manliclic, a representative of petitioner tasked to
ROMERO, J.: oversee the conduct of the interviews, told him that she was
leaving behind presigned receipts to Aragon as she cannot
The issue presented in the case at bar is whether or not the stay in Iloilo City for the screening of the applicants.
Secretary of Labor and Employment has jurisdiction to Manliclic, however, denied this version and argued that it
cancel or revoke the license of a private fee-charging was Somes who instructed her to leave the receipts behind
employment agency. as it was perfectly alright to collect fees.
From July 24 to September 9, 1987, petitioner Trans Action On April 5, 1991, then Labor Undersecretary Nieves R.
Overseas Corporation, a private fee-charging employment Confesor rendered the assailed order, the dispositive
agency, scoured Iloilo City for possible recruits for alleged portion of which reads:
job vacancies in Hongkong. Private respondents sought
employment as domestic helpers through petitioners WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby ordered to pay,
employees, Luzviminda Aragon, Ben Hur Domincil and his jointly and severally, the following claims:
wife Cecille. The applicants paid placement fees ranging
from P1,000.00 to P14,000.00, but petitioner failed to 1. Rosele Castigador P14,000.00
deploy them. Their demands for refund proved unavailing;
thus, they were constrained to institute complaints against 2. Josefina Mamon 3,000.00
3. Jenelyn Casa 3,000.00 The following complaints are hereby dismissed for failure
to appear/prosecute:
4. Peachy Laniog 13,500.00
1. Jiyasmin Bantillo 6. Edna Salvante
5. Verdelina Belgira 2,000.00
2. Rosa de Luna Senail 7. Thelma Beltiar
6. Elma Flores 2,500.00
3. Elnor Bandojo 8. Cynthia Cepe
7. Ramona Liturco 2,500.00
4. Teresa Caldeo 9. Rosie Pavillon
8. Grace Sabando 3,500.00
5. Virginia Castroverde
9. Gloria Palma 1,500.00
The complaints filed by the following are hereby dismissed
10. Avelyn Alvarez 1,500.00 for lack of evidence:
11. Candelaria Nono 1,000.00 1. Aleth Palomaria 5. Mary Ann Beboso
12. Nita Bustamante 5,000.00 2. Emely Padrones 6. Josefina Tejero
15. Digna Panaguiton 2,500.00 Respondent agency is liable for twenty eight (28) counts of
violation of Article 32 and five (5) counts of Article 34 (a)
16. Veronica Bayogos 2,000.00 with a corresponding suspension in the aggregate period of
sixty six (66) months. Considering however, that under the
17. Sony Jamuat 4,500.00
schedule of penalties, any suspension amounting to a period
18. Irma Sobrequil 2,000.00 of 12 months merits the imposition of the penalty of
cancellation, the license of respondent TRANS ACTION
19. Elsie Penarubia 2,000.00 OVERSEAS CORPORATION to participate in the overseas
placement and recruitment of workers is hereby ordered
20. Antonia Navarro 2,000.00 CANCELLED, effective immediately.
22. Lenirose Abangan 13,300.00 On April 29, 1991, petitioner filed its Motion for Temporary
Lifting of Order of Cancellation alleging, among other things,
23. Paulina Cordero 1,400.00 that to deny it the authority to engage in placement and
recruitment activities would jeopardize not only its
24. Nora Maquiling 2,000.00 contractual relations with its foreign principals, but also the
welfare, interests, and livelihood of recruited workers
25. Rosalie Sondia 2,000.00 scheduled to leave for their respective assignments. Finally,
it manifested its willingness to post a bond to insure
26. Ruby Sepulvida 3,500.00
payment of the claims to be awarded, should its appeal or
27. Marjorie Macate 1,500.00 motion be denied.
28. Estelita Biocos 3,000.00 Finding the motion to be well taken, Undersecretary
Confesor provisionally lifted the cancellation of petitioners
29. Zita Galindo 3,500.00 license pending resolution of its Motion for Reconsideration
filed on May 6, 1991. On January 30, 1992, however,
30. Nimfa Bucol 1,000.00 petitioners motion for reconsideration was eventually
denied for lack of merit, and the April 5, 1991, order
31. Nancy Bolivar 2,000.00 revoking its license was reinstated.
32. Leonora Caballero 13,900.00 Petitioner contends that Secretary Confesor acted with
grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed orders
33. Julianita Aranador 14,000.00 on alternative grounds, viz.: (1) it is the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) which has the
The complaints of Ma. Luz Alingasa, Nimfa Perez, and Cleta exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide illegal
Mayo are hereby dismissed in view of their desistance. recruitment cases, including the authority to cancel
recruitment licenses, or (2) the cancellation order based on
the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties is not valid for non-
compliance with the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 A non-licensee or non-holder of authority means any
regarding its registration with the U.P. Law Center. person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a
valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and
Under Executive Order No. 797[3] (E.O. No. 797) and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or
Executive Order No. 247 (E.O. No. 247),[4] the POEA was authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the
established and mandated to assume the functions of the POEA or the Secretary. (Underscoring supplied)
Overseas Employment Development Board (OEDB), the
National Seamen Board (NSB), and the overseas In view of the Courts disposition on the matter, we rule that
employment function of the Bureau of Employment the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to
Services (BES). Petitioner theorizes that when POEA recruit employees for overseas employment is concurrently
absorbed the powers of these agencies, Article 35 of the vested with the POEA and the Secretary of Labor.
Labor Code, as amended, was rendered ineffective.
As regards petitioners alternative argument that the non-
The power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to filing of the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties with the UP
recruit employees for overseas employment is vested upon Law Center rendered it ineffective and, hence, cannot be
the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Article 35 of the utilized as basis for penalizing them, we agree with
Labor Code, as amended, which provides: Secretary Confesors explanation, to wit:
ART. 35. Suspension and/or Cancellation of License or On the other hand, the POEA Revised Rules on the Schedule
Authority. - The Minister of Labor shall have the power to of Penalties was issued pursuant to Article 34 of the Labor
suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit Code, as amended. The same merely amplified and
employees for overseas employment for violation of rules particularized the various violations of the rules and
and regulations issued by the Ministry of Labor, the regulations of the POEA and clarified and specified the
Overseas Employment Development Board, and the penalties therefore (sic). Indeed, the questioned schedule of
National Seamen Board, or for violation of the provisions of penalties contains only a listing of offenses. It does not
this and other applicable laws, General Orders and Letters prescribe additional rules and regulations governing
of Instructions. overseas employment but only detailed the administrative
sanctions imposable by this Office for some enumerated
In the case of Eastern Assurance and Surety Corp. v. prohibited acts.
Secretary of Labor,[5] we held that:
Under the circumstances, the license of the respondent
The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or agency was cancelled on the authority of Article 35 of the
authority are prescribed for violations of the above quoted Labor Code, as amended, and not pursuant to the 1987
provisions, among others. And the Secretary of Labor has POEA Revised Rules on Schedule of Penalties.[10]
the power under Section 35 of the law to apply these
sanctions, as well as the authority, conferred by Section 36, WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition
not only to restrict and regulate the recruitment and is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the decision of the
placement activities of all agencies, but also to promulgate Secretary of Labor dated April 5, 1991, is AFFIRMED. No
rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and costs.
implement the provisions governing said activities.
Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted, the SO ORDERED.
Secretary of Labor gave the POEA,[6] 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 including -
In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, "That sometime between the period from August 1994 to
beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the October 1994 in the City of Manila, Philippines and within
offense with which the accused is charged; and if the proof the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
fails to establish any of the essential elements necessary to accused, representing themselves to have the capacity to
constitute a crime, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. contract, enlist and transport workers for employment
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a abroad, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is feloniously recruit the herein complainants: Estrella B.
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction Calleja, Melvin C. Miranda and Aser S. Sasis, individually or
in an unprejudiced mind.[14] as a group for employment in Korea without first obtaining
the required license and/or authority from the Philippine
At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes Overseas Employment Administration."[1]
so far as to create a suspicion that accused-appellant
probably perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion They were likewise charged with three counts of estafa
alone is insufficient, the required quantum of evidence committed against private complainants.[2] The State
being proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the Peoples Prosecutor, however, later dismissed the estafa charges
evidence fail to indubitably prove the accuseds authorship against Chowdury[3] and filed an amended information
of the crime of which he stands accused, then it is the Courts indicting only Ong for the offense.[4]
duty, and the accuseds right, to proclaim his innocence.
Acquittal, therefore, is in order.[15]
Chowdury was arraigned on April 16, 1996 while Ong
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the remained at large. He pleaded "not guilty" to the charge of
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15624 illegal recruitment in large scale.[5]
dated January 31, 1996, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Imelda Darvin is hereby ACQUITTED on Trial ensued.
ground of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, let the accused be
immediately released from her place of confinement unless The prosecution presented four witnesses: private
there is reason to detain her further for any other legal or complainants Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja and Melvin
valid cause.No pronouncement as to costs. Miranda, and Labor Employment Officer Abbelyn Caguitla.
1. Illegal dismissal;
SO ORDERED." "It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant
petition is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
In line with this August 29, 1988 Order, petitioner of the Revised Rules of Court. An extraordinary remedy, its
deposited the check equivalent to the claims of private use is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional
respondents and paid the corresponding fine under protest. cases wherein the action of an inferior court, board or
From the said Order, petitioner filed a Motion for officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial acts is
Reconsideration which was subsequently denied in an challenged for being wholly void on grounds of jurisdiction.
Order dated October 10, 1989. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave
Under the POEA Rules and Regulations, the decision of the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
POEA thru the LRO suspending or canceling a license or jurisdiction. It does not include correction of public
authority to act as a recruitment agency may be appealed to respondent NLRC's evaluation of the evidence and factual
the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment. findings based thereon, which are generally accorded not
15 Accordingly, after the denial of its motion for only great respect but even finality." 18
reconsideration, petitioner appealed the August 21, 1988
Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. However, The question of whether or not petitioner charged private
in an Order dated September 13, 1991,16public respondent respondents placement fees in excess of that allowed by law
Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed in toto the is clearly a question of fact which is for public respondent
assailed Order. Petitioner filed a Motion for POEA, as a trier of facts, to determine. As stated above, the
Reconsideration but this was likewise denied in an Order settled rule is that the factual findings of quasi-judicial
dated November 25, 1991. agencies like the POEA, which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari where petitioner generally accorded not only respect, but at times even
raises the following grounds for the reversal of the finality if such findings are supported by substantial
questioned Orders: evidence. 19
I On this point, we have carefully examined the records of the
case and it is clear that the ruling of public respondent
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
POEA that petitioner is guilty of illegal exaction is
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
supported by substantial evidence. Aside from the
DISCRETION IN HOLDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF
testimonial evidence offered by private respondents, they
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS. THE FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
also presented documentary evidence consisting of receipts
EVIDENCE AND IN ANY EVENT, THE LAW ON WHICH THE
issued by a duly authorized representative of petitioner
CONVICTION IS BASED IS VOID.
which show the payment of amounts in excess of those
allowed by the POEA. In contrast, petitioner did not present
II
any evidence whatsoever to rebut the claims of private
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN respondents despite the many opportunities for them to do
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF so.
DISCRETION IN PENALIZING PETITIONER WITH
CONTRACT SUBSTITUTION. IN THE PREMISES, THE Petitioner insists, however, that it cannot be held liable for
CONTRACT SUBSTITUTION IS VALID AS IT IMPROVED THE illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which
EMPLOYMENT. may be collected from applicants, is void for lack of
publication.
III.
There is merit in the argument.
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF In Taada vs. Tuvera 20 , the Court held, as follows:
DISCRETION IN HOLDING PETITIONER LIABLE FOR
"We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local until he has obtained employment through its efforts or has
application and private laws, shall be published as a actually commenced employment. Such fee shall be always
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days covered with the approved receipt clearly showing the
after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a
by the legislature. schedule of allowable fees." (italic supplied)
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive It is thus clear that the administrative circular under
orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of consideration is one of those issuances which should be
legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce
by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid
Constitution: Administrative rules and regulations must delegation. 27 Considering that POEA Administrative
also be published if their purpose is to enforce or Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as yet been published
implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. or filed with the National Administrative Register, the same
is ineffective and may not be enforced.
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the The Office of the Solicitor General argues however that the
administrative agency and the public, need not be imposition of administrative sanctions on petitioner was
published. Neither is publication required of the so-called based not on the questioned administrative circular but on
letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors Article 32 and Article 34 (a) 28 of the Labor Code.
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties." The argument is not meritorious. The said articles of the
Labor Code were never cited, much less discussed, in the
Applying this doctrine, we have previously declared as body of the questioned Orders of the POEA and Secretary of
having no force and effect the following administrative Labor and Employment. In fact, the said Orders were
issuances: a) Rules and Regulations issued by the Joint consistent in mentioning that petitioner's violation of
Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 was the basis
Accreditation Committee regarding the accreditation of for the imposition of administrative sanctions against
hospitals, medical clinics and laboratories; 21 b) Letter of petitioner. Furthermore, even assuming that petitioner was
Instruction No. 416 ordering the suspension of payments held liable under the said provisions of the Labor Code,
due and payable by distressed copper mining companies to Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code presupposes the
the national government; 22 c) Memorandum Circulars promulgation of a valid schedule of fees by the Department
issued by the POEA regulating the recruitment of domestic of Labor and Employment. Considering that, as, previously
helpers to Hong Kong; 23 d) Administrative Order No. discussed, Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983
SOCPEC 89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International embodying such a schedule of fees never took effect, there
Trading Corporation regulating applications for is thus no basis for the imposition of the administrative
importation from the People's Republic of China;24and e) sanctions against petitioner. Moreover, under Book VI,
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 issued by the Chapter II, Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987,
Department of Budget and Management discontinuing the "(r)ules in force on the date of the effectivity of this Code
payment of other allowances and fringe benefits to which are not filed within three (3) months from that date
government officials and employees. 25 In all these cited shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any
cases, the administrative issuances questioned therein were party or persons." Considering that POEA Administrative
uniformly struck down as they were not published or filed Circular No. 2 was never filed with the National
with the National Administrative Register as required by Administrative Register, the same cannot be used as basis
the Administrative Code of 1987. 26 for the imposition of administrative sanctions against
petitioner.
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must
likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never The Office of the Solicitor General likewise argues that the
published or filed with the National Administrative questioned administrative circular is not among those
Register. requiring publication contemplated by Taada vs. Tuvera as
it is addressed only to a specific group of persons and not to
POEA Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983 provides the general public.
for the applicable schedule of placement and
documentation fees for private employment agencies or Again, there is no merit in this argument.
authority holders. Under the said Order, the maximum
amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a
overseas workers is P2,500.00. The said circular was specified group, namely private employment agencies or
apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of
Article 32 of the Labor Code which provides, as follows: our ruling in Taada vs. Tuvera. In the case of Phil.
Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres,29 the
"ARTICLE 32. Fees to be paid by workers. Any person administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed
applying with a private fee-charging employment agency to an even smaller group, namely Philippine and Hong Kong
for employment assistance shall not be charged any fee agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong
Kong, and still the Court ruled therein that, for lack of contract substitution for a second time should not be left
proper publication, the said circulars may not be enforced unpunished. It is the duty of this Office to repress such acts
or implemented. by teaching agencies a lesson to avoid repetition of the
same violation." 31
Our pronouncement in Taada vs. Tuvera is clear and
categorical. Administrative rules and regulations must be With respect to the third ground, petitioner argues that the
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation., The only holding petitioner liable for illegal deductions/withholding
exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely of salaries considering that the Supreme Court itself has
internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions already absolved petitioner from this charge. Petitioner
issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and premises its argument on the fact that the July 26, 1989
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the Decision of the NLRC absolving it from private respondent
performance of their duties. Administrative Circular No. 2, de Mesa's claim for salary deduction has already attained
Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of these finality by reason of the dismissal of private respondents'
exceptions. petition for certiorari of the said NLRC decision by the
Supreme Court.
In this regard, the Solicitor General's reliance on the case of
Yaokasin vs. Commissioner of Customs 30 is misplaced. In Petitioner is correct in stating that the July 26, 1989
the said case, the validity of certain Customs Memorandum Decision of the NLRC has attained finality by reason of the
Orders were upheld despite their lack of publication as they dismissal of the petition for certiorari assailing the same.
were addressed to a particular class of persons, the customs However, the said NLRC Decision dealt only with the money
collectors, who were also the subordinates of the claims of private respondents arising from employer-
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. As such, the said employee relations and illegal dismissal and as such, it is
Memorandum Orders clearly fall under one of the only for the payment of the said money claims that
exceptions to the publication requirement, namely those petitioner is absolved. The administrative sanctions, which
dealing with instructions from an administrative superior are distinct and separate from the money claims of private
to a subordinate regarding the performance of their duties, respondents, may still be properly imposed by the POEA. In
a circumstance which does not obtain in the case at bench. fact, in the August 31, 1988 Decision of the POEA dealing
with the money claims of private respondents, the POEA
With respect to the second ground, petitioner would want Adjudication Office precisely declared that "respondent's
us to review the findings of fact of the POEA regarding the liability for said money claims is without prejudice to and
two counts of alleged contract substitution. Again, this is a independent of its liabilities for the recruitment violations
question of fact which may not be disturbed if the same is aspect of the case which is the subject of a separate Order."
supported by substantial evidence. A reading of the August 32
29, 1988 Order of the POEA shows that, indeed, the ruling
that petitioner is guilty of two (2) counts of prohibited The NLRC Decision absolving petitioner from paying private
contract substitution is supported by substantial evidence. respondent de Mesa's claim for salary deduction based its
Thus: ruling on a finding that the said money claim was not raised
in the complaint. 33 While there may be questions
"2. As admitted by respondent, there was definitely a regarding such finding of the NLRC, the finality of the said
contract of substitution in the first count. The first contract NLRC Decision prevents us from modifying or reviewing the
was duly approved by the Administration and, therefore, same. But the fact that the claim for salary deduction was
the parties are bound by the terms and condition thereof not raised by private respondents in their complaint will
until its expiration. The mere intention of respondents to not bar the POEA from holding petitioner liable for illegal
increase the number of hours of work, even if there was a deduction or withholding of salaries as a ground for the
corresponding increase in wage is clear violation of the suspension or cancellation of petitioner's license.
contract as approved by the Administration, and
notwithstanding the same, the amendment is evidently Under the POEA Rules and Regulations, the POEA, on its
contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy and own initiative, may conduct the necessary proceeding for
hence, must be shunned (Art. 1306, Civil Code of the the suspension or cancellation of the license of any private
Philippines, Book III, Title I, Chapter 1, Article 83, Labor placement agency on any of the grounds mentioned therein.
Code of the Philippines, as amended). Moreover, it would 34 As such, even without a written complaint from an
appear that the proposed salary increase corresponding to aggrieved party, the POEA can initiate proceedings against
the increase in number of work bonus may just have been a an erring private placement agency and, if the result of its
ploy as complainant were (sic) thereafter not paid at the investigation so warrants, impose the corresponding
increased rate. administrative sanction thereof. Moreover, the POEA, in an
investigation of an employer-employee relationship case,
As to contract substitution in the second part, a third may still hold a respondent liable for administrative
contract was emphatically intended by respondent to be sanctions if, in the course of its investigation, violations of
signed by complainants which, however, was not recruitment regulations are uncovered. 35 It is thus clear
consummated due to the adamant refusal of complainants that even if recruitment violations were not included in a
to sign thereon. Mere intention of the respondent to commit complaint for money claims initiated by a private
complainant, the POEA, under its rules, may still take vs.
cognizance of the same and impose administrative
sanctions if the evidence so warrants. REY SALAC, WILLIE D. ESPIRITU, MARIO MONTENEGRO,
DODGIE BELONIO, LOLIT SALINEL and BUDDY BONNEVIE,
As such, the fact that petitioner has been absolved by final Respondents.
judgment for the payment of the money claim to private
respondent de Mesa does not mean that it is likewise x-----------------------x
absolved from the administrative sanctions which may be
imposed as a result of the unlawful deduction or G.R. No. 152710
withholding of private respondents' salary. The POEA thus
HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, in her capacity as Secretary
committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner
of Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), HON.
administratively liable of one count of unlawful
ROSALINDA D. BALDOZ, in her capacity as Administrator,
deduction/withholding of salary.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA),
To summarize, petitioner should be absolved from the three and the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
(3) counts of illegal exaction as POEA Administrative ADMINISTRATION GOVERNING BOARD, Petitioners,
Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 could not be the basis of
vs.
administrative sanctions against petitioner for lack of
publication. However, we affirm the ruling of the POEA and HON. JOSE G. PANEDA, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge
the Secretary of Labor and Employment that petitioner of Branch 220, Quezon City, ASIAN RECRUITMENT
should be held administratively liable for two (2) counts of COUNCIL PHILIPPINE CHAPTER, INC. (ARCOPHIL), for itself
contract substitution and one (1) count of withholding or and in behalf of its members: WORLDCARE PHILIPPINES
unlawful deduction of salary. SERVIZO INTERNATIONALE, INC., STEADFAST
INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT CORP., VERDANT
Under the applicable schedule of penalties imposed by the
MANPOWER MOBILIZATION CORP., BRENT OVERSEAS
POEA, the penalty for each count of contract substitution is
PERSONNEL, INC., ARL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC.,
suspension of license for two (2) months or a fine of
DAHLZEN INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., INTERWORLD
P10,000.00 while the penalty for withholding or unlawful
PLACEMENT CENTER, INC., LAKAS TAO CONTRACT
deduction of salaries is suspension of license for two (2)
SERVICES LTD. CO., SSC MULTI-SERVICES, DMJ
months or fine equal to the salary withheld but not less
INTERNATIONAL, and MIP INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER
than P10,000.00 plus restitution of the amount in both
SERVICES, represented by its proprietress, MARCELINA I.
instances.36 Applying the said schedule on the instant case,
PAGSIBIGAN, Respondents.
the license of petitioner should be suspended for six (6)
months or, in lieu thereof, it should be ordered to pay fine in x-----------------------x
the amount of P30,000.00. Petitioner should likewise pay
the amount of SR1,000.00 to private respondent Vivencio A. G.R. No. 167590
de Mesa as restitution for the amount withheld from his
salary. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, the HONORABLE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 13, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE), the
1991 and November 25, 1991 Orders of public respondent PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION
Secretary of Labor and Employment are hereby MODIFIED. (POEA), the OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE
As modified, the license of private respondent Philsa ADMINISTRATION (OWWA), the LABOR ARBITERS OF THE
International Placement and Services Corporation is hereby NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), the
suspended for six (6) months or, in lieu thereof, it is hereby HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, the HONORABLE
ordered to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as fine. Petitioner SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS and the COMMISSION
is likewise ordered to pay the amount of SR1,000.00 to ON AUDIT (COA), Petitioners,
private respondent Vivencio A. de Mesa. All other monetary
awards are deleted. vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 152642 November 13, 2012
Apparently, the Manila RTC did not agree that the law can SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. (a) Subject
impose such grave penalties upon what it believed were to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and
specific acts that were not as condemnable as the others in tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the
the lists. But, in fixing uniform penalties for each of the offense was committed or where any of its essential
enumerated acts under Section 6, Congress was within its ingredients occurred. (Emphasis supplied)
prerogative to determine what individual acts are equally
reprehensible, consistent with the State policy of according xxxx
full protection to labor, and deserving of the same penalties.
Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the rule on venue
It is not within the power of the Court to question the
of criminal actions is, consistent with that laws declared
wisdom of this kind of choice. Notably, this legislative policy
policy15 of providing a criminal justice system that protects
has been further stressed in July 2010 with the enactment
and serves the best interests of the victims of illegal
of R.A. 1002212 which increased even more the duration of
recruitment.
the penalties of imprisonment and the amounts of fine for
the commission of the acts listed under Section 7. G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79,16 and G.R. 184298-9917
Obviously, in fixing such tough penalties, the law (Constitutionality of Section 10, last sentence of 2nd
considered the unsettling fact that OFWs must work outside
paragraph)
the countrys borders and beyond its immediate protection.
The law must, therefore, make an effort to somehow protect G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 are consolidated cases.
them from conscienceless individuals within its jurisdiction Respondent spouses Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (the
who, fueled by greed, are willing to ship them out without Cuaresmas) filed a claim for death and insurance benefits
clear assurance that their contracted principals would treat and damages against petitioners Becmen Service Exporter
such OFWs fairly and humanely. and Promotion, Inc. (Becmen) and White Falcon Services,
Inc. (White Falcon) for the death of their daughter Jasmin
As the Court held in People v. Ventura,13 the State under its Cuaresma while working as staff nurse in Riyadh, Saudi
police power "may prescribe such regulations as in its
Arabia.
judgment will secure or tend to secure the general welfare
of the people, to protect them against the consequence of
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the claim on the ground In G.R. 167590 (the PASEI case), the Quezon City RTC held
that the Cuaresmas had already received insurance benefits as unconstitutional the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph
arising from their daughters death from the Overseas of Section 10 of R.A. 8042. It pointed out that, absent
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA). The LA also sufficient proof that the corporate officers and directors of
gave due credence to the findings of the Saudi Arabian the erring company had knowledge of and allowed the
authorities that Jasmin committed suicide. illegal recruitment, making them automatically liable would
violate their right to due process of law.
On appeal, however, the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) found Becmen and White Falcon jointly The pertinent portion of Section 10 provides:
and severally liable for Jasmins death and ordered them to
pay the Cuaresmas the amount of US$113,000.00 as actual SEC. 10. Money Claims. x x x
damages. The NLRC relied on the Cabanatuan City Health
Offices autopsy finding that Jasmin died of criminal The liability of the principal/employer and the
violence and rape. recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under
this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall
be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment
and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
Becmen and White Falcon appealed the NLRC Decision to performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement
the Court of Appeals (CA).18 On June 28, 2006 the CA held agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all
Becmen and White Falcon jointly and severally liable with money claims or damages that may be awarded to the
their Saudi Arabian employer for actual damages, with workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical
Becmen having a right of reimbursement from White being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as
Falcon. Becmen and White Falcon appealed the CA Decision the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily
to this Court. liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid
claims and damages. (Emphasis supplied)