Reviewer on Labor Standards based on 2019 Bar When is it invalid?

Syllabus - If it is done in excess of authority.

Basic Principles
Basis of Labor Law
What is Labor Standards? - Police power of the state is validly exercised if (a) the
- Part and parcel of labor Law interest of the public generally, as distinguished from
- Provides the least terms and conditions of employment those of a particular class, requires the interference of
that employers must comply with and to which the State; and, (b) the means employed are reasonably
employees are entitled to as a matter of right. necessary to the attainment of the objective sought to
be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
What is Labor Relations? individuals.
- defines the status, rights and duties, and the
Case of PASEI vs. Drilon
institutional mechanism that govern the individual and
-The deployment ban of female domestic workers was a proper
collective interactions, of employers, employees or their
exercise of Police Power.
representative
-No violation of equal protection clause (Female DW are more
- It is a mechanism where labor and management
vulnerable to abuses)
negotiate and adjust terms and conditions of Rights of Labor and Management
employment
Rights of Labor Rights of Management
If they agree for lower standards through their CBA, is that Due Process Hire/Select
possible? Association Prescribe Rules
- No, it is not possible because it contravenes the law. Against Slavery ROI
Contracts (CBA) which are contrary to law are void or Collectively Bargain Dismiss
inexistent. Peaceful concerted activities Expansion and Growth
Living wage Transfer
Note: Labor Standards answers the question “what” while Labor Humane Cnditions
Relations answers the question “how.”
What is Social Legislation? What is the basis of these rights?
- Social Legislation provides particular kinds of - Right to property
protection or benefits to the society or segments - Employers have the right to protect their business
thereof in furtherance of social justice.
- Labor Law is an example of Social Legislation but not How about government employees? Do they enjoy the
always the other way around. same rights? (SSS Employees Assoc. vs. CA)
- Social Legislation is much broader in concept.  Right to organize
- Humanization of laws and the equalization of social  Collectively Bargain with limit
economic forces. - Government employees has limited right to collectively
bargain because EO no. 180 provides that Collective
What is the purpose of Labor Law? Bargaining Negotiation of government employees are
- Social Justice (humanization and equalization) limited to those terms and conditions of employement
that are not fixed by law.
SOURCES:
1. Labor Code Remedies:
2. Constitution - Fixed by law: There remedy will be to petition the
3. Civil Code Congress for the betterment of terms and conditions of
4. RPC employment which are within the ambit of legislation.
5. Special Laws - Not Fixed by Law: Negotiate with the appropriate
6. Case Law agencies for the improvement of those not fixed by
7. CBA law.
8. Employment Contract  Peaceful Concerted activities (Prohibited)
9. Employer Practice Instead: If it remains to be unresolved the dispute may
be raised in the Public Sector Labor-Management
Is the labor code a general law? Council for appropriate action.
- Yes. It codified all the laws relating to labor
- Effectivity: Nov. 1 1974 General Rule: Government employees are covered by the Civil
Service Law
Does the Rule-making power of DOLE violate the non- Exception: If it is incorporated in accordance with the
delegation of power principle? Corporation Code, it shall be covered by the Labor Code.
- No it does not. Although Police power is in the Legitimacy of the exrcise of Management Prerogative
exclusive domain of the Legislature, it does not mean (Rule of Thumb)
that it cannot be delegated. The Labor Code under Art. Requisites:
5 vests the DOLE with rule-making power for the - Business necessity
enforcement of labor laws. - Implemented in GF
1
 - Ample communication Two-tiered test
- Control Test
Balance of Rights between Management and Labor - Economic dependence/ economic realities- WON the
worker is dependent upon such employer for his
- Test of Reasonableness – In the event there exist a continued employment in that line of business.
conflict between the management and labor, it is
resolved in the question whether or not a side has Tripartism Relationship
sufficient evidence which in the eyes of law will - State
produce no damage to both sides and beneficial in the - Employee
long term. - Employer
- Favourable Construction – This rule only involves in
cases where there exist a doubtful interpretation of Adjudication and Policy Formulation- Adequate representation
labor laws, any clear and unambiguous law shall be among the 3
interpreted as it is. In the Adjudication part, where do you find the State?
- Social Justice - “neither communism, nor despotism, - NLRC- 8 divisions, 3 Commissioners composing of
nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the humanization of representatives from the Government, employee,
laws and the equalization of social and economic forces employer sector.
by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all
the competent elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
through the exercise of powers underlying the existence
of all governments on the time-honored principles of
salus populi estsuprema lex. (Calalang vs. Williams)

ARTICLE 4 CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR:

SOSITO CASE- While the Constitution is committed to the
policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it
does not mean that every labor dispute will automatically be
decided in favor of labor.
PI Manufacturing- Law has no intetion for oppression. Not in all
cases that the court rules in favor of labor. If the law is clear,
interpret it as it is. No need for construction

Concept of Employer and Employee in relation to the Four-fold

test
1. Employer: Any person who selects and engages
another to render a particular service, pays for his
wages, has the power to dismiss such person’s services
and exercises control over such person not only to the
result but also to the means and methods of achieving
such result.
2. Employee: Any person who is selected and engaged by
another to perform a particular service, receives wages
from such person, may be dismissed by such person
and is under the control of the latter not only as to the
results to be achieved but also to the means and
methods of achieving such result.

Test to determine Employer-Employee Relationship

Four-Fold test
- Power to Select/Engage
- Power to dismiss
- Payment of Wages
- Control test

2
PART II
PRE-EMPLOYMENT
License vs. Authority
License: document issued by DOLE authorizing a person
or entity to operate a PRIVATE employment agency
Authority: document issued by DOLE authorizing a
person or entity to engage in recruitment and placement
activities
Name Hire: Filipino workers who are able to secure
overseas employment without the assistance of any agency.
QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSE FOR LOCAL
EMPLOYMENT
[See Implementing Rules of Book I: Local Employment
(DO No 141-14, S. 2014)] SECTION 4
Section 4. Qualifications - The applicant for a license to
operate a private employment agency must possess the
following:
1. Filipino citizens for single proprietorship
and
75% of the authorized capital stock is
owned and controlled by Filipino citizens for
partnership and corporation; 
 Zudammenarveit (GTZ) vs. CA)
2. Minimum net worth of P1,000,000 in case of
single proprietorship and a
Minimum paid up
capital of P1,000,000 in case of partnership and
corporation; and 
 Although it acknowledged claims arising out of
3. Not otherwise disqualified by law or other
government rules and regulations to engage in
the business of recruitment and placement of
workers for local employment. 
 A contract freely entered into should be respected, since a
Local
A private employment agency for local employment
should have a minimum net worth of P1,000,000 in the
case of single proprietorship and partnership or minimum
paid-up capital of P1,000,000 in the case of a
corporation.
Overseas
A private recruitment or manning agency for overseas
employment should have a
Minimum capitalization of
P5,000,000 in the case of single proprietorship and
partnership or
Minimum paid-up capital of P5,000,000
in the case of a corporation.
ESCROW DEPOSIT
(REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND
EMPLOYMENT OF LAND-BASED OVERSEAS
FILIPINO WORKERS OF 2016)
SECTION 17.Maintenance of Escrow Deposit. — A
licensed recruitment agency shall maintain at all times its
escrow deposit in the minimum amount of
(PhP1,000,000.00).
In case the licensed recruitment agency is required an
ADDITIONAL ESCROW pursuant to Section 15, it
shall maintain the escrow deposit of (PhP1,000,000.00)
plus the additional escrow.
In case the escrow deposit has been GARNISHED, the
licensed recruitment agency shall replenish the escrow
deposit within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
Notice to Replenish Escrow Deposit.
Failure to comply with such notice will result in the
suspension of the license of the recruitment agency.
Within the same fifteen (15) day period, the licensed
recruitment agency may explain why it should not be
suspended for such failure to comply.
The Administration shall ensure compliance with the
increased escrow deposit as provided in this Rule.
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION THEORY or
PRESUMED IDENTITY APPROACH
(EDI-Staffbuilders Int’l vs. NLRC)
Since the Code grants that power, it shall be presumed that
the foreign-owned corporation can sue on Philippine soil.
Therefore, it shall not be accorded immunity from suit
(Deutsche Gesellshaft Fur Tecgnische
IPAMS vs. De Vera
law or contract involving Filipino workers, it does not
categorically provide that foreign laws are absolutely and
automatically applicable in overseas employment contracts.
contract is the law between the parties. The principle of
party autonomy in contracts is not, however, an absolute
principle. The rule in Article 1306, of our Civil Code is that
the contracting parties may establish such stipulations as
they may deem convenient, "provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy." Thus, counter-balancing the principle of
autonomy of contracting parties is the equally general rule
that provisions of applicable law, especially provisions
relating to matters affected with public policy, are deemed
written into the contract.
Put a little differently, the governing principle is
that parties may not contract away
applicable provisions of law especially peremptory
provisions dealing with matters heavily
impressed with public interest. The law relating to labor
and employment is clearly such an area and parties are not
at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships
from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
contracting with each other. Based on the foregoing, the
general rule is that Philippine laws apply even to overseas
employment contracts. This rule is rooted in the
constitutional provision of Section 3, Article XIII that
the State shall afford full protection to labor, whether
local or overseas. Hence, even if the OFW has his
3
employment abroad, it does not strip him of his rights to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living
wage under our Constitution.
As an EXCEPTION, the parties may agree that
a foreign law shall govern the employment contract.
A synthesis of the existing laws and jurisprudence reveals
that this exception is subject to the following
REQUISITES:
1. that it is expressly stipulated in the overseas
employment contract that a specific foreign law shall
govern;
2. that the foreign law invoked must be proven before
the courts pursuant to the Philippine rules on evidence;
3. that the foreign law stipulated in the overseas
employment contract must not be contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy of
the Philippines; and
4. that the overseas employment contract must be
processed through the POEA.
A. Recruitment and Placement of local and migrant
workers
- Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or
not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the
Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such
non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged. (Section 6, RA 8042,
as amended by RA 10022)
1. Illegal Recruitment and other prohibited activities
a. ELEMENTS:
(Non-Licensee)
1. The offender has no valid license or authority required
by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers; and
2. The offender undertakes either any activity within the
meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under
Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code.
(Licensed)
Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either
non-license or license holders. Non-license holders are
liable by the simple act of engaging in recruitment and
placement activities, while license holders may also be held
liable for committing the acts prohibited under Section 6
of RA 8042.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any
amount greater than the specified in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater
than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or
information or document in relation to recruitment or
employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony,
information or document or commit any act of
misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or
authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker
already employed to quit his employment in order to offer
him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a
worker from oppressive terms and conditions of
employment;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly
authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of
employment, placement vacancies, remittances of foreign
exchange earnings, separations from jobs, departures and
such other matters or information as may be required by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the
worker, employment contracts approved and verified by
the Department of Labor and Employment from the time
of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including
the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or
placement agency to become an officer or member of the
Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be
engaged directly on indirectly in the management of a
travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from
applicant workers before departure for monetary or
financial considerations other than those authorized under
the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations;
(1) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons
as determined by the Department of Labor and
Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the
workers in connection with his documentation and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place without the
worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense
involving economic sabotage.
b. Types of Illegal Recruitment
1. Simple Illegal Recruitment
4
 -Where illegal recruitment is proved, but the
elements of “large scale” or “syndicate” are absent, the
accused can be convicted of “simple illegal recruitment.”
-Illegal recruitment as a criminal offense must
presuppose deceit or misrepresentation. It must be shown
that the accused, without being duly authorized by law,
gave the complainants a
-Illegal Recruitment Done with One or More
Than One Person
Any acts of mentioned in the basic rule in Art. 13
(b), done without license, will constitute recruitment and
placement even if only one perspective worker is involved.
-The proviso in 13(b) was intended neither to
impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an
exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The
number of persons dealt with is not an essential element of
the act of recruitment and placement of workers.
-Distinct Impression
It must be shown that the accused, without being duly
authorized by law, gave the complainants a distinct
impression that he had the power or ability to send them
abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to
part with their money to be employed.
-Lack of Receipts
Presentation of receipts acknowledging payments
is not necessary for successful prosecutions of illegal
recruitment charge. Credible testimonial evidence may
suffice.
2. Illegal Recruitment as Economic Sabotage
Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by PD No.
2018 as well as Sec. 6 of RA No. 8042, provides that illegal
recruitment shall be considered an offense involving
economic sabotage if any of the following circumstances
exists, namely:
4. When illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate, i.e., if it is carried by a group of three or
more persons conspiring and/or confederating
with one another; or 

5. When illegal recruitment is committed in a large
scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group. 
 Economic Sabotage: 20 years
Illegal recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment
by a syndicate are separate or independent categories. They
need not coincide within the same case. Where only one
complainant filed individual complaints, there is no illegal
recruitment in large scale; but the conspiring recruiters can
be held guilty of illegal recruitment by a syndicate.
c. Illegal Recruitment vs. Estafa
-It is settled that a person who commits illegal
recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under
par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The
offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where
the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal
intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction
for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar
conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.
-Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a)
of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a
conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It
follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa will not
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.
Elements of ESTAFA
a. The accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence
or by means of deceit; and
b. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party of to a third
person.
-The act complained of in the instant case is
penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC,
wherein estafa is committed by any person who shall
defraud another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or
by pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the
following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that
the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his
money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.
PRESCRIPTION
Simple IR- 5 yrs
PENALTY
1. fine
2. Imprisonment
3. Closure
2. Liability of Local Recruitment Agency and foreign
Employer
"The liability of the principal/employer and the
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.
5
 The performance bond to be filed by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all money claims or damages that may be
awarded to the workers.
If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical
being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as
the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily
liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid
claims and damages.
-Such liabilities shall continue during the entire
period or duration of the employment contract and shall
not be affected by any substitution, amendment or
modification made locally or in a foreign country of the
said contract.
a. Solidary Liability
-A recruitment agency is solidarily liable for the
unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment
with a foreign principal
-Even if the recruitment agency and the foreign
principal had already severed their agency agreement at the
time the worker was injured, the recruitment agency may
still be sued for violation of the employment contract, if
no notice of the agency agreement’s termination was given
to the employee.
-This is pursuant to Art. 1921 of the NCC, which
states that if the agency has been entrusted for the purpose
of contracting with specified persons, its revocation shall
not prejudice the latter if they were not given notice
thereof.
-The obligations in the recruitment agreement
entered into by and between the local agent and its foreign
principal are not coterminous with the term of such
agreement. If neither or both of the parties decide to end
the agreement, the responsibilities of such parties towards
the contracted employees under the agreement do not at
all end. It extends until the expiration of the employment
contracts of the employees recruited and employed
pursuant to the said recruitment agreement.
b. DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE
-A rule in insurance law that any information
material to the transaction, either possessed by the agent at the
time of the transaction or acquired by him before its completion, is
deemed to be the knowledge of the principal, at least so far
as the transaction is concerned, even though in fact the
knowledge is not communicated to the principal at all.
“The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the
knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer
Xiong, not the other way around.
The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot,
therefore, be imputed to its agent Sunace.”
(Sunace Int’l Mgmt Services vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 161757)
-“Knowledge of the agent is deemed to be the
knowledge of the principal.”
3. Termination of Contact of a migrant worker
without just and valid cause
"In case of termination of overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or
contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant
worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee and the deductions
made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum,
plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
4. Ban on direct hiring
-As a rule, direct hiring of migrant workers is not
allowed.
-The exceptions are: direct hiring by members of
the diplomatic organizations, international organizations,
heads of state and government officials with the rank of at
least deputy minister, and such other employers as may be
allowed by the Secretary of Labor.
The reasons for the ban on direct hiring are:
a) A worker hired directly by a foreign employer
without government intervention may not be assured of
the best possible terms and conditions of employment.
b) A foreign employer must also be protected.
Without government intervention, a foreign employer may
be entering into a contract with a Filipino who is not
qualified to do the job.
c) The mandatory requirement for remittance to
the Philippines of a portion of the worker's foreign
exchange earnings can easily be evaded by the worker.
B. Employment of Non-Resident Aliens
Art. 40 requires only NRA to secure employment
permits. RA are not so required.
FOR RA: Alien Employment Registration
Certificate
-Aliens may not be employed in certain
nationalized business
XPN:
a. When SOJ specifically authorizes the
employment of foreign technical personnel
b. Where the aliens are elected members of the
BOD of corporations or associations in proportion to
their allowable participation in the capital of such agencies.
IMPORTANT CASES:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. Maternity Children’s Hospital vs Sec. of Labor
6
-ECOLA, Regional Director jurisdiction on labor
standards
-“Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements
prescribed by existing laws, rules, and regulations relating
to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other
monetary and welfare benefits, including occupational,
safety and health standards”
2. P.I. Manufacturing vs. P.I. Manufacturing Union
-CBA, RA 6640 resulting wage increase, wage distortion
cured by CBA
-The law has no intention for oppression. Not in all cases
that the court rules in favor of labor.
3. Philippine Association of Service Exporters (PASEI) vs Drilon
-The deployment ban of female domestic workers was a
proper exercise of police power. There was no violation of
the equal protection clause and the right to travel.
4. Sosito vs Aguinaldo Development Corporation
-Retrenchment program, Indefinite leave, Not in active
service, no separation pay, best of both worlds
-“While the Constitution is committed to the policy of
social justice and the protection of the working class, it
should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also
has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect
and enforcement in the interest of simple and fair play.”
5. Mendoza vs Rural Bank of Lucban
-Valid exercise of management prerogative to reshuffle
employees provided there is a legitimate business interest.
-“In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest,
management has the prerogative to transfer or assign
employees from one office or area of operation to another
– provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of
salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not
motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected
as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient
cause.”
6. China Banking Corporation vs Borromeo
-Bank Manager to Assistant VP who made fictitious loans,
withheld half of separation benefits because of Borromeo,
violate company rules
“Moreover, management has the prerogative to discipline
its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on
erring workers pursuant to company rules and
regulations.”
7. SSS Employees vs CA
-No right to strike, detrimental to public service, remedy is
with Congress and not CBA
8. Domingo vs Rayala
-NLRC Chairman sexual harassment
-“Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, it is not essential
that the demand request or requirement be made as a
condition for continued employment or for promotion to
a higher position. It is enough that the respondents acts
result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the employee.”
9. Aquino vs Acosta
-Sexual harassment CTA
-“In all the incidents complained of, the respondent’s
pecks on the cheeks of complainant should be understood
in the context of having been done on the occasion of
some festivities, and not in the assertion of the latter that
she was singled out by Judge Acosta in his kissing
escapades. The busses on her cheeks were simply friendly
and innocent, bereft of malice and lewd design.”
10. Star Paper Corp. vs Simbol
-Prohibition against marriage between employees under
Art. 136 of LC
-“There must be a compelling business necessity for which
no alternative exists other than the discriminatory
practice.”
-Standard of reasonableness parallel to the bona fide
occupational qualification requirement
11. Duncan Association vs Glaxo
-Same prohibition against marriage with employees from
other rival companies but with reason of protecting trade
secrets.
-Court upheld it was a valid exercise of management
prerogative for its reasonableness of protecting its trade
secrets.
12. Chua-Qua vs Clave
-Teacher fell inlove with grade 6 student and was
dismissed despite their marriage
-Court ruled on illegality of dismissal since “the heart has
reasons which reason does not know”
13. Leus vs St Scholastica’s College
-Teacher dismissed for pregnancy
-Court ruled in favor of teacher for absence of legitimate
grounds of dismissal. Morality is not based on religion but
on moral standards independent from religion.
14. St. Martin Funeral Home vs NLRC
-Appropriate appellate prodecure
Labor Arbiter ->
NLRC -> CA ->SC via Rule 65
“While we do not wish to intrude into the Congressional
sphere on the matter of the wisdom of a law, on this score
we add the further observations that there is a growing
number of labor cases being elevated to this Court which,
not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to
remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or
ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is
procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the
7
increased number of its component divisions; and that
there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious
action on labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional
protection to labor.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P.
No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the
Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to
mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be
initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance
of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
appropriate forum for the relief desired.”
RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT
1. Serrano vs Gallant Maritime Services
-Part of Sec10 of RA 8042 was declared unconstitutional
for being violative of the equal protection clause of OFWs.
-Sec. 10 gave the agency the option to pay either: (a) the
unexpired potion of the service contract; or (b) 3 months
of pay for every year served, whichever is less.
-SC removed the 3 month option.
2. Sameer Overseas vs Cabiles
a) Lex Loci Celebrationis (law of the country where the
contract is made) applies. Since the contract was executed
in the Philippines, Philippine laws apply.
b) Congress reenacted the portion which was declared
unconstitutional in Serrano vs Gallant. It was again
declared unconstitutional.
c) Interest rate for full reimbursement fee is 12% because
law says to but unexpired portion of service contract is at
6% pursuant to C.B. Circular No. 799.
3. Sunace vs NLRC
-Theory of imputed knowledge - knowledge of the agent is
also knowledge of the principal. It does not apply the other
way around.
4. IPAMS vs De Vera
-Doctrine of Processual Presumption
-Can IPAMS seek refuge if it spontaneously invoked
foreign law in Philippine courts? No.
Requisites:
1. That it is expressly stipulated in the overseas
employment contract that a specific foreign law shall
govern;
2. That the foreign law invoked must be proven before the
courts pursuant to the Philippine rules on evidence;
3. That the foreign law stipulated must not be contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy
of the Philippines;
4. That the overseas employment contract must be
processed through the POEA
5. Manila Hotel vs NLRC
-Doctrine of forum non conveniens
"We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in
two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely
foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has
with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen.
The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations.
Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or
agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses
to do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one to
which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the
Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the
Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce
its decision. The conditions are unavailing in the case at
bar."
6. People vs Hernandez
a) One complainant in several information cannot
constitute illegal recruitment in large scale because the law
requires that there be three or more victims in one
information. However, they can be convicted of illegal
recruitment in large scale assuming there are 3 or more
conspirators.
b) A person convicted of illegal recruitment can also be
convicted of estafa, provided that the elements of estafa
are present. Illegal recruitment is mala prohibita while
estafa is mala in se.
7. People vs Panis
-Accused contended that he cannot be convicted of illegal
recruitment since the law states that for illegal recruitment
to exist, the job promise or offer for a fee must be made
by two or more persons.
-The phrase "shall be deemed" in Art. 13(b) create the
presumption of recruitment and placement. The number
of people dealt with are immaterial.
8