R.A.

8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 148198 October 1, 2003 RULING:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, Her receipt of the money was in compliance with the order of
vs. her employer, Mrs. Reyes. She did not convince the applicants
ELIZABETH "BETH" CORPUZ, appellant. to give her their money since they went to the agency precisely
to pay the processing fees upon the earlier advice of Mrs. Reyes.
FACTS:
As stated in the last sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042, the
In June 1998, private complainants Belinda Cabantog, persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the
Concepcion San Diego, Erlinda Pascual and Restian Surio went principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical
to Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation to persons, the officers having control, management or direction
apply for employment as factory workers in Taiwan. They were of their business shall be liable.
accompanied by a certain "Aling Josie" who introduced them to
the agency’s President and General Manager Mrs. Evelyn Gloria In the case at bar, we have carefully reviewed the records of the
H. Reyes. Mrs. Reyes asked them to accomplish the application case and found that the prosecution failed to establish that
forms. Thereafter, they were told to return to the office with appellant, as secretary, had control, management or direction of
P10,000.00 each as processing fee.4 the recruitment agency.

On July 30, 1998, private complainants returned to the agency Anent the issue of whether or not appellant knowingly and
to pay the processing fees. Mrs. Reyes was not at the agency that intentionally participated in the commission of the crime
time, but she called appellant on the telephone to ask her to charged, we find that she did not.
receive the processing fees. Thereafter, appellant advised them
to wait for the contracts to arrive from the Taiwan employers. In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic
tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in
Two months later, nothing happened to their applications. establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which
Thus, private complainants decided to ask for the refund of he is charged.
their money from appellant who told them that the processing
fees they had paid were already remitted to Mrs. Reyes. When In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient
they talked to Mrs. Reyes, she told them that the money she evidence to prove appellant’s active participation in the illegal
received from appellant was in payment of the latter’s debt. recruitment activities of the agency. As already established,
Thus, on January 13, 1999, private complainants filed their appellant received the processing fees of the private
complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation which led complainants for and in behalf of Mrs. Reyes who ordered her
to the arrest and detention of appellant. to receive the same. She neither gave an impression that she had
the ability to deploy them abroad nor convinced them to part
For her part, appellant resolutely denied having a hand in the with their money. More importantly, she had no knowledge that
illegal recruitment and claimed that she merely received the the license was suspended the day before she received the
money on behalf of Mrs. Reyes, the President/General Manager money. Their failure to depart for Taiwan was due to the
of Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation, suspension of the license, an event which appellant did not have
where she had been working as secretary for three months prior control of. Her failure to refund their money immediately upon
to July 30, 1998. In compliance with the order of her employer their demand was because the money had been remitted to Mrs.
and since the cashier was absent, she received the processing Reyes on the same day she received it from them.
fees of private complainants, which she thereafter remitted to
Mrs. Reyes. She had no knowledge that the agency’s license was WHEREFORE, appellant Elizabeth Corpuz is ACQUITTED
suspended by the POEA on July 29, 1998. of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

On November 16, 2000, the trial court rendered the assailed

decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the above observations and findings

accused Elizabeth "Beth" Corpuz is hereby found guilty of the
offense charged in the Information for violation of Sec. 6 (l),
(m) in relation to Sec. 7 (b) of R.A. 8042

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not appellant knowingly and intentionally

participated in the commission of the crime charged

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 170834 August 29, 2008 After paying the amount, he was told to wait for two
to three months. When he was not able to leave for
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Saipan, he demanded the return of the placement fee,
vs. which was not refunded.
ANTONIO NOGRA, accused-appellant.
During the first week of November 1997, Annelyn
FACTS: Sarmiento and her husband, Oliver Sarmiento, applied
for overseas employment. For the application of
Oliver Sarmiento, they submitted his medical
The facts, as established by the prosecution, are aptly
certificate and certification of previous employment.
summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as
They were also made to pay the amount of P27,000.00
follows:
as processing fee. Oliver Sarmiento was promised that
within 1 month, he would be able to leave. Initially,
Appellant held office at Loran International Overseas Oliver Sarmiento was told that allegedly his visa was
Recruitment Co., (Loran). A nameplate on his table yet to be obtained. When he was not able to leave and
prominently displayed his name and position as what he paid was not refunded, he filed a complaint
operations manager. The license of Loran also with the NBI.
indicated appellant as the operations manager. The
POEA files also reflect his position as operations
Sometime in May 1997, Fe Zaballa applied for
manager of Loran.
overseas employment in Saipan with Loran. She was
required to submit her medical certificate, original
Sometime in December 1996, Renato Alden went to copy of her birth certificate, NBI clearance and police
Loran to apply for a job as hotel worker for Saipan. clearance. She was also required to pay the amount
He was interviewed by appellant, who required Alden of P35,000.00 as placement fee. When she could not
to submit an NBI clearance and medical certificate and be deployed, she sought to recover the amount she
to pay the placement fee. Alden paid the amount paid, which was not returne.5
of P31,000.00. The additional amount of P4,000.00
was to be paid prior to his departure to Saipan.
On the other hand, appellant presented the following evidence:
Appellant promised Alden that he would leave within
a period of three to four months. After one year of
waiting Alden was not able to leave. Alden filed a The defense presented [appellant] Antonio Nogra and
complaint with the NBI when he was not able to the agency's secretary and cashier, Maritess Mesina.
recover the amount and could no longer talk with
appellant. From their testimonies it was established that
LORAN, was owned by accused Lorna Orciga and
On April 18, 1997, Teofila Lualhati applied for Japanese national Kataru Tanaka. Sometime in July
employment as hotel worker for Saipan with Loran. 1994, appellant Antonio Nogra read from outside the
Appellant required her to submit an NBI clearance agency's main office Mandaluyong City that it was in
and medical certificate and to pay the processing fee need of a liaison officer. He applied for the position.
in the amount of P35,000.00 so she could leave The part-owner and co-accused, Lorna Orciga, hired
immediately. She paid the amount of P35,000.00 to him instead as Operations Manager as the agency was
Loran's secretary in the presence of appellant. She was then still in the process of completing the list of
promised that within 120 days or 4 months she would personnel to be submitted to the POEA.
be able to leave. Despite repeated follow-ups, Lualhati
was unable to work in Saipan. She demanded the [Appellant] Nogra started working with LORAN in
refund of the processing fee. When the amount was October 1994. In 1995, he was transferred to Naga
not returned to her, she filed a complaint with the City when the agency opened a branch office thereat.
NBI. Although he was designated as the Operations
Manager, [appellant] Nogra was a mere employee of
Sometime in April 1998, Filipina Mendoza went to the agency. He was in-charge of the advertisement of
Loran to apply for employment as hotel worker. She the company. He also drove for the company. He
paid the amount of P35,000.00 as placement fee. fetched from the airport the agency's visitors and
When she was not able to work abroad, she went to guests and drove them to hotels and other places.
Loran and sought the return of P35,000.00 from
appellant. Although part-owner Lorna Orciga was stationed in
Manila, she, however, actually remained in control of
Sometime in October 1997, Kerwin Donacao went to the branch office in Naga City. She conducted the final
Loran to apply for employment as purchaser in Saipan. interview of the applicants and transacted with the
He was required to submit NBI clearance, police foreign employers. She also controlled the financial
clearance, previous employment certificate and his matters and assessment fees of the agency in Naga
passport. He paid the placement fee of P35,000.00. City. The placement and processing fees collected by

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

the agency in Naga City were all deposited in the bank As to Section 6 (m) of R.A. No. 8042, the prosecution has
account of Lorna Orciga and not a single centavo went proven beyond reasonable doubt that private complainants
to the benefit of [appellant] Nogra. made payments to Loran, and appellant failed to reimburse the
amounts paid by private complainants when they were not
On March 26, 2003, the RTC rendered Judgment7 finding deployed. The prosecution presented the receipts issued by
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Loran to private complainants evidencing payment of
placement fees ranging from P27,000.00 to P35,000.00.
On April 10, 2003, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC
ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Appellant does not dispute that private complainants were not
Court. deployed for overseas work, and that the placement fees they
paid were not returned to them despite demand. However, he
seeks to exculpate himself on the ground that he is a mere
On August 31, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision12 affirming
employee of Loran.
the decision of the RTC. The CA held that being an employee
is not a valid defense since employees who have knowledge and
active participation in the recruitment activities may be The Court is unswayed by appellant's contention.
criminally liable for illegal recruitment activities,
The penultimate paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042
A Notice of Appeal15 having been timely filed by appellant, the explicitly states that those criminally liable are the "principals,
CA forwarded the records of the case to this Court for further accomplices, and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the
review. officers having control, management or direction of their
business shall be liable." Contrary to appellant's claim, the
testimonies of the complaining witnesses and the documentary
ISSUE/S:
evidence for the prosecution clearly established that he was not
a mere employee of Loran, but its Operations Manager. The
Whether or not appellant is guilty of large scale illegal license of Loran, the files of the POEA and the nameplate
recruitment prominently displayed on his office desk reflected his position
as Operations Manager. As such, he received private
RULING: complainants' job applications; and interviewed and informed
them of the agency’s requirements prior to their deployment,
The appeal fails. The CA did not commit any error in affirming such as NBI clearance, police clearance, medical certificate,
the decision of the RTC. previous employment certificate and the payment of placement
fee. He was also responsible for the radio advertisements and
leaflets, which enticed complaining witnesses to apply for
Appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale
employment with the agency. Clearly, as Operations Manager,
under Section 6 (l) and (m) of R.A. No. 8042. Section 6 (l) refers
he was in the forefront of the recruitment activities.
to the failure to actually deploy without valid reason, as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE). Section 6 (m) involves the failure to reimburse The defense of being a mere employee is not a shield against his
expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in
cases in which the deployment does not actually take place In the present case, it was clearly established that appellant dealt
without the worker’s fault. directly with the private complainants. He interviewed and
informed them of the documentary requirements and
Evidence for the prosecution showed that Loran is a duly placement fee. He promised deployment within a three or four
licensed recruitment agency with authority to establish a branch month-period upon payment of the fee, but failed to deploy
office. However, under R.A. No. 8042, even a licensee or holder them and to reimburse, upon demand, the placement fees paid.
of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment, should he
commit or omit to do any of the acts enumerated in Section 6. The Court is not persuaded by appellant's argument that his
non-flight is indicative of his innocence. Unlike the flight of an
A thorough scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence reveals that accused, which is competent evidence against him tending to
it failed to prove appellant's liability under Section 6 (l) of R.A. establish his guilt, non-flight is simply inaction, which may be
No. 8042. The law requires not only that the failure to deploy due to several factors. It may not be construed as an indication
be without valid reason "as determined by the Department of of innocence.
Labor and Employment." The law envisions that there be
independent evidence from the DOLE to establish the reason Thus, the RTC and the CA correctly found appellant guilty
for non-deployment, such as the absence of a proper job order. beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment.
No document from the DOLE was presented in the present
case to establish the reason for the accused's failure to actually WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED.
deploy private complainants. Thus, appellant cannot be held
liable under Section 6 (l) of R.A. No. 8042.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 198664 passport, to fill-up the bio-data with Chinese character and to
pay ₱40,000.00 for plane tickets and other documents. She paid
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee accused spouses the said amount and a receipt was issued to
vs. her. However, on the scheduled date of departure to Manila on
OWEN MARCELO CAGALINGAN and BEATRIZ B. November 29, 2002, she waited for accused spouses at the
CAGALINGAN, Accused-Appellants airport but to her disappointment, the latter failed to show up.

FACTS: Private complainant Laarni, also testified that it was private

complainant Roselle who informed her that accused spouses
Accused-appellants Owen Marcelo Cagalingan (Owen) and were recruiting workers for Macau, China. On October 21,
Beatriz B. Cagalingan (Beatriz) (accused spouses) were charged 2002, she met Roselle together with accused spouses and the
with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale before the Regional Trial latter asked her if she was willing to work in Macau. She was
Court of Cagayan de Oro City in a complaint initiated by private also required to pay ₱40,000.00 for the processing fee, plane
complainants Reynalyn B. Cagalingan (Reynalyn), Roselle Q. ticket and documentation. Thereafter, accused spouses made
Cagalingan (Roselle), Laarni E. Sanchez (Laarni), Norma R. follow-ups at the office of her father at Branch 1, MTCC-
Cagalingan (Norma); and Arcele J. Bacorro (Arcele). Cagayan de Oro City.

On different dates and occasions, private complainants were On November 20, 2002, she met accused spouses again at the
recruited by Accused Spouses to work in Macau, China for a office of her father and she told accused spouses that she might
fee. Accused spouses Owen and Beatriz were from Vigan, not proceed with her application as she was able to raise only
Ilocos Sur but Owen grew up and finished his high school ₱11,500.00 and the said amount was even borrowed from a
education in Cagayan de Oro City. Owen is the first cousin of lending institution. Accused Spouses nonetheless accepted the
the husbands of private complainants Reynalyn and Roselle and said amount and told her that the balance of the payment would
the nephew of the husband of private complainant Norma. be deducted from her salary in Macau, China. Thereafter,
Accused Spouses issued a receipt and she was told that her
departure for Manila would be on November 29, 2002 and they
Private complainant Arcele testified that she met accused
would just meet at Cagayan de Oro airport at 1 o'clock in the
spouses on October 28, 2002 at around 12 o’clock noon, at the
afternoon. However, on the said date, she did not find accused
house of private complainant Norma. The latter introduced
spouses at the airport and upon inquiry from the airline counter
accused spouses to her and she was told by accused Owen that
she was informed that their names were not on the plane
her wife, accused Beatriz, was asked by her employer, a certain
manifest.
Lu Ting Hoi Simon, of Macau, China to hire office workers who
are computer literate to work at Mandarin Oriental Hotel. It was
Owen who explained to her about the job and the requirements Judgment of the RTC
like: passport, bio-data, Diploma in lieu of Transcript of
Records, and Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) for roundtrip On November 25, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment
tickets and documentation fees as Beatriz could not speak convicting the accused-appellants.
Visayan.
Decision of the CA
On November 6, 2002, Arcele paid Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(₱15,000.00) to accused Owen and subsequently, another On March 18, 2011, the CA affirmed the convictions of the
₱5,000.00 after she mortgaged her house in order to raise the accused-appellants by the RTC
required amount. She was likewise told that her departure for
Manila would be on November 22, 2002 and on November 23, The accused-appellants insist that the complainants well knew
2002 for Macau, China. The departure was rescheduled on that they were not connected to any recruitment agency, or that
November 29, 2002 for Manila at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and they were not recruiters themselves; that they did not represent
on November 30, 2002 for Macau, China. Unfortunately, on the themselves to the latter as having the capability to deploy
said date and time, accused spouses failed to appear. Instead, workers overseas;9 that they did not commit any act of
she met the other recruits at the airport and they all realized that fraudulent misrepresentations essential in the estafa for which
they were victims of illegal recruitment. She and the other they were convicted; and that they simply assisted in processing
private complainants went home aggrieved and humiliated. the papers of the latter to help them realize their desire to work
abroad.10
Private complainant Reynalyn likewise recounted that accused
Owen was the first cousin of her husband and accused spouses ISSUE/S:
were introduced to her by her parents-in-law on October 4,
2002 as the latter stayed at the house of her parents-in-law
Did the CA correctly affirm the convictions of the accused-
located adjacent to her house. Accused Owen offered to help
appellants for illegal recruitment in large scale and for three
her find work in Macau, China as accused Beatriz was allegedly
counts of estafa?
asked by her employer to find Filipino workers who could
replace the Taiwanese and Protuguese workers in Mandarin
Oriental Hotel at Macau, China. She was told to secure her

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

RULING:

We find no reason to disturb the factual findings and legal

conclusions by the CA affirming the factual findings of the
RTC.

To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale,

three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid
license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the
offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of
"recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor
Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act
No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against
three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

In the case at bench, all three (3) elements were established

during trial. First, it was proved by private complaints that
accused spouses were not licensed or authorized to engage in
recruitment activities. This fact was substantiated by POEA's
Certifications and as testified to by the Officer-in-Charge of the
POEA who issued the same. Second, private complainants
testified and proved that indeed accused spouses undertook acts
constituting recruitment and placement as defined under Article
13 (b) of the Labor Code. They testified that they were induced,
offered and promised by accused spouses employment in
Macau, China for two (2) years for a fee. They were made to
believe that accused spouses were authorized to hire them and
capable of sending them to Macau for work with higher pays.
They paid accused spouses for documentation and processing
fees, yet, they were unable to go abroad. These testimonies, as
well as the documentary evidence they submitted consisting of
the receipts issued to them by accused spouses, all proved that
the latter were engaged in recruitment and placement activities.
And third, there are five (5) complainants against whom accused
spouses are alleged to have recruited.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 198795 months, Bagay, Jr. learned that accused-appellant was detained
at Camp Panopio for illegal recruitment.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs. Sometime in the third week of March 2003, Guillarte went to
MERCEDITAS MATHEUS DELOS REYES, Accused- the office of the accused-appellant who promised her work as a
Appellant hotel staff member in Cyprus. She gave accused-appellant an
amount totaling PhP 55,000 as full payment for her deployment
FACTS: abroad. But the promise of deployment never materialized.
Guillarte's demand for the return of her money from the
accused-appellant went unheeded.
Accused-appellant was charged with six counts of Estafa under
Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and one
count of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042, based Private complainant Doria, however, did not testify.
on the affidavit-complaints made by the following: Thelma N.
Suratos (Suratos); Glenda R. Guillarte (Guillarte); Merly 0. For her part, the accused-appellant admitted that she was the
Alayon (Alayon); Celso J. Bagay, Jr. (Bagay, Jr.); Rogelio Overseas Marketing Director of All Care Travel & Consultancy
Duldulao (Duldulao); and Doriza P. Gloria (Gloria). (Hongkong), with All Care Travel & Consultancy (Philippines)
as its affiliate. She claimed that she did not know Suratos,
On January 15, 2003, Suratos went to an office in Cubao, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Gloria. Although she knew
Quezon City where she met the accused-appellant, who Duldulao, she did not promise him any job. She likewise
promised her a job in Cyprus as a caretaker. She returned to the claimed that she neither signed nor issued any receipt using the
accused-appellant's office a month later. The accused-appellant name "Manzie delos Reyes" in favor of the complainants. She
gave her a machine copy of her visa to prove that there was a further claimed that she was not engaged in any recruitment and
good job waiting for her in Cyprus and that she would leave in placement activities. During the pre-trial, she admitted that she
three months upon payment. Suratos gave the accused- had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment.
appellant an amount totaling to PhP55,000, inclusive of her
passport and medical examination report. After three months, On November 26, 2008, the RTC rendered its
Suratos became suspicious. She demanded the return of her Decision, 10 convicting accused-appellant of the crime of large
money, but the accused-appellant simply told her to wait. A scale illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa.
month later, Suratos learned that the accused-appellant was
already detained and could no longer deploy her abroad. On appeal before the CA, the CA affirmed the RTC's
Decision. 11
Sometime in the third week of March 2003, Alayon met the
accused appellant at the All Care Travel Agency. Accused- ISSUE/S:
appellant offered her a job in Cyprus as a part of the laundry
staff and asked her to pay the total amount of PhP55,000, to
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
submit her resume and transcript of records, among others, and
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
promised to deploy her abroad by June. On April 10, 2003,
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF ILLEGAL
Alayon initially paid PhP15,000 to the accused-appellant. When
RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA.
she returned to accused appellant's office to pay the balance, she
learned that accused- appellant had been picked up by the
police. Alayon proceeded to the police station and demanded On the one hand, accused-appellant maintains that she could
from the accused-appellant the return of her money. not be held liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment and Estafa
since she never made any promise or gave the impression of
having the ability to send the complainants abroad. She avers
During the first week of December 2012, Duldulao, through his
that the cash vouchers and letters acknowledging receipt of
wife's friend, was introduced to the accused-appellant. When
complainants' payments were not signed by her, but by a certain
Duldulao mentioned that she had a sister working in Spain,
Manzie Delos Reyes. She likewise avers that she did not engage
accused-appellant promised a tourist visa for him in exchange
in recruitment activities as defined by law since All Care Travel
for PhP 45,000. Duldulao paid the accused-appellant a total of
& Consultancy (Philippines)is engaged in visa applications.
PhP 29,000. When he discovered that accused-appellant was
arrested in April 2003, Duldulao went to Camp Panopio and
demanded that accused appellant return his money but to no RULING:
avail.
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale –
Bagay, Jr. went to the office of the accused-appellant who
offered him a job as a dentist in London. Accused-appellant The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following
assured him that with an initial payment of PhP30,000, he elements: 15 (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment
would leave in three months. After paying the said amount, activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; 16 (2) accused
Bagay, Jr. gave the accused-appellant his resume, transcript of did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in
records, diploma, passport, and I.D. pictures. Unfortunately, he the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the
was not able to leave for London because in less than three same against three or more persons individually or as a group.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

These elements are obtaining in this case.

First, the RTC found accused-appellant to have undertaken

recruitment activity when she promised the private
complainants overseas employment for a fee. This factual
finding was affirmed by the CA. As consistently adhered to by
this Court, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by the
trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the
witnesses and to assess their credibility by the
various indicia available but not reflected on the record. 17 And
when his findings have been affirmed by the CA, these are
generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 18 As
correctly pointed out by the CA:

xxx xxx x x x Appellant, in fact, had stipulated at

pre-trial that not only did she know private complainants, she
also received money from them for their deployment abroad, as
she even issued receipts to them. At any rate, absence of receipts
cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal
recruitment. 19 Private complainants positively identified
appellant as the person who asked money from them in
consideration for their deployment abroad. She impressed on
complainants that she had the power or ability to send them
abroad for employment so much so that the latter got
convinced to part with their money in exchange
therefor.20 Illegal recruiters need not even expressly represent
themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to
send workers abroad. It is enough that these recruiters give the
impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job
placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender
payment of fees. 21

Second, the March 1, 2004 Certification issued by the Philippine

Overseas Employment Administration unmistakably reveals
that the accused-appellant neither had a license nor authority to
recruit workers for overseas employment.22 Notably, instead of
assailing the certification, she admitted during the pre-trial that
she did not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers.23

Third, it was established that there were five complainants, i.e.,

Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Duldulao.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 214340 Appellant then asked her to pay ₱25,000.00 as placement fee
and assured her that she would be deployed to Brunei as soon
PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee as she had completed her papers. The second week of May
vs. 1997, Orias, along with her co-applicants, met with appellant to
GILDA ABELLANOSA, Accused-Appellant inquire when they would leave for Brunei. Appellant however
told them that their medical certificates had already expired.
FACTS:
When Orias and her co-applicants met Pelipog, the latter
Version of the Prosecution informed them that she could not leave for Brunei because,
according to appellant, her papers had expired as well. Alarmed
by such development, Pelipog, Orias, and their co-applicants
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: private sought the help of the NBI.
complainants Timogen 0. Pastolero (Pastolero), Zeno
M. Cathedral11 (Cathedral), Cecilia L. Orias (Orias), Janet P.
Suobiron (Suobiron), Nenita T. Bueron (Bueron), and Elsie P. Suobiron, testified that on March 8, 1997, she went to Shirley's
Pelipog (Pelipog). house along with Jennifer Divinagracia (Divinagracia) and Orias
where she met appellant who introduced herself as a recruiter.
Suobiron applied as a waitress and paid ₱l0,000.00 of the
Pastolero, testified that on February 15, 1997, he went to the
₱25,000.00 placement fee. They were not able to pay the full
house of Shirley Tabema (Shirley), accompanied by his
amount of the placement fee because their visas did not arrive.
grandmother, Oriemo, and cousins Pelipog and Gephre Pomar
According to the appellant the reason for this was their papers
(Pomar). When appellant arrived at around 12:00 noon, she
had expired.
introduced herself as a recruiter from Brunei and showed them
a job order and calling card. Swayed by appellant's
representations, Pastolero filled out a bio-data sheet and applied Bueron, that on March 8, 1997, she, together with Orias and
for the position of janitor. Appellant then asked for ₱5,500.00 Suobiron, went to Shirley's house to apply for a job in Brunei.
as processing fee which Pastolero's grandmother, Oriemo, paid. At that time, appellant was also at Shirley's house interviewing
Oriemo also paid the same amount of processing fee for her several applicants. Appellant told her that her papers could not
other grandson, Pomar. However, appellant did not issue any be processed without first paying the processing fee. Thus, on
receipt for the payments she received; instead, she made April 1, 1997, Bueron gave ₱5,000.00 to the appellant as
assurances that Pastolero and Pomar could leave for Brunei processing fee. Despite submitting all requirements, appellant
within two months from the payment of the processing fee. informed Bueron that she did not get the job since her papers
had expired.
However, after two months, Oriemo informed him that per
appellant, his visa had already expired. Pelipog, testified that together with Orierno, Pomar and
Pastolero, they went to Shirley's house on February 15, 1997 to
apply for work in Brunei. Appellant introduced herself as the
Cathedral, testified that on February 16, 1997, he met appellant
principal recruiter of RTY Skills Development Agency and
at the house of Ernesto Taberna (Ernesto). Appellant, who
showed a job order and calling card bearing her name. During
introduced herself as a recruiter of workers for Brunei, showed
her interview, appellant asked her if she wanted to leave on the
Cathedral a job order and a calling card both indicating that
last week of March. Pelipog agreed and paid processing fee in
appellant was an Overseas Marketing Director of RTY Skill
the amount of ₱12,500.00. When Pelipog demanded the receipt,
Development Corporation. Appellant also represented herself
the appellant replied, "Why, you don't trust me?" Thereafter,
as an acquaintance of the Labor Attache assigned to Brunei; and
the appellant required her to submit her NBI clearance and
that she was a legitimate recruiter. Beguiled by appellant's
medical certificate.
representations, Cathedral submitted his bio-data indicating
therein that he was applying as a cook.
Version of the Defense
On March 10, 1997, Cathedral gave ₱20,000.00 to appellant as
processing fee. Appellant did not issue any receipt despite The defense presented the appellant as its sole witness. She
demand but assured him that the receipt would be given after denied meeting any of the private complainants while she was
the renewal of his passport. He noticed though that the passport in Iloilo and maintained that her purpose in going to Iloilo was
number in the photocopy was the same as the number in his only to assist Shirley in processing the latter's business license.
expired passport. Thereafter, he did not see the appellant Appellant likewise denied that she received money from the
anymore. It was only when he went to the office of the National private complainants; she claimed that it was Shirley who was
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on June 11, 1997 that he came to engaged in recruitment activities. Appellant maintains that she
know that the appellant was not an authorized recruiter. never met any of the private complainants during her short stay
in Iloilo. Appellant lays the blame and points to Shirley as the
one engaged in recruitment activities. She insists that she was a
Orias, testified that on March 8, 1997, she met the appellant at
mere visitor in the house of Shirley's mother and thus prays for
the house of Shirley. Appellant introduced herself as a recruiter
her acquittal.
from Brunei assured her and Suobiron that she could give them
work in Brunei. Orias thus applied for a job as a waitress.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On September 9, 2002, the RTC of lloilo City, Branch 38

rendered judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 6(m) in relation to Section 7, of
RA 8042 (illegal recruitment in large scale).

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On March 19, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the trial court erred in finding that her guilt for the
crime charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

We agree with the trial court and the CA that the prosecution
was able to establish that appellant was engaged in illegal
recruitment in large scale. It was proved that appellant was a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority to recruit workers for
deployment abroad; she offered or promised employment
abroad to private complainants; she received monies from
private complainants purportedly as placement or processing
fees; that private complainants were not actually deployed to
Brunei; that despite demands, appellant failed to reimburse or
refund to private complainants their monies; and that appellant
committed these prohibited acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group.

To recall, private complainants Pomar, Pastolero, Cathedral,

Orias, Suobiron, Bueron, and Pelipog testified that appellant
went to Pavia, Iloilo and represented herself as a recruiter who
could send them to Brunei for work; that appellant impressed
upon them that she had the authority or ability to send them
overseas for work by showing them a job order from Brunei
and a calling card; and appellant collected processing or
placement fees from the private complainants in various
amounts ranging from ₱5,000.00 to ₱20,000.00; and that she
did not reimburse said amounts despite demands.

Verily, the RTC and the CA correctly found the appellant guilty
of large scale illegal recruitment.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014 were outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. 28 Pacific
Manpower argued that the employment contract should first be
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, presented so that the employer’s contractual obligations might
INC., Petitioner, be identified.29 It further denied that it assumed liability for
vs. petitioner’s illegal acts.30
JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.
On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s
FACTS: complaint.31 Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos
ruled that her complaint was based on mereallegations.32
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a
recruitment and placement agency.5 Responding to an ad it Joy appealed36 to the National Labor Relations Commission.
published, respondent, Joy C. Cabiles, submitted her application
for a quality control job in Taiwan.6 In a resolution37 dated March 31, 2004, the National Labor
Relations Commission declared that Joy was illegally dismissed.
Joy’s application was accepted.7 Joy was later asked to sign a one It found that Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to
year employment contract for a monthly salary of prove that there were just causes for termination. 40 There was
NT$15,360.00.8 She alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency no sufficient proof to show that respondent was inefficient in
required her to pay a placement fee of ₱70,000.00 when she her work and that she failed to comply with company
signed the employment contract.9 requirements.41 Furthermore, procedural due process was not
observed in terminating respondent.42
Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal)
on June 26, 1997.10 She alleged that in her employment contract, The National Labor Relations Commission did not rule on the
she agreed to work as quality control for one year.11 In Taiwan, issue of reimbursement of placement fees for lack of
she was asked to work as a cutter.12 jurisdiction.43

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims that on July 14, The National Labor Relations Commission awarded
1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without respondent only three (3) months worth of salary in the amount
prior notice, that she was terminated and that "she should of NT$46,080, the reimbursement of the NT$3,000 withheld
immediately report to their office to get her salary and from her, and attorney’s fees of NT$300.46
passport."13 She was asked to "prepare for immediate
repatriation."14 Aggrieved by the ruling, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency
caused the filing of a petition49 for certiorari with the Court of
Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to July 14, 1997, Appeals.
she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, Wacoal
deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.16 The Court of Appeals50 affirmed the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission with respect to the finding of
On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint17 with the National illegal dismissal, Joy’s entitlement to the equivalent of three
Labor Relations Commission against petitioner and Wacoal. months worth of salary, reimbursement of withheld repatriation
She claimed that she was illegally dismissed.18 She asked for the expense, and attorney’s fees.51
return of her placement fee, the withheld amount for
repatriation costs, payment of her salary for 23 months as well Dissatisfied, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency filed this
as moral and exemplary damages.19 She identified Wacoal as petition.
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency’s foreign principal. 20
ISSUE/S:
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent's
termination was due to her inefficiency, negligence in her duties, We are asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred
and her "failure to comply with the work requirements [of] her when it affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations
foreign [employer]."21 The agency also claimed that it did not Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and
ask for a placement fee of ₱70,000.00.22 As evidence, it showed awarding her three months’ worth of salary, the reimbursement
Official Receipt No. 14860 dated June 10, 1997, bearing the of the cost other repatriation, and attorney’s fees despite
amount of ₱20,360.00.23 Petitioner added that Wacoal's
accreditation with petitioner had already been transferred to the RULING:
Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (Pacific) as of
August 6, 1997.24 Thus, petitioner asserts that it was already
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency’s petition is without merit.
substituted by Pacific Manpower.25
We find for respondent.
Pacific Manpower moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s claims
I
against it.26 It alleged that there was no employer-employee
relationship between them.27 Therefore, the claims against it

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there terminated on July 14, 1997, respondent is entitled to her salary
was just cause for causing Joy’s dismissal. The employer, from July 15, 1997 to June 25, 1998.
Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.

Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity

and quality standards at work.58 III

This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is On the interest rate, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular
"tempered with the employee’s right to security of No. 799 of June 21, 2013, which revised the interest rate for
tenure."63 Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural loan or forbearance from 12% to 6% in the absence of
due process before termination. stipulation applies in this case.

II In sum, if judgment did not become final and executory before

July 1, 2013 and there was no stipulation in the contract
Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is providing for a different interest rate, other money claims under
entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of the Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 shall be subject to the 6%
employment contract that was violated together with attorney’s interest per annum in accordance with Circular No. 799.
fees and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.
This means that respondent is also entitled to an interest of 6%
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the per annum on her money claims from the finality of this
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of1995, states that judgment.
overseas workers who were terminated without just, valid, or
authorized cause "shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of IV
his placement fee with interest of twelve (12%) per annum, plus
his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
Finally, we clarify the liabilities of Wacoal as principal and
contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
petitioner as the employment agency that facilitated
term, whichever is less."
respondent’s overseas employment.
The liability of the principal/employer and the
Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this
of 1995 provides that the foreign employer and the local
section shall be joint and several. If the recruitment/placement
employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money
agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors
claims including claims arising out of an employer-employee
and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and
relationship and/or damages. This section also provides that the
solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the
performance bond filed by the local agency shall be answerable
aforesaid claims and damages.
for such money claims or damages if they were awarded to the
employee.
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 states that "repatriation of
the worker and the transport of his [or her] personal belongings
The provision on joint and several liability in the Migrant
shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 assures overseas
or deployed the worker overseas." The exception is when
workers that their rights will not be frustrated with these
"termination of employment is due solely to the fault of the
complications. The fundamental effect of joint and several
worker,"80 which as we have established, is not the case.
liability is that "each of the debtors is liable for the entire
obligation."
We uphold the finding that respondent is entitled to all of these
awards. The award of the three-month equivalent of
The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
respondent’s salary should, however, be increased to the
ensures that overseas workers have recourse in law despite the
amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment
circumstances of their employment. By providing that the
contract.
liability of the foreign employer may be "enforced to the full
extent"139 against the local agent, the overseas worker is assured
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them.140
limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed
overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due
With the present state of the pleadings, it is not possible to
process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
determine whether there was indeed a transfer of obligations
from petitioner to Pacific. This should not be an obstacle for
Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the the respondent overseas worker to proceed with the
unexpired portion of her contract, in accordance with Section enforcement of this judgment. Petitioner is possessed with the
10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of the three-month resources to determine the proper legal remedies to enforce its
equivalence of respondent’s salary must be modified rights against Pacific, if any.
accordingly. Since she started working on June 26, 1997 and was

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

Many times, this court has spoken on what Filipinos may

encounter as they travel into the farthest and most difficult
reaches of our planet to provide for their families.

We face a diaspora of Filipinos. Their travails and their heroism

can be told a million times over; each of their stories as real as
any other. Overseas Filipino workers brave alien cultures and
the heartbreak of families left behind daily. They would count
the minutes, hours, days, months, and years yearning to see their
sons and daughters. We all know of the joy and sadness when
they come home to see them all grown up and, being so, they
remember what their work has cost them. Twitter accounts,
Facetime, and many other gadgets and online applications will
never substitute for their lost physical presence.

Unknown to them, they keep our economy afloat through the

ebb and flow of political and economic crises. They are our true
diplomats, they who show the world the resilience, patience, and
creativity of our people. Indeed, we are a people who contribute
much to the provision of material creations of this world.

This government loses its soul if we fail to ensure decent

treatment for all Filipinos. We default by limiting the contractual
wages that should be paid to our workers when their contracts
are breached by the foreign employers. While we sit, this court
will ensure that our laws will reward our overseas workers with
what they deserve: their dignity.

Inevitably, their dignity is ours as weil.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the

Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification. Petitioner
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay
respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary
for the unexpired portion of her employment contract at an
interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment.
Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the
withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent attorney's fees
of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality
of this judgment.

The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less" in Section 7 of Republic Act
No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is
declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009 of his repatriation on May 26, 1998, he had served only two (2)
months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner, portion of nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days.
vs.
Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a
NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents. Complaint9 against respondents for constructive dismissal and
for payment of his money claims in the total amount of
FACTS: US$26,442.73 as well as moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees.
For Antonio Serrano (petitioner), a Filipino seafarer, the last
clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) The LA rendered a Decision dated July 15, 1999,
No. 8042,2 to wit: declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal and
awarding him monetary benefits, to wit:
“..or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less.” WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered declaring that the dismissal of the
complainant (petitioner) by the respondents in the
does not magnify the contributions of overseas Filipino workers
above-entitled case was illegal and the respondents are
(OFWs) to national development, but exacerbates the hardships
hereby ordered to pay the complainant [petitioner],
borne by them by unduly limiting their entitlement in case of
jointly and severally, in Philippine Currency, based on
illegal dismissal to their lump-sum salary either for the
the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment,
unexpired portion of their employment contract "or for three
the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"
HUNDRED SEVENTY U.S. DOLLARS (US
(subject clause). Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the
$8,770.00), representing the complainant’s salary
OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their
for three (3) months of the unexpired portion of
contract, deprives them of equal protection and denies them
the aforesaid contract of employment.1avvphi1
due process.
The claims of the complainant for moral and
Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and
exemplary damages are hereby DISMISSED for lack
Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. (respondents) under a Philippine
of merit.
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved
Contract of Employment with the following terms and
conditions: All other claims are hereby DISMISSED.

In awarding petitioner a lump-sum salary of

Duration of contract 12 months US$8,770.00, the LA based his computation on the
salary period of three months only -- rather than the
Position Chief Officer
entire unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days
Basic monthly salary US$1,400.00 of petitioner's employment contract - applying the
subject clause. However, the LA applied the salary rate
Hours of work 48.0 hours per week of US$2,590.00, consisting of petitioner's "[b]asic
salary, US$1,400.00/month + US$700.00/month,
Overtime US$700.00 per month fixed overtime pay, + US$490.00/month, vacation
leave pay = US$2,590.00/compensation per
Vacation leave with pay 7.00 days per month5 month."14

On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was Respondents appealed15 to the National Labor
constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for Relations Commission (NLRC) to question the
the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of finding of the LA that petitioner was illegally
US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of dismissed.
respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of
April 1998.6 Petitioner also appealed16 to the NLRC on the sole
issue that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of
Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make the Court in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v.
petitioner Chief Officer.7 Hence, petitioner refused to stay on National Labor Relations Commission17 that in case
as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May of illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their salaries
26, 1998.8 for the unexpired portion of their contracts.18

Petitioner's employment contract was for a period of 12 months In a Decision dated June 15, 2000, the NLRC
or from March 19, 1998 up to March 19, 1999, but at the time modified the LA Decision, to wit:

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

The NLRC corrected the LA's computation of the lump-sum Applying the subject clause, the NLRC and the CA computed
salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the applicable salary the lump-sum salary of petitioner at the monthly rate of
rate from US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No. 8042 US$1,400.00 covering the period of three months out of the
"does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which should unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days of his
be proven to have been actually performed, and for vacation employment contract or a total of US$4,200.00.
leave pay."20
Impugning the constitutionality of the subject clause, petitioner
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari23 with the CA, contends that, in addition to the US$4,200.00 awarded by the
reiterating the constitutional challenge against the subject NLRC and the CA, he is entitled to US$21,182.23 more or a
clause. total of US$25,382.23, equivalent to his salaries for the entire
nine months and 23 days left of his employment contract,
In a Decision dated December 8, 2004, the CA affirmed the computed at the monthly rate of US$2,590.00.31
NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary rate;
however, the CA skirted the constitutional issue raised by The Arguments of Petitioner
petitioner.
Petitioner contends that the subject clause is unconstitutional
ISSUE/S: because it unduly impairs the freedom of OFWs to negotiate
for and stipulate in their overseas employment contracts a
I determinate employment period and a fixed salary package. It
also impinges on the equal protection clause, for it treats OFWs
differently from local Filipino workers (local workers) by
The Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals have decided the
putting a cap on the amount of lump-sum salary to which
case in a way not in accord with applicable decision of the
OFWs are entitled in case of illegal dismissal, while setting no
Supreme Court involving similar issue of granting unto the
limit to the same monetary award for local workers when their
migrant worker back wages equal to the unexpired portion of
dismissal is declared illegal; that the disparate treatment is not
his contract of employment instead of limiting it to three (3)
reasonable as there is no substantial distinction between the two
months
groups;33 and that it defeats Section 18,34 Article II of the
Constitution which guarantees the protection of the rights and
II welfare of all Filipino workers, whether deployed locally or
overseas.35
In the alternative that the Court of Appeals and the Labor
Tribunals were merely applying their interpretation of Section Moreover, petitioner argues that the decisions of the CA and
10 of Republic Act No. 8042, it is submitted that the Court of the labor tribunals are not in line with existing jurisprudence on
Appeals gravely erred in law when it failed to discharge its the issue of money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs. Though
judicial duty to decide questions of substance not theretofore there are conflicting rulings on this, petitioner urges the Court
determined by the Honorable Supreme Court, particularly, the to sort them out for the guidance of affected OFWs.36
constitutional issues raised by the petitioner on the
constitutionality of said law, which unreasonably, unfairly and
Petitioner further underscores that the insertion of the subject
arbitrarily limits payment of the award for back wages of
clause into R.A. No. 8042 serves no other purpose but to
overseas workers to three (3) months.
benefit local placement agencies.
III
Petitioner argues that in mitigating the solidary liability of
placement agencies, the subject clause sacrifices the well-being
Even without considering the constitutional limitations [of] Sec. of OFWs. Not only that, the provision makes foreign employers
10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the Court of Appeals gravely better off than local employers because in cases involving the
erred in law in excluding from petitioner’s award the overtime illegal dismissal of employees, foreign employers are liable for
pay and vacation pay provided in his contract since under the salaries covering a maximum of only three months of the
contract they form part of his salary.28 unexpired employment contract while local employers are liable
for the full lump-sum salaries of their employees.
RULING:
Lastly, petitioner claims that the subject clause violates the due
On the first and second issues process clause, for it deprives him of the salaries and other
emoluments he is entitled to under his fixed-period
The unanimous finding of the LA, NLRC and CA that the employment contract.39
dismissal of petitioner was illegal is not disputed. Likewise not
disputed is the salary differential of US$45.00 awarded to The Arguments of Respondents
petitioner in all three fora. What remains disputed is only the
computation of the lump-sum salary to be awarded to petitioner In their Comment and Memorandum, respondents contend
by reason of his illegal dismissal. that the constitutional issue should not be entertained, for this
was belatedly interposed by petitioner in his appeal before the

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

CA, and not at the earliest opportunity, which was when he filed The third condition that the constitutional issue be critical to
an appeal before the NLRC.40 the resolution of the case likewise obtains because the monetary
claim of petitioner to his lump-sum salary for the entire
The Arguments of the Solicitor General unexpired portion of his 12-month employment contract, and
not just for a period of three months, strikes at the very core of
the subject clause.
The Solicitor General (OSG)41 points out that as R.A. No. 8042
took effect on July 15, 1995, its provisions could not have
impaired petitioner's 1998 employment contract. Rather, R.A. Thus, the stage is all set for the determination of the
No. 8042 having preceded petitioner's contract, the provisions constitutionality of the subject clause.
thereof are deemed part of the minimum terms of petitioner's
employment, especially on the matter of money claims, as this Does the subject clause violate Section 10,
was not stipulated upon by the parties.42 Article III of the Constitution on non-impairment
of contracts?
Moreover, the OSG emphasizes that OFWs and local workers
differ in terms of the nature of their employment, such that their The answer is in the negative.
rights to monetary benefits must necessarily be treated
differently. Petitioner's claim that the subject clause unduly interferes with
the stipulations in his contract on the term of his employment
Lastly, the OSG defends the rationale behind the subject clause and the fixed salary package he will receive57 is not tenable.
as a police power measure adopted to mitigate the solidary
liability of placement agencies for this "redounds to the benefit The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws
of the migrant workers whose welfare the government seeks to newly enacted have only a prospective operation,58 and cannot
promote. The survival of legitimate placement agencies helps affect acts or contracts already perfected;59 however, as to laws
[assure] the government that migrant workers are properly already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and
deployed and are employed under decent and humane deemed a part thereof.60
conditions."46
As aptly observed by the OSG, the enactment of R.A. No. 8042
The Court's Ruling in 1995 preceded the execution of the employment contract
between petitioner and respondents in 1998. Hence, it cannot
The Court sustains petitioner on the first and second issues. be argued that R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause,
impaired the employment contract of the parties. Rather, when
When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial the parties executed their 1998 employment contract, they were
review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it does deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions of R.A.
so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual No. 8042.
case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of
judicial determination;47 (2) that the constitutional question is But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subject
raised by a proper party48 and at the earliest opportunity;49 and clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that
(3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted
case,50 otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a
same on some other ground.51 business, profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs, with the noble end in view of ensuring
Without a doubt, there exists in this case an actual controversy respect for the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they
directly involving petitioner who is personally aggrieved that the may be employed.61
labor tribunals and the CA computed his monetary award based
on the salary period of three months only as provided under the Does the subject clause violate Section 1,
subject clause. Article III of the Constitution, and Section 18,
Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor
The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne as a protected sector?
in mind that the requirement that a constitutional issue be raised
at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue The answer is in the affirmative.
in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the
issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing
it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the constitutional provisions translate to economic security and
trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. Nonetheless, the issue parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by
is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations
CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be denied
issue. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the
in its decision. burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.65

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 R.A. 8042 “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”

In the case at bar, the challenged proviso operates on the basis The subject clause being unconstitutional, petitioner is entitled
of the salary grade or officer-employee status. It is akin to a to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months
distinction based on economic class and status, with the higher and 23 days of his employment contract, pursuant to law and
grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the jurisprudence prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8042.
lower grades.
On the Third Issue
Under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, a worker dismissed from
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is Petitioner contends that his overtime and leave pay should form
entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his part of the salary basis in the computation of his monetary
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of award, because these are fixed benefits that have been stipulated
the unexpired term, whichever is less. into his contract.

In the case at bar, the unexpired portion of private respondent’s Petitioner is mistaken.
employment contract is eight (8) months. Private respondent
should therefore be paid his basic salary corresponding to three
The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not include overtime
(3) months or a total of SR3,600.82
and leave pay.
The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042
The rendition of overtime work and the submission of
introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the money
sufficient proof that said was actually performed are conditions
claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment
to be satisfied before a seaman could be entitled to overtime pay
periods, in the process singling out one category whose which should be computed on the basis of 30% of the basic monthly
contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and salary. In short, the contract provision guarantees the right to overtime
subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their pay but the entitlement to such benefit must first be established.
monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for
the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the In the same vein, the claim for the day's leave pay for the unexpired
while sparing the other category from such prejudice, simply portion of the contract is unwarranted since the same is given during
because the latter's unexpired contracts fall short of one year. the actual service of the seamen.

Viewed in that light, the subject clause creates a sub-layer of WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods are for
more than one year: those who are illegally dismissed with less The subject clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired
than one year left in their contracts shall be entitled to their term, whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic
salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof, while those Act No. 8042 is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and the
who are illegally dismissed with one year or more remaining in December 8, 2004 Decision and April 1, 2005 Resolution of the Court
their contracts shall be covered by the subject clause, and their of Appeals are MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner
monetary benefits limited to their salaries for three months is AWARDED his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his
only. employment contract consisting of nine months and 23 days computed
at the rate of US$1,400.00 per month.

Along the same line of reasoning, the Court further holds that
the subject clause violates petitioner's right to substantive due
process, for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary
benefits, without any existing valid governmental purpose.136

The argument of the Solicitor General, that the actual purpose

of the subject clause of limiting the entitlement of OFWs to
their three-month salary in case of illegal dismissal, is to give
them a better chance of getting hired by foreign employers. This
is plain speculation. As earlier discussed, there is nothing in the
text of the law or the records of the deliberations leading to its
enactment or the pleadings of respondent that would indicate
that there is an existing governmental purpose for the subject
clause, or even just a pretext of one.

The subject clause does not state or imply any definitive

governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that the
clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal protection, but
also her right to substantive due process under Section
1,137 Article III of the Constitution.

R.C. GATOC NOTES