27 the espiration of her license, she applied for its

People v. Diaz ISSUE: W/N Diaz was engaged in illegal recruitment. renewal by writing a letter to the Bureau of Labor
G.R. No. 112175 addressed to Minister Blas Ople. She was told by said
Under-Secretary Inciong to proceed with her
Torres. Jr., J. RULING: YES. Diaz was neither a licensee nor a
operation "until such time as the Secretary will go
TEACHER holder of authority to qualify him to lawfully home." Because Secretary Ople was currently in Italy.
STUDENTS engage inrecruitment and placement activity. She waited for the renewal but was not able to receive
Appellant told the three women that he was any reply from the Department of Labor; hence, she
DOCTRINE OF LAW: The crime of illegal recruitment recruiting contractworkers for abroad, particularly stopped operations in 1976. She contends that her
is committed when two elements concur, namely: 1) Brunei, and promised them job opportunities if license was not renewed, not because of any
That the offender has no valid license or authority they can produce variousamounts of money for violations, but because of a Ministry of Labor
policy phasing out all private recruitment
required by law to enable one to lawfully engage expenses and processing of documents. He
agencies. The applicants Benito Vertudes, Sapitula,
in recruitment and placement of workers; and 2) manifestly gave the impression to thethree Empredo, Nicolas, were not able to leave for Guam
That the offender undertakes either any activity women that he had the ability to send workers within such period. However, the lower court found
within the meaning of recruitment and placement abroad. Misrepresenting himself as a recruiter of the Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited workers for Brunei, he promised them work for a Recruitment in violation of Art. 25, PD 442 and
practices enumerated under Article 34. fee and convinced them to give their money for penalized under Art. 39 par. (b), Labor Code. The
thepurpose of getting an employment overseas. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower
court.
FACTS: Three women (Navarro, Fabricante, and
Ramirez) were enrolled at the Henichi Techno
Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao City, studying 28 The Solicitor General contends that when Ms.
Niponggo, when they were informed by their teacher, Aquino v. CA Aquino continued to charge and collect fees from
Mrs. Aplicador, that she knew of a Mr. Paulo Lim who G.R. No. 91896 her applicants/recruits after May 18, 1974, she
also knew of one Engineer Erwin Diaz who was Gutierrez, Jr., J. engaged in illegal recruitment violative of Article
24 of the Labor Code.
recruiting applicants for Brunei 700 dollars per month.
Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three women CONTRACTOR
went to Mr. Lim who told them that his children had ISSUE: W/N Aquino was engaged in illegal
already applied with Engr. Diaz. The four women were DOCTRINE OF LAW: Illegal recruitment is not recruitment.
then accompanied by Mr. Lim to the CIS Detention constituted when recruiter receives payment after
Center where Engr. Diaz was already being detained. the expiration of the license for services rendered RULING: No. The court ruled that the receipt of
After Navarro and Ramirez had already given 20kas before said expiration payments, after the expiration of the license, for
placement fee, Fabricante went to the office of the services rendered before said expiration does
POEA and found out the Engr. Diaz was not licensed. FACTS: Aurora T. Aquino (Aquino) disclosed that in constitute illegal recruitment. Recruitment refers to the
Fabricante informed the two women about her 1973, she was a licensed contractor authorized to hire ordering of inducements to qualified personnel to
laborers as evidenced by a Labor Contractor's enter a particular job or employment. The advertising,
discovery and they all withdrew their applications. It
License. Said license was issued after payment of the promise of future employment and other come-
was the accused who told them that they would be ons took place while Ms. Aquino was still licensed.
P6,000.00 for the year 1973-1974 in the recruitment
working in one of the department stores in Brunei and of worker. Rodrigo Nicolas, Braulio Sapitula, Aurelio True, the payments for services rendered are
receiving a monthly pay of $700.00 for working only Costales and Benito Vertudez applied for a Guam job necessary consequences of the applications for
four hours a day Engr. Diaz refunded their payments. at appellant's agency. They all paid initial required overseas employment. However, it is asking too much
Agency is confidential, owner was his mistress. fund of at least PHP 1500. All of them were not able to expect a licensed agency to absolutely at the stroke
to go to Guam and all of them asked for a refund of midnight stop all transactions on the day its license
however only PHP1000 will be refunded and the expires and refuse to accept carry-over payments
DEFENSE: Testifying in his behalf, appellant denied
remaining money will go to a group refund check. after the agency is closed.
these complainants' allegations. He asserted that he
They then discovered that the check cannot be cash
never made a promise in favor of complainants for for lack of funds. On November 2, 1978, a complaint
employment abroad but assisted them in the was filed against Aquino before the Regional Trial
procurement of passports and medical certificates. Court of Manila. She alleged that on 18 May 1974 on
 serious consideration. It has to be emphasized other acts mentioned in the body of the article may
that appellant is not being prosecuted for involve even only one person and are not necessarily
29. violation of the anti-bouncing check law19 where for profit.
People vs. Señoron the foregoing contentions may have an impact,
January 30, 1997 but for illegal recruitment which the prosecution ISSUE: Whether Panis is guilty of Illegal recruitment.
was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt.
DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: Illegal recruitment is RULING: YES. The Orders to dismiss the complaints
defined under Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code, as were set aside and information against Panis is
amended, as "any recruitment activities, including the reinstated. The SC held that the number of persons
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of 30. dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of
this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non- recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts
holders of authority." People vs. Panis mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win
July 11, 1990 constitute recruitment and placement even if only one
FACTS: Taiwan. This is a petition to review the prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely
decision of the appellate court convicting Senoron as DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: The number of persons lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is
charged and sentencing her "to suffer a penalty of life dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
imprisonment and to pay a fine of one hundred of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of employment to two or more prospective workers, the
thousand pesos (P100, 000.00)" for illegal recruitment the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed
AND ESTAFA. win constitute recruitment and placement even if only to be engaged in the act of recruitment and
one prospective worker is involved. placement.
Senoron's defense dwells on the alleged insufficiency
of the prosecution's evidence to prove her guilt: The basic issue in this case is the correct 31
1. There is nothing on record . . . which says that interpretation of Article 13(b) of P.D. 442, otherwise People vs. Goce
placement fees received by Aquilino Ilano from the known as the Labor Code, reading as follows: G.R. No. 113161
three (3) private complainants was turned over to her Regalado, J.
2. The receipts of payment of alleged placement fees (b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, DOCTRINE OF LAW: It must be shown that the
were received and receipted by accused Aquilino
or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract accused gave the complainant the distinct
Ilano.
services, promising or advertising for employment, impression that she had the power or the ability to
3. Appellant also harps on her being a mere
locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, send the complainant abroad for work, such that
accommodation party
That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers the latter was convinced to part with her money to
or promises for a fee employment to two or more be so employed. Where such an act or
ISSUE: Whether Senoron is guilty of Illegal
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and representation is not proven, there is no
recruitment.
placement. recruitment activity and conviction for illegal
recruitment has no basis.
RULING: YES. The trial court's decision is affirmed.
The SC held that it is not the issuance or signing of
receipts for the placement fees that makes a case FACTS: This is a petition on certiorari to review the
decision of the appelate court in granting the motion FACTS: This is a petition for appeal. Representing
for illegal recruitment, but rather the undertaking herself a manager of the Clover Placement Agency,
of recruitment activities without the necessary of Panis to quash the complaints on the ground that
the information did not charge an offense because he Nelly Agustin was approached by Rolando Dalida and
license or authority. Thus, To prove illegal 7 others. Agustin showed them a job order assuring
recruitment: (1) the person charged with the crime was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in
each of the four information. that they could easily be deployed for overseas
must have undertaken recruitment activities, or any of employment. They were required to pay P5000 each
the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor as down payment. Subsequently, they also met
Code, as amended; and (2) said person does not The view of the private respondents is that to
constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts Spouses Loma and Dan Goce, owners of the agency.
have a license or authority to do so. Appellant made They surprisingly learned that they had to give
a distinct impression that she had the ability to mentioned in this article should involve dealings with
two or more persons as an indispensable P12,000 instead for placement fees. Two of the
send applicants for work abroad. complainants were even assured to be cutter/sewer in
Appellant's residual arguments that she was just requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues
that the requirement of two or more persons is Oman.
an accommodation maker in the issuance of the
imposed only where the recruitment and placement After multiple follow-ups, they were only given their
check and that private complainants failed to
consists of an offer or promise of employment to such visa but were not deployed. They discovered from
notify her after the check bounced do not merit
persons and always in consideration of a fee. The
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration 32 RULING: NO. Darvin is acquitted on ground of
(POEA) that the agency was not duly licensed to Darvin vs. CA reasonable doubt. 2 elements need to be shown: (1)
recruit job applicants. When a warrant of arrest was G.R. No. 125044 the person charged with the crime must have
issued, only Agustin was arrested due to the Goces Romero, J. undertaken recruitment activities; and (2) the said
being missing. Agustin then alleged that he was not in person does not have a license or authority to do so.
conspiracy with the spouses as he was only their DOCTRINE OF LAW: To prove engagement in It is not clear that accused gave the impression that
neighbor and only referred complainants to the recruitment activities as to commit the crime of she was capable of providing work abroad. What is
spouses out of the goodness in his heart. Also, he illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the established, however, is that accused-appellant
argued that his acts do not fall within the meaning of accused gave the distinct impression that she had received P150,000.00. The claim of the accused that
"referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for the power or ability to send a person abroad for the P150,000.00 was for payment of air fare and US
illegal recruitment in large scale. He was then work such that the latter was convinced to part visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because
convicted for illegal recruitment in large scale, with her money in order to be so employed. the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was presented
punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor by both parties during the trial of the case, stated that
“By themselves, procuring a passport, airline
Code. it was "for Air Fare and Visa to USA." Had the
tickets and foreign visa for another individual,
amount been for something else in addition to air fare
(1) her act of introducing complainants to the without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment
and visa expenses, such as work placement abroad,
Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of activities.”
the receipt should have so stated.
illegal recruitment and placement under Article
13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; 33
(2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit FACTS: This is a petition for review of the decision of
illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce People v. Yabut
the Court of Appeals. Macaria Toledo approached
spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant Imelda Darvin at the latter’s residence through a G.R. No. 115719-26
offered or promised overseas employment to the common friend. In said meeting, accused-appellant
complainants. allegedly convinced Toledo that by giving her Quisumbing, J.
P150,000, the latter can immediately leave for work
ISSUE: Whether there was legal recruitment and
as a nursing aide in the US without any meeting with
placement?
the embassy. The money will supposedly be used for
DOCTRINE OF LAW: No person or entity not
RULING: NO. Judgment affirmed. On the other hand, the airfare and US visa. However, Toledo returned to
authorized by law may recruit or employ any persons
referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an her residence to inquire about any development and
without property authority from agencies of
applicant for employment after an initial interview of a she was not in her home. Toledo then discovered
government and the Law per se. Any falsified notices
selected applicant for employment to a selected from the Philippine Overseas Employment
and information by a person not authorized by Law is
employer, placement officer or bureau. Being an Administration (POEA) stating that she is neither
to be penalized by the Law.
employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for authorized to recruit workers for overseas
him to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they employment. The accused-appellant was then FACTS: The appellant Fernando Cortez who is the
being the owners of the agency. As such, he was arrested for simple illegal recruitment and was live in partner of Irene Yabut is charged with large
actually making referrals to the agency of which she convicted by the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA. scale illegal recruitment and syndicated estafa. The
was a part. He was therefore engaging in recruitment appellant is a previous policeman who acted as the
Hence, this appeal. Darvin claims that she never
activity. doorman and entertains the applicants for their
promised any employment and contends that the
application for overseas. The couple is involved in the
it was Agustin whom they initially approached money was used for her travel to the US with their
alleged processing and employment of the visa
regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from common friend, as evidenced by the receipts wherein
papers of the applicants wherein they are not
her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, it listed as follows: P45,000.00 for plane fare each;
authorized by Law. The complaint was filed by Ilar
as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was P1,500.00 for passport, documentation and other
who paid around Php30,000.00 for the supposed
after they had talked to her that they met the accused incidental expenses for each person; P20,000.00 for
processing of the Japan Visa wherein the employment
spouses who owned the placement agency. visa application each; and P17,000.00 for services.
did not push through as well as any flight therein.
She further claims that she was previously connected
he latter represented herself as "nagpapaalis papunta to a travel agency and even scheduled an interview Appellant argues, the sole person guilty of illegal
sa Oman." 28 Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in with the US embassy. recruitment in large scale should be Yabut since she
the operations of the recruitment agency, working was the only one who signed the receipts for the
together with the Goce couple. ISSUE: Whether there was recruitment?
amounts received from the complainants. He
contends that the mere fact that he is "romantically
linked" with Yabut does not mean he acted in (4) He stayed at the apartelle office and manned Quezon City sometime in May, 1990 in order to follow
conspiracy with her. the office by entertaining job seekers even after up their applications. Accused-appellant flatly denied
his co-accused Irene Yabut had gone into hiding that he was an overseas employment recruiter or that
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of large he was working as an agent for one. He also denied
scale illegal recruitment and in violation of Art 34 of having received any money from any of the
the Labor Code? 34 complainants or having signed any of the receipts
People v. Saulo introduced by the prosecution in evidence. It is
G.R. No. 125903 accused-appellant’s contention that the complainants
RULING: YES. The elements of illegal recruitment in Gonzaga-Reyes, J. were prevailed upon by accused-appellant’s mother-
large scale are:" (1) the accused undertakes any in-law, with whom he had a misunderstanding, to file
recruitment activity defined under Art. 13, par. (b), or DOCTRINE OF LAW: No person or entity not the present cases against him.ISSUE: Whether or not
any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of authorized by law may recruit or employ any persons the appellant is guilty of large scale illegal recruitment
the Labor Code; (2) he does not have a license or without property authority from agencies of and in violation of Art 34 of the Labor Code?
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and government and the Law per se. Any falsified notices
placement of workers; and, (3) he commits the same and information by a person not authorized by Law is RULING: Accused-appellant contends that he could
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a to be penalized by the Law. not have committed the crime of illegal recruitment in
group." large scale since Nancy Avelino, a labor and
FACTS:  Having learned from a relative of accused- employment officer at the POEA, testified that
It is immaterial that appellant ingeniously stated to appellant that the latter was recruiting workers for licenses for recruitment and placement are issued
one of the complainants that he (appellant) was a Taiwan, went to accused-appellants house in San only to corporations and not to natural persons. This
member of the PNP and a government employee, Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, together with argument is specious and illogical. The Labor Code
hence could not sign the receipts. Angeles Javier and Amelia de la Cruz, in order to states that "any person or entity which, in any manner,
discuss her chances for overseas employment. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who During that meeting which took place sometime in more persons shall be deemed engaged in
commits illegal recruitment may be charged and April or May, 1990, accused-appellant told Maligaya recruitment and placement." Corrolarily, a nonlicensee
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as a or nonholder of authority is any person, corporation or
the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. factory worker once she gave accused-appellant the entity which has not been issued a valid license or
315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of fees for the processing of her documents. Sometime authority to engage in recruitment and placement by
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the in May, 1990, Maligaya also met with Amelia de la the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz at their house in has been suspended, revoked, or canceled by the
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her that they POEA or the Secretary. It also bears stressing that
criminal intent of the accused is crucial for were authorized by the Philippine Overseas agents or representatives appointed by a licensee or
conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers a holder of authority but whose appointments are not
Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses for Taiwan.Seeing that he had reneged on his previously authorized by the POEA fall within the
punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a meaning of the term nonlicensee or nonholder of
for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the complaint against accused-appellant with the POEA. authority. Thus, any person, whether natural or
Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for The prosecution clearly established that accused- juridical, that engages in recruitment activities
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It appellant promised the three complainants - Benny without the necessary license or authority shall be
follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon penalized under Art. 39 of the Labor Code.
will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the employment in Taiwan as factory workers and that he
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice asked them for money in order to process their papers
versa. and procure their passports. Relying completely upon
such representations, complainants entrusted their 35
(1) He received deposits of money to defray hard-earned money to accused-appellant in exchange Athenna Internation Manpower Services Vs.
travelling expenses for what they would later discover to be a vain hope of Villanos
(2) He informed the complainants that the money obtaining employment abroad. GR 151303
turned over would be used for the processing of QUISUMBING, J.:
papers and visas for Japan In his defense, accused-appellant claimed that he was
(3) He gave assurance to the complainants that also applying with Amelia de la Cruz for overseas FACTS: Petitioner Athenna International Manpower
they would be able to leave for Japan otherwise employment. He asserts that it was for this reason Services, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in
their money would be refunded that he met all three complainants as they all went recruitment and placement of workers for overseas
together to Amelia de la Cruz’ house in Novaliches, employment. Respondent Nonito Villanos is a
contract worker recruited by petitioner to work as The Court of Appeals held that Wei Yu Hsien Manpower Export Specialist" was in a building
a caretaker in Taiwan. Respondent alleged that he violated the contract of employment when respondent situated at Bautista St. Buendia, Makati, Metro
was assessed ₱100,000 placement fee by petitioner. was made to work as hydraulic installer/repairer, not Manila. In that office, private complainants gave
As he had only ₱30,000 to pay petitioner, respondent as caretaker. The appellate court concluded that the certain amounts to appellant for processing and other
begged for a reduced fee. Petitioner agreed and the supposed voluntary resignation of respondent was fees. Ferre gave P1,000.00 as processing fee and
placement fee was reduced on the condition that the inconsistent with his immediate demand for refund of another P4,000.00. Likewise, Corpus gave
remaining balance shall be paid through salary the placement fee upon his arrival in the Philippines; appellant P7,000.00. Appellant then told private
deductions upon his deployment. On October 15, his filing of an administrative case before the POEA complainants that they were scheduled to leave for
1998, he flew to Taiwan. He was assigned to a
Adjudication Office; and his subsequent filing of the Dubai on September 8, 1984. However, private
mechanical shop, owned by Hsien, as a hydraulic
complaint with the Labor Arbiter.  complainants and all the other applicants were not
installer/repairer for car lifters, instead of the job for
which he was hired. Since then, he traveled from one able to depart on the said date as their employer
ISSUE: W/N petitioner complied all pre-employment allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was
place to another, even during nighttime. He did not, requisites before respondents deployment and W/N
however, complain because he needed money to pay rescheduled to September 23, but the result was the
he resigned voluntarily same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked,
for the debts he incurred back home. Barely a month
after his placement, he was terminated by Hsien. private complainants demanded of appellant to return
Respondent was made to sign a document stating RULING: NO. An employee voluntarily resigns their money. Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to
that he was not qualified for the position. He did not, when he finds himself in a situation where he Ferre, appellant was not able to return private
however, sign the document. On November 16, 1998, believes that personal reasons cannot be complainants’ money. Tired of excuses, private
respondent was handed his salary, with the sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service; complainants filed the present case for illegal
accompanying computation and instruction for his thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate recruitment against the accused-appellant. RTC
departure to the Philippines. himself from his employment. Records show that rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of illegal
upon his repatriation from Taiwan, respondent recruitment. For her defense, appellant denied ever
immediately went to petitioner’s office and confronted approaching private complainants to recruit them
Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he
its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the
immediately went to petitioner’s office and confronted for employment in Dubai. On the contrary, it was
assignment given to him which was contrary to the
its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the the private complainants who asked her help in
agreed position of caretaker, for which he specifically
assignment given to him and demanded that he be securing jobs abroad. As a good neighbor and
applied. Thus, the presumption stands to the effect
reimbursed. Petitioner gave him a summary of friend, she brought the private complainants to
that respondent was illegally dismissed by his
expenses amounting to ₱30,493, which it allegedly the Bayside Manpower Export Specialist agency
employer. Even assuming respondent was a mere
incurred for his deployment abroad. Aggrieved, because she knew Florante Hinahon, the owner of
probationary employee as claimed by petitioner,
respondent filed a complaint before the Adjudication the said agency.  finding no merit in the appeal, the
respondent could only be terminated for a pertinent
Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment CA Court DISMISSES it and AFFIRMS the appealed
and just cause, such as when he fails to qualify as a
Administration. He filed a complaint against petitioner
regular employee in accordance with reasonable Decision EXCEPT the penalty which is hereby
for illegal dismissal, violation of contract, and recovery
standards of employment made known to him by his changed to (5) years as minimum to (7) years as
of unpaid salaries and other benefits before the NLRC
employer at the time of his engagement. maximum with perpetual disqualification from
Sub-Regional Arbitration. respondent avers that  he
was not informed of any qualifications needed for the engaging in the business of recruitment and
job prior to his deployment, as mandated by Article placement of workers. Petitioner’s Motion for
281 of the Labor Code. In its defense, petitioner 36 Reconsideration having been denied, the present
alleged that it hired respondent was to undergo a Rodolfo Vs People of the Philippines petition was filed.
probationary period of (40) days. However, at the job G.R. No. 146964
site, respondent was found to be unfit for his work, CARPIO MORALES, J.: ISSUE: W/N CA erred in affirming the decision of the
thus he resigned from his employment and requested RTC finding petitioner guilty of IR.
for his repatriation signing a statement to that effect.
FACTS: Accused-appellant (Rosa Rodolfo) RULING: NO. That the first element is present in the
the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding
approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior
petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien solidarily liable for the
wages representing the unserved portion of the Narciso Corpus individually and invited them to Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine
employment contract plus damages. On appeal, the apply for overseas employment in Dubai. The Overseas Employment Administration, testified that
NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the accused-appellant being their neighbor, private the records of the POEA do not show that petitioner is
complaint for lack of merit. complainants agreed and went to the former’s office. authorized to recruit workers for overseas
This office which bore the business name "Bayside employment.  In weighing contradictory
declarations and statements, greater weight must under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have that the POEA had no "adjudicatory jurisdiction"
be given to the positive testimonies of the the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the over the monetary claims in question because the
prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed same "did not arise from employer-employee
defendant. Petitioner’s admission that she the same against three or more persons individually relations. Section 4 (a) of EO 797
brought private complainants to the agency or as a group.
whose owner she knows and her acceptance of charged and collected fees from them in amounts
fees including those for processing betrays her First, the RTC found accused-appellant to exceeding what is prescribed by this
guilt. have undertaken recruitment activity when she Administration. (REFUND)
promised the private complainants overseas
employment for a fee. This factual finding was
affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether POEA has jurisdiction over the
Second, the March 1, 2004 Certification claims of the applicants
issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment
37 Administration unmistakably reveals that the accused-
People vs Delos Reyes appellant neither had a license nor authority to recruit RULING: Yes. Secretary of Labor has the power
G.R. No. 198795 workers for overseas employment. under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions,
Tijam, J.
as well as the authority, conferred by Section 36, not
Third, it was established that there were five
FACTS: Accused without first securing the required only, to "restrict and regulate the recruitment and
complainants, i.e., Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay,
license and authority from the Department of Labor placement activities of all agencies," but also to
Jr., and Duldulao.
and Employment recruited and promised "promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the
employment/job placement abroad to the six victims. 38 JURISDICTION objectives and implement the provisions" governing
said activities. Pursuant to this rule-making power
On the one hand, accused-appellant maintains that EASTERN ASSURANCE CORP VS SECRETARY thus granted, the Secretary of Labor gave the
she could not be held liable for the crimes of illegal OF LABOR POEA "on its own initiative or upon filing of a
recruitment and Estafa since she never made any complaint or report or upon request for
promise or gave the impression of having the ability to GR NO l 79436-50 investigation by any aggrieved person, authority
send the complc;tinants abroad. She avers that the to conduct the necessary proceedings for the
cash vouchers and letters acknowledging receipt of suspension or cancellation of the license or
complainants' payments were not signed by her, but FACTS: Petitioner filed a surety bond for the authority of any agency or entity" for certain
by a certain Manzie Delos Reyes. She likewise avers application for a license to engage in business as a enumerated offenses including:
that she did not engage in recruitment activities as recruitment agency with the Philippine Overseas
defined by law since All Care Travel & Consultancy 1) the imposition or acceptance, directly or indirectly,
Employment Administration (POEA) of J & B
(Philippines)is engaged in visa applicatfons. She of any amount of money, goods or services, or any
Manpower Specialist, Inc. As narrated by the
further avers that she did not know complainants fee or bond in excess of what is prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor, 33 persons applied for overseas
Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, and Bagay, Jr. Administration, and
employment with J & B In consideration of promised
deployment, complainants paid respondent various 2) any other violation of pertinent provisions of the
On the other hand, the OSG counters 14 that the RTC amounts for various fees. Most of' the receipts issued
correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Large Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules and
were sighed by Executive Vice-President of J & B. regulations.
Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, the prosecution Because of non-deployment, applicants filed separate
having adduced sufficient evidence to established her complaints with the Licensing and Regulation Office of 39
guilt thereof beyond reasonable doubt. POEA against J & B for violation of Articles 32 and 34
(a) of the Labor Code. POEA found EASCO was Capricorn Travel and Tours v. CA
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal declared jointly and severally liable with & B to twenty- G.R. No. 91096, April 3, 1990
recruitment in large scale nine (29) complainants and be forever banned from
participation in the overseas employment program. It Cortez, J.
RULING: Yes, The offense of illegal recruitment in is ordered to cease and desist from further engaging
large scale has the following elements: (1) the person in recruitment activities otherwise it shall be
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined prosecuted for illegal recruitment. EASCO contends
DOCTRINE OF LAW: The requirement for the rom a different angle, neither may it be argued proper party was the POEA. CA reversed and rule
posting of a cash bond is an indispensable that petitioner's judgment credit, pertaining as it that as the actual beneficiary of the surety bond,
adjunct to the requirement that the agency does to the value of airline tickets ostensibly used Urtesuela was competent to sue Stronghold, which as
undertakes to assume joint and solidary liability by private respondent to transport overseas surety was solidarily liable with PA. The petitioner
with the employer for all claims and liabilities workers abroad, this one of those for which the contends that the said stipulation is
which may arise in connection with the cash bond should answer. unconstitutional because it is "a virtual waiver" of
implementation of the contract of overseas the right to be heard. Petitioner claims that it
employment and to guarantee compliance with should be deemed as having received no notice at
existing labor and social legislation of the all of the complaint and therefore deprived of the
Philippines and the country of employment opportunity to defend itself.

ISSUES: W/N petitioner is exempted from liability on

a surety bond executed for the protection of a Filipino
FACTS: This is a petition to review the decision of the seaman on the ground of due process.
Court of Appeals (CA). Judgment was rendered in
favor of Petitioner Capricorn Tours and against RULING: No, petition dismissed. The
Private respondent (PR) Tagala. A writ of execution technicalities raised by the petitioner do not
was issued and a notice of garnishment of the cash impair the rudiments of due process or the
bond posted by PR was served on the POEA. The 40 requirements of the law and must be rejected in
POEA delivered a check representing the amount of deference to the constitutional imperative of
the cash bond to petitioner's counsel. PR moved to Stronghold Insurance Co. v. CA justice for the worker. The right to be heard is as
quash the notice of garnishment which the CA G.R. No. 88050, January 30, 1992 often waived as it is invoked, and validly as long
granted, annulling the notice of garnishment, enjoining Cruz, J. as the party is given an opportunity to be heard
petitioner from attaching, levying and garnishing PR's on his behalf. The circumstance that the chance to
cash bond, and ordering petitioner to return it to the DOCTRINE OF LAW: The surety bond required of be heard is not availed of does not disparage that
POEA, if still unreturned. Hence, this petition. recruitment agencies is intended for the opportunity and deprive the person of the right to due
protection of citizens who are engaged for process. Neither is public policy offended on the
overseas employment by foreign companies. The wicked ground of fraud and collusion imagined by the
foreign principal is outside the jurisdiction of our petitioner. For one thing, the speculation contravenes
ISSUES: W/N the cash bond posted by a recruitment
courts and would probably have no properties in without proof the presumption of good faith and
agency in the Philippine Overseas Employment
this country against which an adverse judgment unreasonably imputes dishonest motives to the
Administration (POEA) may be garnished by a
can be enforced. This difficulty is corrected by the principal and the obligee. For another, it disregards
judgment creditor of the agency
bond, which can be proceeded against to satisfy the fiduciary relationship between the principal and
that judgment. the surety, which is the legal and also practical reason
why the latter is willing to answer for the liabilities of
RULING: No, petition denied. Considering the FACTS: This is a petitioner for review on certiorari of the former.
rationale for requiring the posting of a cash bond and the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). Pan Asian
its nature, it cannot therefore be argued that the cash (PA), a domestic recruiting agency, hired Adriano 41
bond is not exempt from execution by a judgment Urtesuela as captain of vessel for 12 months and Catan vs. NLRC
creditor simply because it is not one of those submitted a surety bond, along with Petitioner G.R. No. 192084
enumerated in Rule 39, sec. 12 of the Rules of Court. Stronghold Insurance, to answer for the liabilities of Carpio, J.
To accede to such an argument would be tantamount the foreign employer. Under the bond, it was also
to turning a blind eye to the clear intent of the law to understood that notice to the Principal is notice to
reserve the cash bond for the employment-related the surety. Being dismissed within 3 months, DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: If the agency has been
claims of overseas workers and for violations of labor Urtesuela filed a complaint against PA for breach of entrusted for the purpose of contract with
laws. contract and received a favorable decision. Urtesuela specified persons, its revocation shall not
then filed a complaint against petitioner on the basis prejudice the latter if they were not given notice
constitutional mandate for the State to "afford full of the surety bond since PA ceased to operate. The thereof.
protection to labor, local and overseas" [Art. XIII, Insurance Commission held that the complaint should
sec. 3]. F be reformed because the provisions in the surety FACTS: Petitioner, in this special civil action for
bond were not stipulations pour autrui to entitle certiorari, alleges grave abuse of discretion on the
Urtesuela to bring the suit himself. It held that the part of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Petitioner Catan, a duly licensed recruitment agency, severed their agency agreement at the time the NLRC denied it for lack of merit. Hence, this
as agent of Ali and Fahd Shabokshi Group, a Saudi private respondent was injured, petitioner may petition. Petitioner contends that there is no
Arabian firm, recruited private respondent to work in still be sued for a violation of the employment provision in the Labor Code, or the omnibus rules
Saudi Arabia as a steelman. The term of the contract contract because no notice of the agency implementing the same, which either provides for
was for one year however but provided for its agreement's termination was given to the private the "third-party liability" is erroneous.
automatic renewal. The contract was automatically respondent
renewed when private respondent was not repatriated ISSUES: W/N petitioner as a private employment
by his Saudi employer but instead was assigned to No evidence was introduced to prove that private agency may be held jointly and severally liable with
respondent was not medically fit to work when he the foreign-based employer.
work as a crusher plant operator. While he was
working as a crusher plant operator, private returned to Saudi Arabia. a certificate issued by
respondent's right ankle was crushed under the Dr. Shafquat Niazi, the camp doctormerely stated RULING: YES.. Petitioner voluntarily assumed
machine he was operating. After the expiration of that private respondent was "unable to walk solidarity liability under various contractual
the renewed term, private respondent returned to the properly, moreover he is still complaining [of] undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of
pain during walking and different lower limbs Employment services. Under Sec.2 (e) Rule V Book
Philippines. His ankle was operated on at the Sta.
movement" Nowhere does it say that he was not 1, Rules to Implement the Labor Code (1976), the
Mesa Heights Medical Center for which he incurred
medically fit to work. requirement to operate a private employment agency
expenses. On the basis of the provision in the for overseas recruitment and placement is to submit a
employment contract that the employer shall document whereby it assumed all responsibilities for
compensate the employee if he is injured or the proper use of its license and the implementation of
permanently disabled in the course of employment, the contracts of employment with the workers it
private respondent filed a claim against petitioner with 42 recruited and deployed for overseas employment. And
respondent Philippine Overseas Employment Royal Crown vs. NLRC also it is required to file with the Bureau a formal
Administration. Petitioner claims that the NLRC G.R. No. 78085 appointment or agency contract executed by foreign-
gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that Cortes, J. based employer in its favor to recruit and hire
petitioner was liable to private respondent for disability personnel for the former, which contained a provision
benefits since at the time he was injured his original DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: Contractual empowering it to sue and be sued jointly and solidarity
employment contract, which petitioner facilitated, had undertakings constitute the legal basis for holding with foreign principle for any of the violations of the
already expired. Further, petitioner disclaims liability private employment or recruitment agencies, recruitment and the contracts of employment. This is
on the ground that its agency agreement with the liable jointly and severally with its principal, the under Sec. 10 (a)(2), Rule V Book 1, Rules to
Saudi principal had already expired when the injury foreign-based employer, for all claims filed by Implement the Labor Code (1976). It was required as
was sustained. POEA rendered judgment in favor of recruited workers which may arise in connection well to post such cash and surety bonds as
determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee
private respondent and affirmed by NLRC. Hence, this with the implementation of the service
compliance with prescribed recruitment procedure,
petition. agreements or employment contracts
rules and regulations and terms and conditions of
2. were the consequence of private respondent's FACTS: This is a petition which seeks the nullification employment as appropriate [Section 1 of Pres. Dec.
negligence in returning to work in Saudi Arabia when of a resolution of NLRC which affirmed a decision of 1412 (1978) amending Article 31 of the Labor Code].
the POEA. In 1983, Royal Crown International, a It cannot be denied that the petitioner is an
he knew that he was not yet medically fit to do so.
private employment agency, recruited and deployed agent of ZAMEL, one of the documents presented by
ISSUE: W/N petitioner Catan is liable for the medical Virgilio P. Nacionales for employment with ZAMEL as the petitioner contains an admission that it is the
expenses. an architectural draftsman in Saudi Arabia. On representative and agent of ZAMEL.
February 13,1984, ZAMEL terminated the
RULING: YES. Petition dismissed. Private employment of private respondent on the ground that
respondents contract of employment can not be 43
his performance was below at par. For the next three
TRANSACTION OVERSEAS CORP VS
said to have expired on May 14, 1982 as it was successive days, the private respondent was detained
SECRETARY OF LABOR
automatically renewed since no notice of its at his quarters and was not allowed to report to work
ROMERO, J.:
termination was given by either or both of the until his exit papers were ready. On February 16,
parties at least a month before its expiration, as 1984, he was made to board a plane bound for the
DOCTRINE OF LAW: The power to suspend or
so provided in the contract itself. Therefore, Philippines. Private respondent filed a complaint for
cancel any license or authority to recruit
private respondent's injury was sustained during illegal termination against petitioner and ZAMEL with
POEA which was ruled in the private respondent’s employees for overseas employment is
the lifetime of the contract. Even if indeed
petitioner and the Saudi principal had already favor. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but
concurrently vested with the POEA and the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to Achacoso issued his challenged CLOSURE AND
Secretary of Labor. recruit employees for overseas employment for SEIZURE ORDER.
violation of rules and regulations issued by the
FACTS: Petitioner, a private fee-charging Ministry of Labor, the Overseas Employment The POEA brought a team to the premises of Salazar
employment agency, scoured Iloilo City for possible Development Board, and the National Seamen Board, to implement the order. There it was found that
recruits for alleged job vacancies in Hongkong. or for violation of the provisions of this and other petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio.
Private respondents sought employment as domestic applicable laws, General Orders and Letters of Before entering the place, the team served said
helpers through petitioner's employees. Instructions." Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora
Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the
The applicants paid placement fees but petitioner The Secretary of Labor has the power under Section premises. Mrs. Salazar informed the team that
failed to deploy them. Their demands for refund 35 of the law to apply these sanctions, as well as the Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman
proved unavailing; thus, they were constrained to authority conferred by Section 36, not only to 'restrict Development. However, when required to show
institute complaints against petitioner for violation of and regulate the recruitment and placement activities credentials, she was unable to produce any. The team
Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. of all agencies,' but also to 'promulgate rules and confiscated assorted costumes which were duly
regulations to carry out the objectives and implement receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and
Petitioner denied having received the amounts
the provisions' governing said activities. Pursuant to witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.
allegedly collected from respondents, and averred
this rule-making power thus granted, the Secretary of
that Aragon, whose only duty was to pre-screen and Petitioner filed a letter with the POEA demanding
Labor gave the POEA on its own initiative or upon
interview applicants, and the spouses Domincil were the return of the confiscated properties. They
filing of a complaint or report or upon request for
not authorized to collect fees from the applicants. alleged lack of hearing and due process, and that
investigation by any aggrieved person, to conduct the
Accordingly, it cannot be held liable for the money since the house the POEA raided was a private
necessary proceedings for the suspension or
claimed by respondents. Petitioner maintains that it residence, it was robbery.
cancellation of the license or authority of any agency
even warned respondents not to give any money to
or entity for certain enumerated offenses including the
unauthorized individuals. The license of respondent ISSUE: May the Philippine Overseas Employment
imposition or acceptance, directly or indirectly, of any
TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORPORATION to Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue
amount of money, goods or services, or any fee or
participate in the overseas placement and recruitment warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under
bond in excess of what is prescribed by the
of workers is hereby ordered CANCELLED, effective Article 38 of the Labor Code?
Administration, and any other violation of pertinent
immediately. Labor Undersecretary Nieves R.
provisions of the Labor Code and other relevant laws, HELD: No. it is only a judge who may issue warrants
Confesor rendered the assailed order to pay and
rules and regulations. of search and arrest. Neither may it be done by a
cancelled license.
mere prosecuting body.
44
Petitioner contends that Secretary Confesor acted
SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO AND MARQUEZ We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a
with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
G.R. NO. 81510 MARCH 14, 1990 judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants.
assailed orders viz: it is the Philippine Overseas SARMIENTO, J.:
Employment Administration (POEA) which has the Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial
exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and process. To that extent, we declare Article 38,
DOCTRINE OF LAW: It is only a judge who may
decide illegal recruitment cases, including the paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and
issue warrants of search and arrest. The Secretary
authority to cancel recruitment licenses. of no force and effect.
of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue
search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities Moreover, the search and seizure order in question,
Issues: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor and
must go through the judicial process. assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that it was validly
Employment has jurisdiction to cancel or revoke the
license of a private fee-charging employment agency. issued, is clearly in the nature of a general warrant.
FACTS: This concerns the validity of the power of the
We have held that a warrant must identify clearly the
Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and
Ruling: The power to suspend or cancel any license things to be seized, otherwise, it is null and void.
seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting
or authority to recruit employees for overseas
illegal recruitment. 45
employment is vested upon the Secretary of Labor
and Employment. Article 35 of the Labor Code Republic v. Human Link Manpower
Rosalie Tesoro filed with the POEA a complaint
provides: VILLARAMA, JR., J
against petitioner. Having ascertained that the
petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment
ART. 35. Suspension and/or Cancellation of License
agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas D.
or Authority. - The Minister of Labor shall have the
Doctrine of the Law: Once a recruitment license of purpose. Particular words, clauses and phrases its principal Kyoei Tanker Co. Ltd. Three months
an entity is cancelled, its officers and directors should not be studied as detached and isolated after the commencement of their employment,
are automatically prohibited from engaging in expressions but as a whole and every part of the the seamen demanded a 50% increase of their
such activity.  statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of salaries and benefits while their vessel was en route
any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious to a port in Australia controlled by the International
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by whole. Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) where the ITF
the Republic of the Philippines represented by the could detain the vessel unless it paid its seamen the
Secretary DOLE and the Administrator of POEA. It is inconsequential therefore whether or not the ITF rates. The agent of the owner of the vessel
Renelson Carlos applied at Worldview International POEA or the DOLE stated then in their decision agreed to pay a 25% increase, but when the vessel
Services Corporation as a heavy equipment driver in that persons, officers and directors are arrived in Japan shortly afterwards, the seamen
Doha, Qatar. His recruiting agency Humanlink disqualified from participating in the were repatriated and their contracts were
Manpower Consultants, Inc. made him sign an government's overseas employment program. The terminated.
employment contract stating that he was going to law and rules implementing the same
work as a duct man instead of the position he unequivocally state that once a recruitment Issue: WON the seamen violated their contracts of
applied for but he was told that this is only for license of an entity is cancelled, its officers and employment.
purposes of entering the country. Humanlink directors are automatically prohibited from
promised that engaging in such activity. The failure of the POEA Ruling: No. The form contracts approved by the
he would work as a heavy equipment driver as applie and DOLE to indicate this fact cannot by any National Seamen Board are designed to protect
d for. However, upon his arrival inDoha, he worked as means indicate the contrary. Dura lex sed lex. Filipino seamen not foreign ship-owners who can take
a duct installer. Carlos filed a complaint with the care of themselves. The standard forms embody' the
Philippine Overseas Labor Office but the complaint basic minimums which must be incorporated as parts
was not acted upon. This prompted him to speak with of the employment contract. They are not collective
the Qatar Labor Office where he discussed his 46 bargaining agreements or immutable contracts which
grievance. Consequently, Carlos was informed that Virjen Shipping v. NLRC the parties cannot improve upon or modify in the
his visa was cancelled and that he was being GUTIERREZ, JR., J course of the agreed period of time. To state,
repatriated at his own expense. POEA Adjudication therefore, that the affected seamen cannot petition
Office found Carlos’ assertions credible. POEA DOCTRINE: “Filipino seamen are admittedly as their employer for higher salaries during the 12
cancelled Humanlink’s license and automatically competent and reliable as seamen from any other months duration of the contract runs counter to
disqualified its officers from participating in any country in the world; otherwise, there would not established principles of labor legislation. The
overseas employment program. National Labor Relations Commission, as the
be so many of them in the vessels sailing in every
appellate tribunal from decisions of the National
ocean and sea on this globe. They are entitled to
CLAIM:The power of administrative agencies is Seamen Board, correctly ruled that the seamen did
confined to implementing the law or putting it into government protection when they ask for fair and not violate their contracts to warrant their dismissal.
effect. decent treatment by their employers and when
they exercise their right to petition for improved 47
Issue: terms of employment, especially when they feel Suzara v. Benipayo
WON POEA can automatically disqualify officers and  that these are substandard or are capable of G.R. Nos. L-57999, 58143-53 August 15, 1989
directors fromparticipating in the government's improvement according to internationally Gutierrez, Jr., J.
overseas employment program upon the cancellation accepted rules. Also, the standard forms embody
of a license. the basic minimums which must be incorporated
as parts of the employment contract. They are not DOCTRINE OF LAW:
Ruling: Yes. Upon the cancellation of a license, collective bargaining agreements or immutable
persons, officers and directors of the concerned contracts which the parties cannot improve upon FACTS: The cases at bar involve a group of Filipino
corporations are automatically prohibited from or modify in the course of the agreed peril of seamen who were declared by the defunct National
engaging in recruiting and placement of land- time.” Seamen Board (NSB) guilty of breaching their
based overseas Filipino workers. The grant of a employment contracts with the private respondent
license is a privilege and not a right thus making it Facts: This is a motion to reconsider the decision of because they demanded, upon the intervention and
a proper subject of its regulatory powers. If we are respondent NLRC and reinstated the decision of the assistance of a third party, the International Transport
to protect the welfare of vulnerable overseas workers, National Seamen Board. The records show that Worker's Federation (ITF), the payment of wages over
then we must prevent all instances wherein they may private respondents have a manning contract for a and above their contracted rates without the approval
be taken advantage upon. This must be so since the period of one year with petitioner in representation of of the NSB. In a corollary development, the private
rules must be read as a whole to achieve its particular
respondent, for failure of the petitioners to return the Seagull Maritime v. Balatongan employment was entered into between petitioner and
overpayments made to them upon demand by the G.R. No. 82252 February 28, 1989 private respondent to modify the original contract of
former, filed estafa charges against some of the Gancayco., J. employment The reason why the law requires that the
petitioners. POEA should approve and verify a contract under
Article 34(i) of the Labor Code is to insure that the
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners are entitled to the DOCTRINE OF LAW: Apparently, the intention of employee shall not thereby be placed in a
amounts they received from the private respondent the law when Art. 34 of the Labor Code was disadvantageous position and that the same are
representing additional wages as determined in the enacted is to provide for the prohibited and within the minimum standards of the terms and
special agreement. unlawful practices relative to recruitment and conditions of such employment contract set by the
placement. POEA. This is why a standard format for employment
RULING: Yes. Petition granted. therefore, we cannot
contracts has been adopted by the Department of
affirm the NSB and NLRC's finding that there was FACTS: A "Crew Agreement" was entered into by
Labor. However, there is no prohibition against
violence, physical or otherwise employed by the private respondent Nerry D. Balatongan and Philimare
stipulating in a contract more benefits to the employee
petitioners in demanding for additional wages. The Shipping and Equipment Supply (hereinafter called
than those required by law. Thus, in this case wherein
fact that the petitioners placed placards on the Philimare) whereby the latter employed the former as
a "supplementary contract" was entered into affording
gangway of their ship to show support for ITF's able seaman on board its vessel "Santa Cruz"
greater benefits to the employee than the previous
demands for wage differentials for their own benefit (renamed "Turtle Bay"). Said agreement was
one, and although the same was not submitted for the
and the resulting ITF's threatened interdiction do not processed and approved by the National Seaman's
approval of the POEA, the public respondents
constitute violence. The petitioners were exercising Board (NSB) on November 3, 1982. While on board
properly considered said contract to be valid and
their freedom of speech and expressing sentiments in said vessel the said parties entered into a
enforceable. Indeed, said pronouncements of public
their hearts when they placed the placard We Want supplementary contract of employment. Balatongan
respondents have the effect of an approval of said
ITF Rates." Under the facts and circumstances of met an accident in the Suez Canal, Egypt as a result
contract. Moreover, as said contract was voluntarily
these petitions, we see no reason to deprive the of which he was hospitalized. Later, he was
entered into by the parties the same is binding
seamen of their right to freedom of expression repatriated to the Philippines and was hospitalized at
between them. Not being contrary to law, morals,
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the the Makati Medical Center. The medical certificate
good customs, public policy or public order, its validity
fundamental law of Canada where they happened to was issued describing his disability as "permanent in
must be sustained. By the same token, the court
exercise it. We likewise, find the public respondents' nature." Balatongan demanded payment for his claim
sustains the ruling of public respondents that the
conclusions that the acts of the petitioners in for total disability insurance as provided for in the
provision in the supplementary contract whereby
demanding and receiving wages over and above the contract of employment but his claim was denied for
private respondent waives any claim against
rates appearing in their NSB-approved contracts is in having been submitted to the insurers beyond the
petitioners for damages arising from death or
effect an alteration of their valid and subsisting designated period for doing so. Thus, Balatongan filed
permanent disability is against public policy,
contracts because the same were not obtained a complaint against Philimare and Seagull Maritime
oppressive and inimical to the rights of private
through. mutual consent and without the prior Corporation in the Philippine Overseas Employment
respondent. The said provision defeats and is
approval of the NSB to be without basis, not only Administration (POEA) for non-payment of his claim
inconsistent with the duty of petitioners to insure
because the private respondent's consent to pay for permanent total disability. Hence, Seagull and
private respondent against said contingencies as
additional wages was not vitiated by any violence or Philimare filed this petition for certiorari with a prayer
clearly stipulated in the said contract. There is no
intimidation on the part of the petitioners but because for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
question that under the said supplementary contract
the said NSB-approved form contracts are not
ISSUE: W/N there is validity and enforceability of the of employment, it is the duty of the employer,
unalterable contracts that can have no room for
second contract of employment entered into by and petitioners herein, to insure the employee, during his
improvement during their effectivity or which ban any
between complainant and respondents on board the engagement, against death and permanent invalidity
amendments during their term. From the foregoing,
vessel where the former had served as a member of caused by accident on board.
we find that the NSB and NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion in finding the petitioners guilty of its complement despite the absence of NSB
49
using intimidation and illegal means in breaching their verification or approval.
Chavez vs Bonto-Perez
contracts of employment and punishing them for G.R. No. 109808
RULING: Yes. Petition dismissed. With respect to the
these alleged offenses. Puno, J.
findings of facts in the appealed decision, We
consider the same as duly supported by substantial DOCTRINE OF LAW: It is understood that the terms
evidence and the admissions of the parties in their and conditions stated in this Employment Contract are
48 pleadings. The supplementary contract of in conformance with the Standard Employment
Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the POEA authorize her Japanese Employer to deduct $250.00 Petitioners alleged that he had refused to sail
under Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. from her monthly basic salary is void because it is immediately to South Africa to the prejudice and
Any alterations or changes made in any part of this against our existing laws, morals and public policy. It damage of petitioners causing damages due to lost
contract without prior approval by the POEA shall be cannot supersede the standard employment contract voyage time. The POEA dismissed the complaint.
null and void approved by the POEA. NLRC reversed the decision ruling that Tayong had
only acted in accordance with his duties to maintain
FACTS: Petition for certiorari to review the Decision the seaworthiness of the vessel and to insure the
of the NLRC. Petitioner, an entertainment dancer, safety of the ship and the crew.
entered into a standard employment contract for
overseas Filipino artists and entertainers with ISSUE: W/N Captain Tayong was dismissal was valid
50
Planning Japan Co. and POEA approved the contract.
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises vs NLRC RULING: NO. Petition dismissed. NLRC decision
The contract had a duration of 2-6 months to be paid
G.R. No. 115286 affirmed. The official report of technical director in fact
$1,500 per month. Petitioner later executed a side
Feliciano, J. supports the NLRC's conclusion that private
agreement to reduce her salary of $250 as
commission to her manager leaving her with only respondent Captain did not arbitrarily and maliciously
DOCTRINE OF LAW: A ship's captain must be
$500 net as monthly salary. delay the voyage to South Africa. Stating that a
accorded a reasonable measure of discretionary
disruption in the normal functioning of the vessel's
authority to decide what the safety of the ship and of
Petitioner worked for 6 months and after returning to turbo-charger and economizer and that had prevented
its crew and cargo specifically requires on a stipulated
the Philippines filed a case for underpayment of the full or regular operation of the vessel.
ocean voyage. The captain is held responsible, and
wages with the POEA. She prayed for the payment
properly so, for such safety. The decision of Captain Tayong did not constitute a
$6,000.00, representing the unpaid portion of her
basic salary for six months. Complaint was dismissed legal basis for the summary dismissal and for
FACTS: Respondent-Tayong, a licensed Master
by public respondent POEA Administrator. NLRC termination of his contract with petitioners prior to the
Mariner with experience in commanding ocean-going
upheld the Decision. expiration of the term thereof. We cannot hold this
vessels, was employed by Petitioners-Trenda World
conclusion of the NLRC to be a grave abuse of
Shipping (Manila), Inc. and Sea Horse Ship
ISSUE: W/N the side agreement is valid binding discretion amounting to an excess or loss of
Management, Inc. through Petitioner Inter-Orient
contract jurisdiction; indeed, we share that conclusion and
Maritime Enterprises, Inc. as Master of the vessel M/V
make it our own.
RULING: NO. Petition granted. Decision of POEA and Oceanic Mindoro, for a period of 1 year, as evidenced
NLRC are reversed and set aside. Clearly, the basic by an employment contract. The vessel sailed from
salary of $1,500.00 guaranteed to petitioner under the Hong Kong for Singapore. The ship, being 14 years
parties' standard employment contract is in old, encountered machinery trouble which is a safety
accordance with the minimum employment standards concern as it stopped 6 hours in en-route to
with respect to wages set by the POEA. Singapore. Upon arrival Captain Tayong called the
shipowner, Sea Horse…and informed them that the
“The stipulation is in line with the provisions of Rule II, departure of the vessel for South Africa may be
Book V: Sec. 2. Minimum affected because of the delay in the delivery of the
Provisions for Contract. The following shall be supplies. He also called the technical director giving
considered the minimum requirements for contracts of him the direction that the vessel cannot sail without
employment: a. Guaranteed wages for regular the oxygen and acetylene for safety reasons due to
working hours and overtime pay for services rendered the problems with the turbo charger and economizer.
beyond regular working hours in accordance with the When the vessel arrived at the port of Richard Bay,
standards established by the Administration; …” South Africa on Captain Tayong was instructed to
turn-over his post to the new captain. He was
Thus, the side agreement which reduced petitioner's thereafter repatriated to the Philippines, after serving
basic wage to $750.00 is null and void for violating the petitioners for a little more than two weeks. He was
POEA's minimum employment standards, and for not not informed of the charges against him.
having been approved by the POEA. Indeed, this side
agreement is a scheme all too frequently resorted to Captain Tayong instituted a complaint for illegal
by unscrupulous employers against our helpless dismissal before the POEA, claiming his unpaid salary
overseas workers who are compelled to agree to for the unexpired portion of the written employment
satisfy their basic economic needs. The managerial contract, plus attorney's fees. Petitioners denied that
commission agreement executed by petitioner to they had illegally dismissed Captain Tayong.