Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
FACTS:
-Respondent First Cosmopolitan Manpower & Promotion Services,
Inc. recruited petitioner Santosa B. Datuman to work abroad under
the following terms and conditions:
-Contract of Employment signed in the Philippines and approved by
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Site of employment - Bahrain
Employees Classification/Position/Grade - Saleslady
Duration of Contract - One (1) year
-filed beyond the three (3)-year period from the time the right
accrued, reckoned from either 1990 or 1991.
-it was the only position available then. However, since such
position was not yet allowed by the POEA at that time
-Respondent:
the
POEA
-While the case was pending, she filed the instant case before the
NLRC for underpayment of salary for a period of one year and six
months, nonpayment of vacation pay and reimbursement of return
airfare.
-Parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement before the Labor
Arbiter
-Labor Arbiter Jovencio Mayor, Jr.: respondent liable for violating the
terms of the Employment Contract and ordering it to pay petitioner
LABOR ARBITER:
-The relationship of the complainant and respondent agency is
governed by the Contract of Employment
-Respondent Agency committed a breach of said Employment
Contract.
-it had entered into an illegal contract with complainant by
proposing the position of a housemaid which said position
was then not allowed by the POEA, by making it appear in
the Employment Contract that the position being applied
for is the position of a saleslady.
-failure to support with substantial evidence their contention that
complainant transferred from one employer to another without
knowledge and approval of respondent agency in contravention of
the terms of the POEA approved Employment Contract.
ISSUE:
NLRC:
HELD:
vs
Principal
Management
and
Personnel
FACTS:
The trial court stressed that it issued the injunctive writ because:
1. the order of suspension dated March 15, 2004 is still
pending appeal before the Office of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment;
appeal;
3.
thereof,
for
reconsideration-DENIED,
of
all
pleadings
and
documents
copies
POEA motion
petition.
hence
this
ISSUE:
(1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for
Certiorari based on purely technical grounds; and
(2) whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction.
HELD:
1.
POEA avers that CA's dismissal of petition for certiorari is not valid
informed the CA that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in
2.
of the DOLE.
in
granting
the
writ
of
preliminary
deploy workers.
PETITION: DENIED.
We do not agree.
trial court observed that the Order of Suspension dated
March 15, 2004 was pending appeal with the Secretary
of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Thus, until such time that the appeal is resolved with finality
by the DOLE, Principalia has a clear and convincing right to
operate as a recruitment agency.
4.
STOLT-NIELSEN
MEDEQUILLO
TRANSPORTATION
GROUP
VS
FACTS:
Sulpecio Madequillo (respondent) filed a complaint before
the Adjudication Office (POEA) against the petitioners for
illegal dismissal under a first contract and for failure
to deploy under a second contract.
Medequilla was hired as Third Assistant Engineer on
board vessel Stolt Aspiration for period of 9 months
for just 3 months of rendering service he was ordered to
disembark the vessel for no reason
he immediately proceeded to Pet. Office where he was
transferred employment with another vessel under same
condition and terms of first contract.
A second contract was noted and approved by POEA,
without knowledge that he was not deployed with the
vessel on the first contract.
Despite commencement of second contract-- pet failed
to deploy him
he demanded for his documents but he was only allowed
to claim the documents in exchange of his signing a
document.
He signed the document involuntarily.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the first employment contract between petitioners
and the private respondent is different from and independent of
the second contract subsequently executed upon repatriation of
respondent to Manila which justifies termination of respondent?
Held:
CIVIL LAW
LABOR
Equally settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who
are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their
jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even
finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence,i.e.,
Held:
We have already declared in Serrano that the clause or for
three months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less provided in the 5th paragraph of Section
10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being violative of
the rights of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to equal
protection of the laws.
Moreover, this Court held therein that the subject clause
does not state or imply any definitive governmental
purpose; hence, the same violates not just therein petitioners
right to equal protection, but also his right to substantive due
process under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes
no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The doctrine of
operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned
general rule. This case should not be included in the exception.
After all, it was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to
an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents. To rule
otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and
would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and
recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFWs security of
tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit
from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law.
Issues:
1) Whether or not Section 10 of R.A. [No.] 8042, to the
extent that it affords an illegally dismissed migrant worker
the lesser benefit of salaries for [the] unexpired portion of
his employment contract or for three (3) months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less is
constitutional;
2)Assuming that it is, whether or not the Court of Appeals
gravely erred in granting petitioner only three (3) months
backwages when his unexpired term of 9 months is far
short of every year of the unexpired term threshold
6. People v. Panis
Facts:
Four informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of
Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that SerapioAbug, private
respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the
Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging
employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally operate a private fee charging employment agency by
charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in
Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in
violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
7. Lazo v. Salac
The case is composed of consolidated complaints that are assailing
the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8042). This act was
enacted by Congress on June 7, 1995 to set the Governments
policies on overseas employment and establishes a higher standard
of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their
families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.
G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710
Facts:
The sections being questioned commanded the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) to begin deregulating within one
year of its passage the business of handling the recruitment and
migration of overseas Filipino workers and phase out within five
years the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA).
On January 8, 2002 respondents Rey Salac and company filed
complaintagainst the DOLE Secretary, POEA Administrator, and
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
Secretary-General before the RTC of Quezon City.Salac, et al.
sought to: 1) nullify DOLE Department Order 10 (DOLE DO 10) and
POEA Memorandum Circular 15 (POEA MC 15); 2) prohibit the
DOLE, POEA, and TESDA from implementing the same and from
further issuing rules and regulations that would regulate the
recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs);
and 3) also enjoin them to comply with the policy of deregulation
mandated under Sections 29 and 30 of Republic Act 8042.
that:
SEC. 1. Section 23, paragraph (b.1) of Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b.1) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration The
Administration shall regulate private sector participation in the
recruitment and overseas placement of workers by setting up a
licensing and registration system. It shall also formulate and
Implement, in coordination with appropriate entities concerned,
when necessary, a
system for promoting and monitoring the
overseas employment of Filipino workers taking into consideration
their welfare and the domestic manpower requirements.
In addition to its powers and functions, the administration
shall inform migrant workers not only of their rights as workers but
also of their rights as human beings, instruct and guide the workers
how to assert their rights and provide the available mechanism to
redress violation of their rights.
In the recruitment and placement of workers to service the
requirements for trained and competent Filipino workers of foreign
governments and their instrumentalities, and such other employers
as public interests may require, the administration shall deploy
only to countries where the Philippines has concluded bilateral
labor agreements or arrangements: Provided, That such countries
shall guarantee to protect the rights of Filipino migrant workers;
and: Provided, further, That such countries shall observe and/or
comply with the international laws and standards for migrant
workers.
Issue:
SEC. 2. Section 29 of the same law is hereby repealed.
Won Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042 are constitutional.
SEC. 3. Section 30 of the same law is also hereby repealed.
Held:
No. The Supreme Court held that the Sections in question are no
longer valid and operative because they have already been
repealed by a subsequent Republic Act, RA 9422. RA 9422 states
The Court has no reason to disagree with the contention that the
enactment of RA 9422 has rendered the issues presented in both
cases to be moot and academic. Consequently, the Supreme Court
dismissed the two cases, G.R. 152642 and 152710.
G.R. 167590
Facts:
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) filed a
petition before the RTC of Manila, seeking to annul Sections 6
(definition of illegal recruitment), 7 (applicable penalties), and 9
(procedure and venue for filing complaint) of R.A. 8042 for being
unconstitutional. The RTC declared Section 6 unconstitutional on
the ground that its definition of illegal recruitment is vague as it
fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters.
This vagueness, according to the RTC, gives undue advantage to
the non-licensed recruiters in violation of the right to equal
protection of those that operate with government licenses or
authorities.The RTC also declared Section 7 unconstitutional on the
ground that its sweeping application of the penalties failed to make
any distinction as to the seriousness of the act committed for the
application of the penalty imposed on such violation. The Manila
RTC also invalidated Section 9 of R.A. 8042 on the ground that
allowing the offended parties to file the criminal case in their place
of residence would negate the general rule on venue of criminal
cases which is the place where the crime or any of its essential
elements were committed. It held that venue is jurisdictional in
penal laws and, allowing the filing of criminal actions at the place of
residence of the offended parties violates their right to due
process.
Issue:
1. WON the definition of illegal recruitment under Section 6
is ambiguous
2. WON Section 7 is unconstitutional
3. WON Section 9 of RA 8042 is constitutional
Held:
paragraph
of
Section
10,
R.A.
8042is
Held:
No. The Court SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila dated December 8, 2004 and DECLARES Sections 6, 7,
and 9 of Republic Act 8042 valid and constitutional.
In G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 as well as in G.R. 167590,
the Court HOLDS the last sentence of the second paragraph of
Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 valid and constitutional. The Court,
however, RECONSIDERS and SETS ASIDE the portion of its
Decision in G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 that held
intervenorsEufrocinaGumabay, Elvira Taguiam, Lourdes Bonifacio,
and Eddie De Guzman jointly and solidarily liable with respondent
Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion, Inc. to spouses Simplicia
and Mila Cuaresma for lack of a finding in those cases that such
intervenors had a part in the act or omission imputed to their
corporation.