Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 131719 May 25, 2004
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY O !USTICE, THE SECRETARY
O "A#OR AN$ EMP"OYMENT, AN$ THE SECRETARY O OREIGN AAIRS,
O%%A PUNO, A$MINISTRATOR, a&' POEA A$MINISTRATOR, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT O APPEA"S a&' ASIAN RECRUITMENT COUNCI" PHI"IPPINE
CHAPTER (ARCO)PHI".*, INC., +,-+,.,&/0&1 0/. 2,23,+.4 %o+5'6a+, S,+706,.
I&/,+&a/0o&a5,, I&6., S/,a'8a./
I&/,+&a/0o&a5 R,6+90/2,&/ Co+-o+a/0o&, $+a1o& I&/,+&a/0o&a5 Ma&-o:,+ S,+706,.
Co+-o+a/0o&, V,+'a&/ Ma&-o:,+ Mo3050;a/0o& Co+-o+a/0o&, #+,&/ O7,+.,a.
P,+.o&&,5, I&6., AR" Ma&-o:,+ S,+706,., I&6., $a<5;<,& I&/,+&a/0o&a5 S,+706,.,
I&6., I&/,+:o+5' P5a6,2,&/ C,&/,+, I&6., "a=a. Tao Co&/+a6/ S,+706,., "/'. Co., a&'
SSC M95/0.,+706,., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CA""E!O, SR., J.:
In this petition for revie on certiorari, the E!ecutive Secretar" of the President of the
Philippines, the Secretar" of #ustice, the Secretar" of $orei%n &ffairs, the Secretar" of
'abor and E(plo"(ent, the POE& &d(inistrator and the O))& &d(inistrator, throu%h
the Office of the Solicitor *eneral, assail the Decision
+
of the Court of &ppeals in C&,
*.R. SP No. -..+/ affir(in% the Order
0
of the Re%ional 1rial Court of 2ue3on Cit"
dated &u%ust 0+, +44/ in Civil Case No. 2,4/,0556+, %rantin% the plea of the petitioners
therein for a rit of preli(inar" in7unction and of the rit of preli(inar" in7unction issued
b" the trial court on &u%ust 05, +44/.
T<, A&/,6,',&/.
Republic &ct No. .650, otherise 8non as the Mi%rant )or8ers and Overseas $ilipinos
&ct of +44/, too8 effect on #ul" +/, +44/. 1he O(nibus Rules and Re%ulations
I(ple(entin% the Mi%rant )or8ers and Overseas $ilipino &ct of +44/ as, thereafter,
published in the &pril 9, +44: issue of the Manila ;ulletin. <oever, even before the la
too8 effect, the &sian Recruit(ent Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. =&RCO,Phil.> filed,
on #ul" +9, +44/, a petition for declarator" relief under Rule :- of the Rules of Court
ith the Re%ional 1rial Court of 2ue3on Cit" to declare as unconstitutional Section 0,
para%raph =%>, Section :, para%raphs =a> to =7>, =l> and =(>, Section 9, para%raphs =a>
and =b>, and Sections 4 and +6 of the la, ith a plea for the issuance of a te(porar"
restrainin% order and?or rit of preli(inar" in7unction en7oinin% the respondents therein
fro( enforcin% the assailed provisions of the la.
In a supple(ent to its petition, the &RCO,Phil. alle%ed that Rep. &ct No. .650 as self,
e!ecutor" and that no i(ple(entin% rules ere needed. It pra"ed that the court issue a
te(porar" restrainin% order to en7oin the enforce(ent of Section :, para%raphs =a> to
=(> on ille%al recruit(ent, Section 9 on penalties for ille%al recruit(ent, and Section 4
on venue of cri(inal actions for ille%al recruit(ents, vi3@
Vieed in the li%ht of the fore%oin% discussions, there appears to be ur%ent an
i(perative need for this <onorable Court to (aintain the status Auo b"
en7oinin% the i(ple(entation or effectivit" of the Auestioned provisions of R&
.650, b" a" of a restrainin% order otherise, the (e(ber recruit(ent
a%encies of the petitioner ill suffer %rave or irreparable da(a%e or in7ur". )ith
the effectivit" of R& .650, a %reat (a7orit" of the dul" licensed recruit(ent
a%encies have stopped or suspended their operations for fear of bein%
prosecuted under the provisions of a la that are un7ust and unconstitutional.
1his <onorable Court (a" ta8e 7udicial notice of the fact that processin% of
deplo"(ent papers of overseas or8ers for the past ee8s have co(e to a
standstill at the POE& and this has affected thousands of or8ers ever"da"
7ust because of the enact(ent of R& .650. Indeed, this has far reachin% effects
not onl" to survival of the overseas (anpoer suppl" industr" and the active
participatin% recruit(ent a%encies, the countr"Bs econo(" hich has survived
(ainl" due to the dollar re(ittances of the overseas or8ers but (ore
i(portantl", to the poor and the need" ho are in dire need of inco(e,
%eneratin% 7obs hich can onl" be obtained fro( abroad. 1he loss or in7ur" that
the recruit(ent a%encies ill suffer ill then be i((easurable and irreparable.
&s of no, even forei%n e(plo"ers have alread" reduced their (anpoer
reAuire(ents fro( the Philippines due to their 8noled%e that R& .650
pre7udiced and adversel" affected the local recruit(ent a%encies.
-
On &u%ust +, +44/, the trial court issued a te(porar" restrainin% order effective for a
period of onl" tent" =06> da"s therefro(.
&fter the petitioners filed their co((ent on the petition, the &RCO,Phil. filed an
a(ended petition, the a(end(ents consistin% in the inclusion in the caption thereof
eleven =++> other corporations hich it alle%ed ere its (e(bers and hich it
represented in the suit, and a plea for a te(porar" restrainin% order en7oinin% the
respondents fro( enforcin% Section : subsection =i>, Section : subsection =8> and
1
para%raphs +/ and +: thereof, Section ., Section +6, para%raphs + and 0, and Sections
++ and 56 of Rep. &ct No. .650.
1he respondent &RCO,Phil. assailed Section 0=%> and =i>, Section : subsection =a> to
=(>, Section 9=a> to =b>, and Section +6 para%raphs =+> and =0>, Auoted as follos@
=%> 1<E S1&1E RECO*NICES 1<&1 1<E D'1IM&1E PRO1EC1ION 1O &''
MI*R&N1 )OREERS IS 1<E POSSESSION O$ SEI''S. PDRSD&N1 1O
1<IS &ND &S SOON &S PR&C1IC&;'E, 1<E *OVERNMEN1 S<&''
DEP'OF &ND?OR &''O) 1<E DEP'OFMEN1 ON'F O$ SEI''ED $I'IPINO
)OREERS.
5
Sec. 0 subsection =i, 0nd par.>
Nonetheless, the deplo"(ent of $ilipino overseas or8ers, hether land,based
or sea,based, b" local service contractors and (annin% a%ents e(plo"in%
the( shall be encoura%es =sic>. &ppropriate incentives (a" be e!tended to
the(.
G
II. I''E*&' RECRDI1MEN1
SEC. :. Definition. H $or purposes of this &ct, ille%al recruit(ent shall (ean
an" act of canvassin%, enlistin%, contractin%, transportin%, utili3in%, hirin%, or
procurin% or8ers and includes referrin%, contract services, pro(isin% or
advertisin% for e(plo"(ent abroad, hether for profit or not, hen underta8en
b" a non,licensee or non,holder of authorit" conte(plated under &rticle +-=f> of
Presidential Decree No. 550, as a(ended, otherise 8non as the 'abor
Code of the Philippines@ Provided, 1hat an" such non,licensee or non,holder
ho, in an" (anner, offers or pro(ises for a fee e(plo"(ent abroad to to or
(ore persons shall be dee(ed so en%a%ed. It shall, li8eise, include the
folloin% acts, hether co((itted b" an" person, hether a non,licensee,
non,holder, licensee or holder of authorit"@
=a> 1o char%e or accept directl" or indirectl" an" a(ount %reater than
that specified in the schedule of alloable fees prescribed b" the
Secretar" of 'abor and E(plo"(ent, or to (a8e a or8er pa" an"
a(ount %reater than that actuall" received b" hi( as a loan or
advanceI
=b> 1o furnish or publish an" false notice or infor(ation or docu(ent in
relation to recruit(ent or e(plo"(entI
=c> 1o %ive an" false notice, testi(on", infor(ation or docu(ent or
co((it an" act of (isrepresentation for the purpose of securin% a
license or authorit" under the 'abor CodeI
=d> 1o induce or atte(pt to induce a or8er alread" e(plo"ed to Auit
his e(plo"(ent in order to offer hi( another unless the transfer is
desi%ned to liberate a or8er fro( oppressive ter(s and conditions of
e(plo"(entI
=e> 1o influence or atte(pt to influence an" person or entit" not to
e(plo" an" or8er ho has not applied for e(plo"(ent throu%h his
a%enc"I
=f> 1o en%a%e in the recruit(ent or place(ent of or8ers in 7obs
har(ful to public health or (oralit" or to the di%nit" of the Republic of
the PhilippinesI
=%> 1o obstruct or atte(pt to obstruct inspection b" the Secretar" of
'abor and E(plo"(ent or b" his dul" authori3ed representativeI
=h> 1o fail to sub(it reports on the status of e(plo"(ent, place(ent
vacancies, re(ittance of forei%n e!chan%e earnin%s, separation fro(
7obs, departures and such other (atters or infor(ation as (a" be
reAuired b" the Secretar" of 'abor and E(plo"(entI
=i> 1o substitute or alter to the pre7udice of the or8er, e(plo"(ent
contracts approved and verified b" the Depart(ent of 'abor and
E(plo"(ent fro( the ti(e of actual si%nin% thereof b" the parties up
to and includin% the period of the e!piration of the sa(e ithout the
approval of the Depart(ent of 'abor and E(plo"(entI
=7> $or an officer or a%ent of a recruit(ent or place(ent a%enc" to
beco(e an officer or (e(ber of the ;oard of an" corporation
en%a%ed in travel a%enc" or to be en%a%ed directl" or indirectl" in the
(ana%e(ent of a travel a%enc"I
=8> 1o ithhold or den" travel docu(ents fro( applicant or8ers
before departure for (onetar" or financial considerations other than
2
those authori3ed under the 'abor Code and its i(ple(entin% rules
and re%ulationsI
=l> $ailure to actuall" deplo" ithout valid reason as deter(ined b" the
Depart(ent of 'abor and E(plo"(entI and
=(> $ailure to rei(burse e!penses incurred b" the or8er in
connection ith his docu(entation and processin% for purposes of
deplo"(ent, in cases here the deplo"(ent does not actuall" ta8e
place ithout the or8erBs fault. Ille%al recruit(ent hen co((itted
b" a s"ndicate or in lar%e scale shall be considered an offense
involvin% econo(ic sabota%e.
Ille%al recruit(ent is dee(ed co((itted b" a s"ndicate if carried out b" a
%roup of three =-> or (ore persons conspirin% or confederatin% ith one
another. It is dee(ed co((itted in lar%e scale if co((itted a%ainst three =-> or
(ore persons individuall" or as a %roup.
1he persons cri(inall" liable for the above offenses are the principals,
acco(plices and accessories. In case of 7uridical persons, the officers havin%
control, (ana%e(ent or direction of their business shall be liable.
G
SEC. 9. Penalties. H
=a> &n" person found %uilt" of ille%al recruit(ent shall suffer the penalt" of
i(prison(ent of not less than si! =:> "ears and one =+> da" but not (ore than
telve =+0> "ears and a fine of not less than to hundred thousand pesos
=P066,666.66> nor (ore than five hundred thousand pesos =P/66,666.66>.
=b> 1he penalt" of life i(prison(ent and a fine of not less than five hundred
thousand pesos =P/66,666.66> nor (ore than one (illion pesos
=P+,666,666.66> shall be i(posed if ille%al recruit(ent constitutes econo(ic
sabota%e as defined herein.
Provided, hoever, 1hat the (a!i(u( penalt" shall be i(posed if the person
ille%all" recruited is less than ei%hteen =+.> "ears of a%e or co((itted b" a
non,licensee or non,holder of authorit".
Sec. ..
Prohibition on Officials and Employees. H It shall be unlaful for an" official or
e(plo"ee of the Depart(ent of 'abor and E(plo"(ent, the Philippine
Overseas E(plo"(ent &d(inistration =POE&>, or the Overseas )or8ers
)elfare &d(inistration =O))&>, or the Depart(ent of $orei%n &ffairs, or other
%overn(ent a%encies involved in the i(ple(entation of this &ct, or their
relatives ithin the fourth civil de%ree of consan%uinit" or affinit", to en%a%e,
directl" or indirectl", in the business of recruitin% (i%rant or8ers as defined in
this &ct. 1he penalties provided in the i((ediate precedin% para%raph shall be
i(posed upon the(. =underscorin% supplied>
G
Sec. +6, pars. + J 0.
Money Claims. H Notithstandin% an" provision of la to the contrar", the
'abor &rbiters of the National 'abor Relations Co((ission =N'RC> shall have
the ori%inal and e!clusive 7urisdiction to hear and decide,ithin ninet" =46>
calendar da"s after the filin% of the co(plaint, the clai(s arisin% out of an
e(plo"er,e(plo"ee relationship or b" virtue of an" la or contract involvin%
$ilipino or8ers for overseas deplo"(ent includin% clai(s for actual, (oral,
e!e(plar" and other for(s of da(a%es.
1he liabilit" of the principal?e(plo"er and the recruit(ent?place(ent a%enc" for
an" and all clai(s under this section shall be 7oint and several. 1his provision
shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas e(plo"(ent and shall be a
condition precedent for its approval. 1he perfor(ance bond to be filed b" the
recruit(ent?place(ent a%enc", as provided b" la, shall be anserable for all
(one" clai(s or da(a%es that (a" be aarded to the or8ers. If the
recruit(ent?place(ent a%enc" is a 7uridical bein%, the corporate officers and
directors and partners as the case (a" be, shall the(selves be 7ointl" and
solidaril" liable ith the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid clai(s and
da(a%es.
G
SEC. ++. Mandatory Periods for Resolution of Illegal Recruitment Cases. H 1he
preli(inar" investi%ations of cases under this &ct shall be ter(inated ithin a
period of thirt" =-6> calendar da"s fro( the date of their filin%. )here the
preli(inar" investi%ation is conducted b" a prosecution officer and a pri(a
facie case is established, the correspondin% infor(ation shall be filed in court
ithin tent",four =05> hours fro( the ter(ination of the investi%ation. If the
preli(inar" investi%ation is conducted b" a 7ud%e and a pri(a facie case is
found to e!ist, the correspondin% infor(ation shall be filed b" the proper
3
prosecution officer ithin fort",ei%ht =5.> hours fro( the date of receipt of the
records of the case.
1he respondent averred that the aforeAuoted provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650 violate
Section +, &rticle III of the Constitution.
/
&ccordin% to the respondent, Section :=%> and
=i> discri(inated a%ainst uns8illed or8ers and their fa(ilies and, as such, violated the
eAual protection clause, as ell as &rticle II, Section +0
:
and &rticle KV, Sections +
9
and
-=-> of the Constitution.
.
&s the la encoura%ed the deplo"(ent of s8illed $ilipino
or8ers, onl" overseas s8illed or8ers are %ranted ri%hts. 1he respondent stressed that
uns8illed or8ers also have the ri%ht to see8 e(plo"(ent abroad. &ccordin% to the
respondent, the ri%ht of uns8illed or8ers to due process is violated because the" are
prevented fro( findin% e(plo"(ent and earnin% a livin% abroad. It cannot be ar%ued
that s8illed or8ers are i((une fro( abuses b" e(plo"ers, hile uns8illed or8ers are
(erel" prone to such abuses. It as pointed out that both s8illed and uns8illed or8ers
are sub7ected to abuses b" forei%n e(plo"ers. $urther(ore, the prohibition of the
deplo"(ent of uns8illed or8ers abroad ould onl" encoura%e fl",b",ni%ht ille%al
recruiters.
&ccordin% to the respondent, the %rant of incentives to service contractors and (annin%
a%encies to the e!clusion of all other licensed and authori3ed recruiters is an invalid
classification. 'icensed and authori3ed recruiters are thus deprived of their ri%ht to
propert" and due process and to the LeAualit" of the person.L It is understandable for
the la to prohibit ille%al recruiters, but to discri(inate a%ainst licensed and re%istered
recruiters is unconstitutional.
1he respondent, li8eise, alle%ed that Section :, subsections =a> to =(> is
unconstitutional because licensed and authori3ed recruit(ent a%encies are placed on
eAual footin% ith ille%al recruiters. It contended that hile the 'abor Code distin%uished
beteen recruiters ho are holders of licenses and non,holders thereof in the
i(position of penalties, Rep. &ct No. .650 does not (a8e an" distinction. 1he penalties
in Section 9=a> and =b> bein% based on an invalid classification are, therefore, repu%nant
to the eAual protection clause, besides bein% e!cessiveI hence, such penalties are
violative of Section +4=+>, &rticle III of the Constitution.
4
It as also pointed out that the
penalt" for officers?officials?e(plo"ees of recruit(ent a%encies ho are found %uilt" of
econo(ic sabota%e or lar%e,scale ille%al recruit(ent under Rep. &ct No. .650 is life
i(prison(ent. Since recruit(ent a%encies usuall" operate ith a (anpoer of (ore
than three persons, such a%encies are forced to shut don, lest their officers and?or
e(plo"ees be char%ed ith lar%e scale ille%al recruit(ent or econo(ic sabota%e and
sentenced to life i(prison(ent. 1hus, the penalt" i(posed b" la, bein%
disproportionate to the prohibited acts, discoura%es the business of licensed and
re%istered recruit(ent a%encies.
1he respondent also posited that Section :=(> and para%raphs =+/> and =+:>, Sections
., 4 and +6, para%raph 0 of the la violate Section 00, &rticle III of the
Constitution
+6
prohibitin% e!,post facto las and bills of attainder. 1his is because the
provisions presu(e that a licensed and re%istered recruit(ent a%enc" is %uilt" of ille%al
recruit(ent involvin% econo(ic sabota%e, upon a findin% that it co((itted an" of the
prohibited acts under the la. $urther(ore, officials, e(plo"ees and their relatives are
presu(ed %uilt" of ille%al recruit(ent involvin% econo(ic sabota%e upon such findin%
that the" co((itted an" of the said prohibited acts.
1he respondent further ar%ued that the 46,da" period in Section +6, para%raph =+>
ithin hich a labor arbiter should decide a (one" clai( is relativel" short, and could
deprive licensed and re%istered recruiters of their ri%ht to due process. 1he period ithin
hich the su((ons and the co(plaint ould be served on forei%n e(plo"ees and,
thereafter, the filin% of the anser to the co(plaint ould ta8e (ore than 46 da"s. 1his
ould thereb" shift on local licensed and authori3ed recruiters the burden of provin% the
defense of forei%n e(plo"ers. $urther(ore, the respondent asserted, Section +6,
para%raph 0 of the la, hich provides for the 7oint and several liabilit" of the officers
and e(plo"ees, is a bill of attainder and a violation of the ri%ht of the said corporate
officers and e(plo"ees to due process. Considerin% that such corporate officers and
e(plo"ees act ith prior approval of the board of directors of such corporation, the"
should not be liable, 7ointl" and severall", for such corporate acts.
1he respondent asserted that the folloin% provisions of the la are unconstitutional@
SEC. 4. Venue. H & cri(inal action arisin% fro( ille%al recruit(ent as defined
herein shall be filed ith the Re%ional 1rial Court of the province or cit" here
the offense as co((itted or here the offended part" actuall" resides at the
ti(e of the co((ission of the offense@ Provided, 1hat the court here the
cri(inal action is first filed shall acAuire 7urisdiction to the e!clusion of other
courts@ Provided, hoever, 1hat the aforestated provisions shall also appl" to
those cri(inal actions that have alread" been filed in court at the ti(e of the
effectivit" of this &ct.
G
SEC. +6. Money Claims. H Notithstandin% an" provision of la to the
contrar", the 'abor &rbiters of the National 'abor Relations Co((ission
=N'RC> shall have the ori%inal and e!clusive 7urisdiction to hear and decide,
ithin ninet" =46> calendar da"s after the filin% of the co(plaint, the clai(s
arisin% out of an e(plo"er,e(plo"ee relationship or b" virtue of an" la or
contract involvin% $ilipino or8ers for overseas deplo"(ent includin% clai(s for
actual, (oral, e!e(plar" and other for(s of da(a%es.
4
Sec. 56.
1he depart(ents and a%encies char%ed ith carr"in% out the provisions of this
&ct shall, ithin ninet" =46> da"s after the effectivi" of this &ct, for(ulate the
necessar" rules and re%ulations for its effective i(ple(entation.
&ccordin% to the respondent, the said provisions violate Section /=/>, &rticle VIII of the
Constitution
++
because the" i(pair the poer of the Supre(e Court to pro(ul%ate rules
of procedure.
In their anser to the petition, the petitioners alle%ed, inter alia, that =a> the respondent
has no cause of action for a declarator" reliefI =b> the petition as pre(ature as the
rules i(ple(entin% Rep. &ct No. .650 not havin% been released as "etI =c> the assailed
provisions do not violate an" provisions of the ConstitutionI and, =d> the la as
approved b" Con%ress in the e!ercise of the police poer of the State. In opposition to
the respondentBs plea for in7unctive relief, the petitioners averred that@
&s earlier shon, the a(ended petition for declarator" relief is devoid of (erit for failure
of petitioner to de(onstrate convincin%l" that the assailed la is unconstitutional, apart
fro( the defect and i(propriet" of the petition. One ho attac8s a statute, alle%in%
unconstitutionalit" (ust prove its invalidit" be"ond reasonable doubt =Caleon v. Agus
evelopment Corporation, 069 SCR& 95.>. &ll reasonable doubts should be resolved in
favor of the constitutionalit" of a statute =People v. Vera, :/ Phil. /:>. 1his presu(ption
of constitutionalit" is based on the doctrine of separation of poers hich en7oin upon
each depart(ent a beco(in% respect for the acts of the other depart(ents =!arcia vs.
E"ecutive #ecretary, 065 SCR& /+: M+44+N>. Necessaril", the ancillar" re(ed" of a
te(porar" restrainin% order and?or a rit of preli(inar" in7unction pra"ed for (ust fall.
;esides, an act of le%islature approved b" the e!ecutive is presu(ed to be ithin
constitutional bounds =$ational Press Club v. Commission on Elections, 069 SCR& +>.
+0
&fter the respective counsels of the parties ere heard on oral ar%u(ents, the trial court
issued on &u%ust 0+, +44/, an order %rantin% the petitionerBs plea for a rit of
preli(inar" in7unction upon a bond of P/6,666. 1he petitioner posted the reAuisite bond
and on &u%ust 05, +44/, the trial court issued a rit of preli(inar" in7unction en7oinin%
the enforce(ent of the folloin% provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650 pendin% the
ter(ination of the proceedin%s@
G Section 0, subsections =%> and =i, 0nd par.>I Section :, subsections =a> to
=(>, and pars. +/ J +:I Section 9, subsections =a> J =b>I Section .I Section 4I
Section +6I pars. + J 0I Section ++I and Section 56 of Republic &ct No. .650,
otherise 8non as the Mi%rant )or8ers and Overseas $ilipinos &ct of +44/.
G
+-
1he petitioners filed a petition for certiorari ith the Court of &ppeals assailin% the order
and the rit of preli(inar" in7unction issued b" the trial court on the folloin% %rounds@
+. Respondent &RCO,P<I'. had utterl" failed to sho its clear ri%ht?s or that of
its (e(ber,a%encies to be protected b" the in7unctive relief and?or violation of
said ri%hts b" the enforce(ent of the assailed sections of R.&. .650I
0. Respondent #ud%e fi!ed a P/6,666 in7unction bond hich is %rossl"
inadeAuate to anser for the da(a%e hich petitioner,officials (a" sustain,
should respondent &RCO,P<I'. be finall" ad7ud%ed as not bein% entitled
thereto.
+5
1he petitioners asserted that the respondent is not the real part",in,interest as petitioner
in the trial court. It is inconceivable ho the respondent, a non,stoc8 and non,profit
corporation, could sustain direct in7ur" as a result of the enforce(ent of the la. 1he"
ar%ued that if, at all, an" da(a%e ould result in the i(ple(entation of the la, it is the
licensed and re%istered recruit(ent a%encies and?or the uns8illed $ilipino (i%rant
or8ers discri(inated a%ainst ho ould sustain the said in7ur" or da(a%e, not the
respondent. 1he respondent, as petitioner in the trial court, as burdened to adduce
preponderant evidence of such irreparable in7ur", but failed to do so. 1he petitioners
further insisted that the petition a Auo as pre(ature since the rules and re%ulations
i(ple(entin% the la had "et to be pro(ul%ated hen such petition as filed. $inall",
the petitioners averred that the respondent failed to establish the reAuisites for the
issuance of a rit of preli(inar" in7unction a%ainst the enforce(ent of the la and the
rules and re%ulations issued i(ple(entin% the sa(e.
On Dece(ber /, +449, the appellate court ca(e out ith a four,pa%e decision
dis(issin% the petition and affir(in% the assailed order and rit of preli(inar" in7unction
issued b" the trial court. 1he appellate court, li8eise, denied the petitionersB (otion for
reconsideration of the said decision.
1he petitioners no co(e to this Court in a petition for revie on certiorari on the
folloin% %rounds@
+. Private respondent &RCO,P<I'. had utterl" failed to sho its clear ri%ht?s or
that of its (e(ber,a%encies to be protected b" the in7unctive relief and?or
violation of said ri%hts b" the enforce(ent of the assailed sections of R.&.
.650I
0. 1he P/6,666 in7unction bond fi!ed b" the court a Auo and sustained b" the
Court of &ppeals is %rossl" inadeAuate to anser for the da(a%e hich
5
petitioners,officials (a" sustain, should private respondent &RCO,P<I'. be
finall" ad7ud%ed as not bein% entitled thereto.
+/
On $ebruar" +:, +44., this Court issued a te(porar" restrainin% order en7oinin% the
respondents fro( enforcin% the assailed order and rit of preli(inar" in7unction.
T<, I..9,.
1he core issue in this case is hether or not the trial court co((itted %rave abuse of its
discretion a(ountin% to e!cess or lac8 of 7urisdiction in issuin% the assailed order and
the rit of preli(inar" in7unction on a bond of onl"P/6,666 and hether or not the
appellate court erred in affir(in% the trial courtBs order and the rit of preli(inar"
in7unction issued b" it.
1he petitioners contend that the respondent has no locus standi. It is a non,stoc8, non,
profit or%ani3ationI hence, not the real part",in,interest as petitioner in the action.
&lthou%h the respondent filed the petition in the Re%ional 1rial Court in behalf of
licensed and re%istered recruit(ent a%encies, it failed to adduce in evidence a certified
cop" of its &rticles of Incorporation and the resolutions of the said (e(bers authori3in%
it to represent the said a%encies in the proceedin%s. Neither is the suit of the respondent
a class suit so as to vest in it a personalit" to assail Rep. &ct No. .650I the respondent
is service,oriented hile the recruit(ent a%encies it purports to represent are profit,
oriented. 1he petitioners assert that the la is presu(ed constitutional and, as such, the
respondent as burdened to (a8e a case stron% enou%h to overco(e such
presu(ption and establish a clear ri%ht to in7unctive relief.
1he petitioners beail the P/6,666 bond fi!ed b" the trial court for the issuance of a rit
of preli(inar" in7unction and affir(ed b" the appellate court. 1he" assert that the
a(ount is %rossl" inadeAuate to anser for an" da(a%es that the %eneral public (a"
suffer b" reason of the non,enforce(ent of the assailed provisions of the la. 1he trial
court co((itted a %rave abuse of its discretion in %rantin% the respondentBs plea for
in7unctive relief, and the appellate court erred in affir(in% the order and the rit of
preli(inar" in7unction issued b" the trial court.
1he respondent, for its part, asserts that it has dul" established its locus standi and its
ri%ht to in7unctive relief as %leaned fro( its pleadin%s and the appenda%es thereto.
Dnder Section /, Rule /. of the Rules of Court, it as incu(bent on the petitioners, as
respondents in the R1C, to sho cause h" no in7unction should issue. It avers that the
in7unction bond posted b" the respondent as (ore than adeAuate to anser for an"
in7ur" or da(a%e the petitioners (a" suffer, if an", b" reason of the rit of preli(inar"
in7unction issued b" the R1C. In an" event, the assailed provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650
e!posed its (e(bers to the i((ediate and irreparable da(a%e of bein% deprived of
their ri%ht to a livelihood ithout due process, a propert" ri%ht protected under the
Constitution.
1he respondent contends that the co((endable purpose of the la to eradicate ille%al
recruiters should not be done at the e!pense and to the pre7udice of licensed and
authori3ed recruit(ent a%encies. 1he rit of preli(inar" in7unction as necessitated b"
the %reat nu(ber of dul" licensed recruit(ent a%encies that had stopped or suspended
their business operations for fear that their officers and e(plo"ees ould be indicted
and prosecuted under the assailed oppressive penal provisions of the la, and (eted
e!cessive penalties. 1he respondent, li8eise, ur%es that the Court should ta8e 7udicial
notice that the processin% of deplo"(ent papers of overseas or8ers have co(e to a
virtual standstill at the POE&.
T<, Co9+/>. R950&1
1he petition is (eritorious.
%he Respondent &as 'ocus #tandi
%o (ile the Petition in the R%C in Representation of the Eleven 'icensed and Registered
Recruitment Agencies Impleaded in the Amended Petition
1he (odern vie is that an association has standin% to co(plain of in7uries to its
(e(bers. 1his vie fuses the le%al identit" of an association ith that of its
(e(bers.
+:
&n association has standin% to file suit for its or8ers despite its lac8 of
direct interest if its (e(bers are affected b" the action. &n or%ani3ation has standin% to
assert the concerns of its constituents.
+9
In %elecommunications and )roadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. Commission on
Elections*
+.
e held that standin% 7us tertii ould be reco%ni3ed onl" if it can be shon
that the part" suin% has so(e substantial relation to the third part", or that the ri%ht of
the third part" ould be diluted unless the part" in court is alloed to espouse the third
part"Bs constitutional clai(s.
In this case, the respondent filed the petition for declarator" relief under Rule :5 of the
Rules of Court for and in behalf of its eleven =++> licensed and re%istered recruit(ent
a%encies hich are its (e(bers, and hich approved separate resolutions e!pressl"
authori3in% the respondent to file the said suit for and in their behalf. )e note that,
under its &rticles of Incorporation, the respondent as or%ani3ed for the purposes inter
alia of pro(otin% and supportin% the %roth and develop(ent of the (anpoer
recruit(ent industr", both in the local and international levelsI providin%, creatin% and
e!plorin% e(plo"(ent opportunities for the e!clusive benefit of its %eneral (e(bershipI
6
enhancin% and pro(otin% the %eneral elfare and protection of $ilipino or8ersI and, to
act as the representative of an" individual, co(pan", entit" or association on (atters
related to the (anpoer recruit(ent industr", and to perfor( other acts and activities
necessar" to acco(plish the purposes e(bodied therein. 1he respondent is, thus, the
appropriate part" to assert the ri%hts of its (e(bers, because it and its (e(bers are in
ever" practical sense identical. 1he respondent asserts that the assailed provisions
violate the constitutional ri%hts of its (e(bers and the officers and e(plo"ees thereof.
1he respondent is but the (ediu( throu%h hich its individual (e(bers see8 to (a8e
(ore effective the e!pression of their voices and the redress of their %rievances.
+4
<oever, the respondent has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of
uns8illed or8ers. )e note that it even failed to i(plead an" uns8illed or8ers in its
petition. $urther(ore, in failin% to i(plead, as parties,petitioners, the eleven licensed
and re%istered recruit(ent a%encies it clai(ed to represent, the respondent failed to
co(pl" ith Section 0 of Rule :-
06
of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, since the eleven
licensed and re%istered recruit(ent a%encies for hich the respondent filed the suit are
specificall" na(ed in the petition, the a(ended petition is dee(ed a(ended to avoid
(ultiplicit" of suits.
0+
%he Assailed Order and +rit of
Preliminary In,unction Is Mooted
)y Case 'a-
1he respondent 7ustified its plea for in7unctive relief on the alle%ation in its a(ended
petition that its (e(bers are e!posed to the i((ediate and irreparable dan%er of bein%
deprived of their ri%ht to a livelihood and other constitutional ri%hts ithout due process,
on its clai( that a %reat nu(ber of dul" licensed recruit(ent a%encies have stopped or
suspended their operations for fear that =a> their officers and e(plo"ees ould be
prosecuted under the un7ust and unconstitutional penal provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650
and (eted eAuall" un7ust and e!cessive penalties, includin% life i(prison(ent, for ille%al
recruit(ent and lar%e scale ille%al recruit(ent ithout re%ard to hether the recruit(ent
a%encies involved are licensed and?or authori3edI and, =b> if the (e(bers of the
respondent, hich are licensed and authori3ed, decide to continue ith their
businesses, the" face the sti%(a and the curse of bein% labeled Lille%al recruiters.L In
%rantin% the respondentBs plea for a rit of preli(inar" in7unction, the trial court held,
ithout statin% the factual and le%al basis therefor, that the enforce(ent of Rep. &ct No.
.650, pendente lite, ould cause %rave and irreparable in7ur" to the respondent until the
case is decided on its (erits.
)e note, hoever, that since Rep. &ct No. .650 too8 effect on #ul" +/, +44/, the Court
had, in a catena of cases, applied the penal provisions in Section :, includin% para%raph
=(> thereof, and the last to para%raphs therein definin% lar%e scale ille%al recruit(ent
co((itted b" officers and?or e(plo"ees of recruit(ent a%encies b" the(selves and in
connivance ith private individuals, and i(posed the penalties provided in Section 9
thereof, includin% the penalt" of life i(prison(ent.
00
1he Infor(ations therein ere filed
after preli(inar" investi%ations as provided for in Section ++ of Rep. &ct No. .650 and in
venues as provided for in Section 4 of the said act. InPeople v. Cho-dury,
0-
e held that
ille%al recruit(ent is a cri(e of econo(ic sabota%e and (ust be enforced.
In People v. ia.,
05
e held that Rep. &ct No. .650 is but an a(end(ent of the 'abor
Code of the Philippines and is not an e!,post facto la because it is not applied
retroactivel". In /MM Promotion and Management* Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
0/
the issue
of the e!tent of the police poer of the State to re%ulate a business, profession or
callin% vis,O,vis the eAual protection clause and the non,i(pair(ent clause of the
Constitution ere raised and e held, thus@
& profession, trade or callin% is a propert" ri%ht ithin the (eanin% of our
constitutional %uarantees. One cannot be deprived of the ri%ht to or8 and the
ri%ht to (a8e a livin% because these ri%hts are propert" ri%hts, the arbitrar" and
unarranted deprivation of hich nor(all" constitutes an actionable ron%.
Nevertheless, no ri%ht is absolute, and the proper re%ulation of a profession,
callin%, business or trade has ala"s been upheld as a le%iti(ate sub7ect of a
valid e!ercise of the police poer b" the state particularl" hen their conduct
affects either the e!ecution of le%iti(ate %overn(ental functions, the
preservation of the State, the public health and elfare and public (orals.
&ccordin% to the (a!i(, sic utere tuo ut alienu( non laedas, it (ust of course
be ithin the le%iti(ate ran%e of le%islative action to define the (ode and
(anner in hich ever" one (a" so use his on propert" so as not to pose
in7ur" to hi(self or others.
In an" case, here the libert" curtailed affects at (ost the ri%hts of propert",
the per(issible scope of re%ulator" (easures is certainl" (uch ider. 1o
pretend that licensin% or accreditation reAuire(ents violates the due process
clause is to i%nore the settled practice, under the (antle of the police poer, of
re%ulatin% entr" to the practice of various trades or professions. Professionals
leavin% for abroad are reAuired to pass ri%id ritten and practical e!a(s before
the" are dee(ed fit to practice their trade. Sea(en are reAuired to ta8e tests
deter(inin% their sea(anship. 'ocall", the Professional Re%ulation
Co((ission has be%un to reAuire previousl" licensed doctors and other
professionals to furnish docu(entar" proof that the" had either re,trained or
had underta8en continuin% education courses as a reAuire(ent for reneal of
their licenses. It is not clai(ed that these reAuire(ents pose an unarranted
deprivation of a propert" ri%ht under the due process clause. So lon% as
7
professionals and other or8ers (eet reasonable re%ulator" standards no
such deprivation e!ists.
$inall", it is a futile %esture on the part of petitioners to invo8e the non,
i(pair(ent clause of the Constitution to support their ar%u(ent that the
%overn(ent cannot enact the assailed re%ulator" (easures because the"
abrid%e the freedo( to contract. In Philippine Association of #ervice E"porters*
Inc. vs. rilon, e held that LMtNhe non,i(pair(ent clause of the Constitution G
(ust "ield to the loftier purposes tar%eted b" the %overn(ent.L EAuall"
i(portant, into ever" contract is read provisions of e!istin% la, and ala"s, a
reservation of the police poer for so lon% as the a%ree(ent deals ith a
sub7ect i(pressed ith the public elfare.
& last point. Petitioners su%%est that the sin%lin% out of entertainers and
perfor(in% artists under the assailed depart(ent orders constitutes class
le%islation hich violates the eAual protection clause of the Constitution. )e do
not a%ree.
1he eAual protection clause is directed principall" a%ainst undue favor and
individual or class privile%e. It is not intended to prohibit le%islation hich is
li(ited to the ob7ect to hich it is directed or b" the territor" in hich it is to
operate. It does not reAuire absolute eAualit", but (erel" that all persons be
treated ali8e under li8e conditions both as to privile%es conferred and liabilities
i(posed. )e have held, ti(e and a%ain, that the eAual protection clause of the
Constitution does not forbid classification for so lon% as such classification is
based on real and substantial differences havin% a reasonable relation to the
sub7ect of the particular le%islation. If classification is %er(ane to the purpose
of the la, concerns all (e(bers of the class, and applies eAuall" to present
and future conditions, the classification does not violate the eAual protection
%uarantee.
0:
1he validit" of Section : of R.&. No. .650 hich provides that e(plo"ees of recruit(ent
a%encies (a" be cri(inall" liable for ille%al recruit(ent has been upheld in People v.
Cho-dury@
09
&s stated in the first sentence of Section : of R& .650, the persons ho (a"
be held liable for ille%al recruit(ent are the principals, acco(plices and
accessories. &n e(plo"ee of a co(pan" or corporation en%a%ed in ille%al
recruit(ent (a" be held liable as principal, to%ether ith his e(plo"er, if it is
shon that he activel" and consciousl" participated in ille%al recruit(ent. It has
been held that the e!istence of the corporate entit" does not shield fro(
prosecution the corporate a%ent ho 8noin%l" and intentionall" causes the
corporation to co((it a cri(e. 1he corporation obviousl" acts, and can act,
onl" b" and throu%h its hu(an a%ents, and it is their conduct hich the la
(ust deter. 1he e(plo"ee or a%ent of a corporation en%a%ed in unlaful
business naturall" aids and abets in the carr"in% on of such business and ill
be prosecuted as principal if, ith 8noled%e of the business, its purpose and
effect, he consciousl" contributes his efforts to its conduct and pro(otion,
hoever sli%ht his contribution (a" be. G
0.
;" its rulin%s, the Court thereb" affir(ed the validit" of the assailed penal and
procedural provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650, includin% the i(posable penalties therefor.
Dntil the Court, b" final 7ud%(ent, declares that the said provisions are unconstitutional,
the enforce(ent of the said provisions cannot be en7oined.
%he R%C Committed !rave Abuse of Its iscretion Amounting to E"cess or 'ac0 of
/urisdiction in Issuing the Assailed Order and the +rit of Preliminary In,unction
1he (atter of hether to issue a rit of preli(inar" in7unction or not is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court. <oever, if the court co((its %rave abuse of its
discretion in issuin% the said rit a(ountin% to e!cess or lac8 of 7urisdiction, the sa(e
(a" be nullified via a rit of certiorari and prohibition.
In Social Securit" Co((ission v. #ud%e ;a"ona,
04
e ruled that a la is presu(ed
constitutional until otherise declared b" 7udicial interpretation. 1he suspension of the
operation of the la is a (atter of e!tre(e delicac" because it is an interference ith
the official acts not onl" of the dul" elected representatives of the people but also of the
hi%hest (a%istrate of the land.
In Foun%er v. <arris, #r.,
-6
the Supre(e Court of the Dnited States e(phasi3ed, thus@
$ederal in7unctions a%ainst state cri(inal statutes, either in their entiret" or ith
respect to their separate and distinct prohibitions, are not to be %ranted as a
(atter of course, even if such statutes are unconstitutional. No citi3en or
(e(ber of the co((unit" is i((une fro( prosecution, in %ood faith, for his
alle%ed cri(inal acts. 1he i((inence of such a prosecution even thou%h
alle%ed to be unauthori3ed and, hence, unlaful is not alone %round for relief in
eAuit" hich e!erts its e!traordinar" poers onl" to prevent irreparable in7ur"
to the plaintiff ho see8s its aid. 9/0 )eal v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Corp.,
-+0 D.S. 5/, 54, :+ S.Ct. 5+., 506, ./ '.Ed. /99.
&nd si(ilarl", in Dou%las, supra, e (ade clear, after reaffir(in% this rule, that@
8
LIt does not appear fro( the record that petitioners have been threatened ith
an" in7ur" other than that incidental to ever" cri(inal proceedin% brou%ht
lafull" and in %ood faith GL -+4 D.S., at +:5, :- S.Ct., at ..+.
-+
1he possible unconstitutionalit" of a statute, on its face, does not of itself 7ustif" an
in7unction a%ainst %ood faith atte(pts to enforce it, unless there is a shoin% of bad
faith, harass(ent, or an" other unusual circu(stance that ould call for eAuitable
relief.
-0
1he Lon its faceL invalidation of statutes has been described as L(anifestl"
stron% (edicine,L to be e(plo"ed Lsparin%l" and onl" as a last resort,L and is %enerall"
disfavored.
--
1o be entitled to a preli(inar" in7unction to en7oin the enforce(ent of a la assailed to
be unconstitutional, the part" (ust establish that it ill suffer irreparable har( in the
absence of in7unctive relief and (ust de(onstrate that it is li8el" to succeed on the
(erits, or that there are sufficientl" serious Auestions %oin% to the (erits and the
balance of hardships tips decidedl" in its favor.
-5
1he hi%her standard reflects 7udicial
deference toard Lle%islation or re%ulations developed throu%h presu(ptivel" reasoned
de(ocratic processes.L Moreover, an in7unction ill alter, rather than (aintain, the
status Auo, or ill provide the (ovant ith substantiall" all the relief sou%ht and that
relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the
(erits.
-/
Considerin% that in7unction is an e!ercise of eAuitable relief and authorit", in
assessin% hether to issue a preli(inar" in7unction, the courts (ust sensitivel" assess
all the eAuities of the situation, includin% the public interest.
-:
In liti%ations beteen
%overn(ental and private parties, courts %o (uch further both to %ive and ithhold relief
in furtherance of public interest than the" are accusto(ed to %o hen onl" private
interests are involved.
-9
;efore the plaintiff (a" be entitled to in7unction a%ainst future
enforce(ent, he is burdened to sho so(e substantial hardship.
-.
1he fear or chillin%,effect of the assailed penal provisions of the la on the (e(bers of
the respondent does not b" itself 7ustif" prohibitin% the State fro( enforcin% the(
a%ainst those ho( the State believes in %ood faith to be punishable under the las@
G #ust as the incidental Lchillin% effectL of such statutes does not auto(aticall"
render the( unconstitutional, so the chillin% effect that ad(ittedl" can result
fro( the ver" e!istence of certain las on the statute boo8s does not in itself
7ustif" prohibitin% the State fro( carr"in% out the i(portant and necessar" tas8
of enforcin% these las a%ainst sociall" har(ful conduct that the State believes
in %ood faith to be punishable under its las and the Constitution.
-4
It (ust be borne in (ind that sub7ect to constitutional li(itations, Con%ress is
e(poered to define hat acts or o(issions shall constitute a cri(e and to prescribe
punish(ents therefor.
56
1he poer is inherent in Con%ress and is part of the soverei%n
poer of the State to (aintain peace and order. )hatever vies (a" be entertained
re%ardin% the severit" of punish(ent, hether one believes in its efficienc" or its futilit",
these are peculiarl" Auestions of le%islative polic".
5+
1he co(parative %ravit" of cri(es
and hether their conseAuences are (ore or less in7urious are (atters for the State and
Con%ress itself to deter(ine.
50
Specification of penalties involves Auestions of le%islative
polic".
5-
Due process prohibits cri(inal stabilit" fro( shiftin% the burden of proof to the accused,
punishin% holl" passive conduct, definin% cri(es in va%ue or overbroad lan%ua%e and
failin% to %rant fair arnin% of ille%al conduct.
55
Class le%islation is such le%islation hich
denies ri%hts to one hich are accorded to others, or inflicts upon one individual a (ore
severe penalt" than is i(posed upon another in li8e case offendin%.
5/
;ills of attainder
are le%islative acts hich inflict punish(ent on individuals or (e(bers of a particular
%roup ithout a 7udicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain
individuals or a %roup of individuals, the i(position of a punish(ent, penal or otherise,
and the lac8 of 7udicial trial.
5:
Penali3in% unlicensed and licensed recruit(ent a%encies and their officers and
e(plo"ees and their relatives e(plo"ed in %overn(ent a%encies char%ed ith the
enforce(ent of the la for ille%al recruit(ent and i(posin% life i(prison(ent for those
ho co((it lar%e scale ille%al recruit(ent is not offensive to the Constitution. 1he
accused (a" be convicted of ille%al recruit(ent and lar%e scale ille%al recruit(ent onl"
if, after trial, the prosecution is able to prove all the ele(ents of the cri(e char%ed.
59
1he possibilit" that the officers and e(plo"ees of the recruit(ent a%encies, hich are
(e(bers of the respondent, and their relatives ho are e(plo"ed in the %overn(ent
a%encies char%ed in the enforce(ent of the la, ould be indicted for ille%al recruit(ent
and, if convicted sentenced to life i(prison(ent for lar%e scale ille%al recruit(ent,
absent proof of irreparable in7ur", is not sufficient on hich to base the issuance of a rit
of preli(inar" in7unction to suspend the enforce(ent of the penal provisions of Rep. &ct
No. .650 and avert an" indict(ents under the la.
5.
1he nor(al course of cri(inal
prosecutions cannot be bloc8ed on the basis of alle%ations hich a(ount to
speculations about the future.
54
1here is no alle%ation in the a(ended petition or evidence adduced b" the respondent
that the officers and?or e(plo"ees of its (e(bers had been threatened ith an"
indict(ents for violations of the penal provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650. Neither is there
an" alle%ation therein that an" of its (e(bers and?or their officers and e(plo"ees
co((itted an" of the acts enu(erated in Section :=a> to =(> of the la for hich the"
could be indicted. Neither did the respondent adduce an" evidence in the R1C that an"
or all of its (e(bers or a %reat nu(ber of other dul" licensed and re%istered recruit(ent
a%encies had to stop their business operations because of fear of indict(ents under
Sections : and 9 of Rep. &ct No. .650. 1he respondent (erel" speculated and
sur(ised that licensed and re%istered recruit(ent a%encies ould close shop and stop
9
business operations because of the assailed penal provisions of the la. & rit of
preli(inar" in7unction to en7oin the enforce(ent of penal las cannot be based on such
con7ectures or speculations. 1he Court cannot ta8e 7udicial notice that the processin% of
deplo"(ent papers of overseas or8ers have co(e to a virtual standstill at the POE&
because of the assailed provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650. 1he respondent (ust adduce
evidence to prove its alle%ation, and the petitioners accorded a chance to adduce
controvertin% evidence.
1he respondent even failed to adduce an" evidence to prove irreparable in7ur" because
of the enforce(ent of Section +6=+>=0> of Rep. &ct No. .650. Its fear or apprehension
that, because of ti(e constraints, its (e(bers ould have to defend forei%n e(plo"ees
in cases before the 'abor &rbiter is based on speculations. Even if true, such
inconvenience or difficult" is hardl" irreparable in7ur".
1he trial court even i%nored the public interest involved in suspendin% the enforce(ent
of Rep. &ct No. .650 vis,O,vis the eleven licensed and re%istered recruit(ent a%encies
represented b" the respondent. In People v. *a(boa,
/6
e e(phasi3ed the pri(ar" ai(
of Rep. &ct No. .650@
Preli(inaril", the proliferation of ille%al 7ob recruiters and s"ndicates pre"in% on
innocent people an!ious to obtain e(plo"(ent abroad is one of the pri(ar"
considerations that led to the enact(ent of %he Migrant +or0ers and
Overseas (ilipinos Act of 1223. &i(ed at affordin% %reater protection to
overseas $ilipino or8ers, it is a si%nificant i(prove(ent on e!istin% las in
the recruit(ent and place(ent of or8ers for overseas e(plo"(ent. Otherise
8non as the Ma%na Carta of O$)s, it broadened the concept of ille%al
recruit(ent under the 'abor Code and provided stiffer penalties thereto,
especiall" those that constitute econo(ic sabota%e, i.e.* Illegal Recruitment in
'arge #cale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a #yndicate.
/+
;" issuin% the rit of preli(inar" in7unction a%ainst the petitioners sans an" evidence,
the trial court frustrated, albeit te(poraril", the prosecution of ille%al recruiters and
alloed the( to continue victi(i3in% hapless and innocent people desirin% to obtain
e(plo"(ent abroad as overseas or8ers, and bloc8ed the attain(ent of the salutar"
policies
/0
e(bedded in Rep. &ct No. .650. It bears stressin% that overseas or8ers,
land,based and sea,based, had been re(ittin% to the Philippines billions of dollars
hich over the "ears had propped the econo(".In issuin% the rit of preli(inar"
in7unction, the trial court considered para(ount the interests of the eleven licensed and
re%istered recruit(ent a%encies represented b" the respondent, and capriciousl"
overturned the presu(ption of the constitutionalit" of the assailed provisions on the
barefaced clai( of the respondent that the assailed provisions of Rep. &ct No. .650 are
unconstitutional. 1he trial court co((itted a %rave abuse of its discretion a(ountin% to
e!cess or lac8 of 7urisdiction in issuin% the assailed order and rit of preli(inar"
in7unction. It is for this reason that the Court issued a te(porar" restrainin% order
en7oinin% the enforce(ent of the rit of preli(inar" in7unction issued b" the trial court.
IN "IGHT O A"" THE OREGOING, the petition is GRANTE$. 1he assailed decision
of the appellate court isREVERSE$ AN$ SET ASI$E. 1he Order of the Re%ional 1rial
Court dated &u%ust 0+, +44/ in Civil Case No. 2,4/,0556+ and the )rit of Preli(inar"
In7unction issued b" it in the said case on &u%ust 05, +44/ are NU""IIE$. No costs.
SO OR$ERE$.
10