12 Final

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS
FILIPINO
ACT OF 1995 & RECRUITMENT AND
PLACEMENT
115. JSS Indochina Corporation vs.
a full refused of their placement fee with
Gerardo R. Ferrer, et al. [ G.R. No.
interest at 12% per annum.
156381 October 14, 2005]
Such award is in accordance to Section 10
of RA 8042, otherwise known as the
Facts:
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Petitioner hired the respondents as
Act, which provides:
construction workers for its Taiwan-based
SECTION 10. Money claims.-xxx
principal employer Sr Formosa Plastics
xxx
Corp. (FPC). Pursuant to the parties
In case of termination of overseas
contracts
of
employment,
each
employment without just, valid or
respondent would receive monthly salary
authorized cause as defined by law or
of NT$15,360. Their employment covered
contract, the worker shall be entitled to
a period of 1 year of from May 1, 1997 to
the full reimbursement of his placement
May 1, 1998.
fee with 12% interest per annum, plus his
As scheduled, respondents, along with
salaries for the unexpired portion of his
other Filipino contract workers, were
employment contract or for 3 months for
deployed to Taiwan. But upon their arrival,
every year of the unexpired term,
only 20 workers, excluding respondents,
whichever is less.
were
employed as construction workers at FPC.
Aggrieved, they were assisted by the
116. People of the Philippines vs.
officials of Manila Economic Cultural Office
Capt. Florencio O. Gasacao [G.R.
who directed them to sign affidavits
No. 168445 November 11, 2005]
alleging that they were assigned, not as
construction workers for FPC, but as cable
Facts:
tray I pipe tracts workers at Shin Kwan
Appellant was the Crewing Manager of
Enterprises Co., Ltd. They were then
Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a
repatriated to the Philippines.
licensed local manning agency, while his
Thus, respondents filed a complaint for
nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao,
illegal dismissed, payment of salaries,
was the President. As the crewing
refund of placement fee, damages and
manager, Capt. Gasacao's duties included
attorneys fees with the Office of the Labor
receiving job applications, interviewing the
Arbiter against JSS Indochina Corp.
applicants and informing them of the
agency's requirement of payment of
SC Ruling:
performance or cash bond prior to
The decision to resign from their
deployment. On August 4, 2000, Capt.
employment were made by force of
Gasacao and Jose Gasacao were charged
circumstances not attributable to their
with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment
own fault, and it was not their fault that
defined under Section 6, paragraphs (a),
they were left out from among those
(l) and (m) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042
workers
who
were
considered
for
or the Migrant Workers and Overseas
employment by the foreign employer.
Filipinos Act of 1995, and penalized under
Evidently, petitioner is guilty for breach of
Section 7(b) of the same law, before the
contract
because
upon
arrival
of
RTC of Quezon City. Only Capt. Gasacao
respondents at the jobsite, there was no
was arrested while Jose Gasacao remained
employer on hand, which then made
at large. When arraigned, appellant
respondents to decide to go home to the
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Philippines. Therefore, the termination of
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. On
respondents services is, undoubtedly,
March 5, 2001, the RTC of Quezon City,
without just or valid cause. Consequently,
rendered its Joint Decision convicting
the respondents are entitled to an amount
appellant
of
Large
Scale
Illegal
representing their 3 months salaries
Recruitment.
considering
that
their
employment
contract has a term of exactly 1 year, plus
Issue:

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
Whether or not Capt. Gasacao was guilty
a person or entity to operate a private
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
employment agency, while an authority is
large scale illegal recruitment
a document issued by the DOLE
authorizing a person or association to
SC Ruling:
engage in recruitment and placement
RA No. 8042 defines illegal
activities as a private recruitment entity.
recruitment as follows:
However, it appears that even licensees or
II. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
holders of authority can be held liable for
Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this
illegal recruitment should they commit
Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act
any of the above-enumerated acts.
of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
Thus, it is inconsequential that appellant
transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring
committed large scale illegal recruitment
workers and includes referring, contract
while Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc.
services, promising or advertising for
was holding a valid authority. We thus find
employment abroad, whether for profit or
that the court below committed no
not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or
reversible error in not appreciating that
non-holder of authority contemplated
the manning agency was a holder of a
under Article 13(f) of Pd 442, as amended:
valid authority when appellant recruited
Provided, that such non-licensee or nonthe private complainants. There is no
holder who, in any manner, offers or
merit in appellant's contention that he
promises for a fee employment abroad to
could not be held liable for illegal
two or more persons shall be deemed so
recruitment since he was a mere
engaged. It shall likewise include the
employee of the manning agency,
following acts, whether committed by any
pursuant to Section 6 of RA No. 8042
persons, whether a non-licensee, nonwhich provides: The persons criminally
holder, licensee or holder of authority.
liable for the above offenses are the
(a) To charge or accept directly or
principals, accomplices and accessories. In
indirectly any amount greater than the
case of juridical persons, the officers
specified in the schedule of allowable fees
having control, management or direction
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
of their business shall be liable.
Employment, or to make a worker pay any
Contrary to Capt. Gasacao's claim, he is
amount greater than that actually
not a mere employee of the manning
received by him as a loan or advance;
agency but the crewing manager. As such,
xxx xxx xxx
he receives job applications, interviews
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid
applicants and informs them of the
reason as determined by the Department
agency's requirement of payment of
of Labor and Employment; and
performance or cash bond prior to the
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred
applicant's deployment. As the crewing
by the workers in connection with his
manager, he was at the forefront of the
documentation
and
processing
for
company's recruitment activities. The
purposes of deployment, in cases where
foregoing testimonies of the private
the deployment does not actually take
complainantsclearly
established
that
place without the worker's fault. Illegal
Gasacao is not a mere employee of Great
recruitment when committed by a
Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. As the
syndicate or in large scale shall be
crewing manager, it was appellant who
considered as offense involving economic
made representations with the private
sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed
complainants that he can secure overseas
committed by a syndicate carried out by a
employment for them upon payment of
group of 3 or more persons conspiring or
the cash bond. It is well settled that to
confederating with one another. It is
prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown
deemed committed in large scale if
that appellant gave complainants the
committed against 3 or more persons
distinct impression that he had the power
individually or as a group. A license is a
or ability to send complainants abroad for
document issued by the DOLE authorizing
work such that the latter were convinced

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
to part with their money in order to be
Elizabeth Alaon is the president of Join
employed. Appellant's act of promising the
International Corporation.
After their
private complainants that they will be
papers
were
processed,
petitioners
deployed abroad within three months after
claimed they signed a uniformly-worded
they have paid the cash bond clearly
employment
contract
with
private
shows that he is engaged in illegal
respondents which stipulated that they
recruitment.
were to work as machine operators with a
Even assuming that Capt. Gasacao was a
monthly salary of NT$15,840.00, exclusive
mere employee, such fact is not a shield
of overtime, for a period of two years. On
against his conviction for large scale
December 9, 1999, with 18 other contract
illegal recruitment. Clearly, the acts of
workers they left for Taiwan. Upon arriving
Capt. Gasacao vis--vis the private
at the job site, a factory owned by 3D,
complainants, either as the crewing
they were made to sign another contract
manager of Great Eastern Shipping
which stated that their salary was only
Agency Inc. or as a mere employee of the
NT$11,840.00.
They
were
likewise
same, constitute acts of large scale illegal
informed that the dormitory which would
recruitment
which
should
not
be
serve as their living quarters was still
countenanced.
under construction. They were requested
Although he informed them that it is
to
temporarily
bear
with
the
optional, he collected cash bonds and
inconvenience but were assured that their
promised
their
deployment
dormitory would be completed in a short
notwithstanding the proscription against
time The petitioners averred that on
its collection under Section 60 of the
December 16, 1999, due to unbearable
Omnibus
Rules
and
Regulations
working conditions, they were constrained
Implementing R.A. No. 8042 which state
to inform management that they were
that:
leaving. They booked a flight home, at
their own expense. Before they left, they
SEC. 60. Prohibition on Bonds and
were made to sign a written waiver. In
Deposits. In no case shall anemployment
addition, petitioners were not paid any
agency require any bond or cash deposit
salary for work rendered on December 11from the worker to guarantee performance
15, 1999.
under the contract or his/her repatriation.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed
Issue:
in large scale if committed against three
Whether
petitioners
were
illegally
or more persons individually or as a group.
dismissed under Rep. Act No. 8042, thus
In this case, five complainants testified
entitling them to benefits plus damages.
against
appellant's
acts
of
illegalrecruitment, thereby rendering his
SC Ruling:
acts tantamount to economic sabotage.
As we have held previously, constructive
dismissal
covers
the
involuntary
117. Mercedita Acua, et al. vs. CA
resignation resorted to when continued
and Join International Corp. and/or
employment
becomes
impossible,
Elizabeth Alaon [G.R. No. 159832
unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
May 05, 2006]
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or
when a clear discrimination, insensibility
Facts:
or disdain by an employer becomes
Petitioners are Filipino overseas workers
unbearable to an employee.
deployed by private respondent Join
In this case, the appellate court found that
International Corporation (JIC), a licensed
petitioners did not deny that the
recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D
accommodations were not as homely as
Pre-Color Plastic, Inc., (3D) in Taiwan,
expected.
In
the
petitioners
Republic of China, under a uniformlymemorandum, they admitted that they
worded employment contract for a period
were told by the principal, upon their
of two years. Herein private respondent
arrival, that the dormitory was still under

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
construction and were requested to bear
submit a fresh application with her country
with the temporary inconvenience and the
of domicile. That upon her return to the
dormitory would soon be finished. We
Philippines, she was informed by AIMS that
likewise note that petitioners did not
Daisy Lee was no longer interested in
refute private respondents assertion that
hiring her; and, That upon knowing this,
they had deployed approximately sixty
she demanded the return of her
other workers to their principal, and to the
placement fee but was denied; Hence, this
best of their knowledge, no other worker
instant case of illegal dismissal.
assigned to the same principal has
Petitioner AIMS on the other hand, alleges
resigned, much less, filed a case for illegal
the facts to be: That Lacerna resigned
dismissal.
after working for 5 days as a domestic
To our mind these cited circumstances do
worker for Low See Ting, as evidenced by
not reflect malice by private respondents
her resignation letter; That Proxy paid her
nor do they show the principals intention
wages and return ticket to the Philippines,
to subject petitioners to unhealthy
but respondent refused to be repatriated;
accommodations. Under these facts, we
That thereafter, Proxy assisted her to be
cannot rule that there was constructive
employed by Charmain, who subsequently
dismissal.
dismissed
her
for
difficulty
in
communication; and,
118. Asian International Manpower
That the Hongkong government permitted
Services, Inc. (AIMS) vs. CA and
her an extension of her stay in Hongkong,
Aniceta Lacerna [ G.R. No. 169652
but that this was her last chance.
October 09, 2006]
Respondent argued that her first employer
was Chairman, and not Low See Ting, as
Facts:
she never got the chance to work for the
Private respondent Lacerna alleges the
latter. She also contend that the signature
facts of the case being: That she was hired
on the resignation and on the receipt of
by Proxy Maid Services Centre (hereinafter
payment was not hers, nor was the
referred to as Proxy) thru petitioner AIMS,
handwriting. On June 28, 2001, the Labor
a recruitment entity in the Philippines;
Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner AIMS,
That on February 10, 2000, she signed an
stating that Lacerna was not illegally
employment contract as a domestic helper
dismissed as shown by her resignation
of Low See Ting, who later on cancelled
letter. However, this decision was later on
the same sometime in March 2000; That
reversed by the Court of Appeals due to
subsequent to the cancellation of the
the lack of just or authorized cause to
contract, Lacerna, with the assurance of a
justify Lacernas dismissal. The court also
new employer from AIMS, proceeded to
ruled that AIMS is solidarily liable with
Hongkong, and that upon her arrival, she
Proxy, as provided by Sec. 10 of RA 8042,
was
fetched by Tan Kmin Shwe Lin
stating that the liability of the principal
Charmain, her new employer; That on May
employer and the recruitment agency
2, 2000, she was dismissed by Charmain
shall not be affected by any substitution,
on
the
ground
of
difficulty
in
amendment or modification of the
communication; That on May 20, 2000,
contract of employment.
she was transferred by Proxy to Tam
Ching-yee, Donna, who later on dismissed
Issue:
her without stating the reason(s) thereof;
Was Lacerna illegally dismissed? If
Proxy neither gave her an explanation
yes, may AIMS be held liable for the
regarding this; That on July 1, 2000, she
monetary claims of Lacerna?
agreed to take a three-day trial period
with another employer, Daisy Lee; that
SC Ruling:
before she could sign her contract with
The High Court rules in the affirmative for
Daisy Lee, she was denied of her request
both questions.
for change of employer by the Hongkong
(1) There is no dispute that the last
government and was advised instead to
employer of Lacerna was Donna and not

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
Daisy Lee because the Hong Kong
recruitment/placement
agency
is
a
government directed her repatriation
juridical being, the corporate officers and
before she could sign her contract with the
directors and partners as the case may be,
latter. In dismissing her, Donna gave no
shall themselves be jointly and solidarily
reason for her termination. Neither did
liable with the corporation or partnership
Proxy explain the ground for her dismissal.
for the aforesaid claims and damages.
And where there is no showing of a clear,
Such liabilities shall continue during the
valid, and legal cause for the termination,
entire
period
or
duration
of
the
the law considers the matter, a case of
employment contract and shall not be
illegal dismissal.9 In termination cases
affected by any substitution, amendment
involving Filipino workers recruited for
or modification made locally or in a foreign
overseas employment, the burden of
country of the said contract.
proving just or authorized cause for
termination rests with the foreign based
employer/principal and the local based
entity which recruited the worker both
contract, the worker shall be entitled to
being solidarily liable for liabilities arising
from the illegal dismissal of the worker. In
fee with interest at twelve percent (12%)
this case, the Court of Appeals correctly
per annum, plus his salaries for the
declared Lacernas termination illegal
unexpired portion of the employment
since no reason was given to justify her
contract or for three (3) months for every
termination
year of the unexpired term, whichever is
The employment contract signed by
less.
Lacerna, as approved by the POEA, reveals
As such, Lacerna is entitled to the full
that Proxy was her designated principal
reimbursement of her placement fee with
employer.
Since AIMS was the local
interest ate 12% per annum, plus salaries
agency responsible for the recruitment of
for the unexpired portion of her
domestic helpers, such as Lacerna, for
employment contract, or for 3 months for
Proxy, it is solidarily liable with the latter
for liabilities arising from her illegal
whichever is less. But the award for moral
dismissal. To absolve AIMS from liability
and exemplary damages cannot be
would run in contravention to the avowed
credited in as much as Lacerna failed to
policy of the state to protect the labor
prove that AIMS and Proxy are guilty of
sector. The Court says that the joint and
bad faith.
solidary liability imposed by law against
recruitment
agencies
and
foreign
119. Corazon C. Sim vs. NLRC and
employers is meant to assure the
Equitable PCI-Bank [ G.R. NO.
aggrieved worker of immediate and
157376 October 02, 2007]
sufficient payment of what is due him.
(2) As for the monetary claims, the
Facts:
Supreme Court cited Section 10 of R.A. No.
Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a
8042, which provides that: The liability of
case for illegal dismissal with the Labor
the
principal/employer
and
the
Arbiter, alleging that she was initially
recruitment/placement agency for any and
employed
by
Equitable
PCI-Bank
all claims under this section shall be joint
(respondent) in 1990 as Italian Remittance
and several. This provision shall be
Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt
incorporated in the contract for overseas
Representative Office.
Eventually, she
employment and shall be a condition
was promoted to Manager position, until
precedent
for
its
approval.
The
September 1999, when she received a
performance bond to be filed by the
letter from Remegio David -- the Senior
recruitment/placement
agency,
as
Officer, European Head of PCIBank, and
provided by law, shall be answerable for
Managing Director of PCIB- Europe -all money claims or damages that may be
informing her that she was being
awarded
to
the
workers.
If
the
dismissed due to loss of trust and

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
confidence
based
on
alleged
claims for Employees Compensation,
mismanagement and misappropriation of
Social Security, Medicare and maternity
funds.
benefits, all other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations, including
Issue:
those of persons in domestic or household
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter
service, involving an amount of exceeding
has jurisdiction over the case.
five
thousand
pesos
(P5,000.00)
regardless of whether accompanied with a
SC Ruling:
claim for reinstatement.
The rule is that the Court is bound by the
findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter or the
(b) The commission shall have exclusive
NLRC, unless it is shown that grave abuse
appellate jurisdiction over all cases
of discretion or lack or excess of
decided by Labor Arbiters.
jurisdiction has been committed by said
Moreover, Section 10 of Republic
quasi-judicial bodies. The Court will not
Act (R.A.) No.
8042, or the Migrant
deviate from said doctrine without any
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
clear showing that the findings of the
1995, provides:
Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are
SECTION
10.
Money
Claims.
bereft of sufficient substantiation.

Notwithstanding any provision of law to
The Court notes palpable error in the
the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the
Labor Arbiter's disposition of the case,
National Labor Relations Commission
which was affirmed by the NLRC, with
(NLRC) shall have the original and
regard to the issue on jurisdiction. It was
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that
within ninety (90) calendar days after the
labor relations system in the Philippines
filing of the complaint, the claims arising
has no extra-territorial jurisdiction.
out of an employer-employee relationship
Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for
or by virtue of any law or contract
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and
involving Filipino workers for overseas
the National Labor Relations Commission,
deployment including claims for actual,
viz.:
moral, exemplary and other forms of
ART. 217.
Jurisdiction of Labor
damages.
Arbiters and the Commission. (a) Except
as otherwise provided under this Code the
Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus
Labor Arbiters shall have original and
Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A.
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
No. 8042 provides that the Labor Arbiters
within thirty (30) calendar days after the
of the NLRC shall have the original and
submission of the case by the parties for
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
decision without extension, even in the
all claims arising out of employerabsence of stenographic notes, the
employee relationship or by virtue of any
following cases involving all workers,
law or contract involving Filipino workers
whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
for overseas deployment including claims
(1)
Unfair labor practice cases; (2)
for actual, moral, exemplary and other
Termination disputes; (3) If accompanied
forms of damages, subject to the rules and
with a claim for reinstatement, those
procedures of the NLRC.
cases that workers may file involving
Under these provisions, it is clear
wage, rates of pay, hours of work and
that labor arbiters have original and
other
terms
and
conditions
of
exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
employment; (4) Claims for actual, moral,
from
employer-employee
relations,
exemplary and other forms of damages
including termination disputes involving all
arising from the employer-employee
workers, among whom are overseas
relations; (5)
Cases arising from any
Filipino workers. In Philippine National
violation of Article 264 of this Code,
Bank v. Cabansag, the Court pronounced:
including questions involving the legality
x x x Whether employed locally or
of strikes and lockouts; and (6) Except
overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
protective mantle of Philippine labor and
hearing to investigate the said incident.
social legislation, contract stipulations to
Thereafter, on March 9, 1997, private
the
contrary
notwithstanding.
This
respondent was dismissed from the
pronouncement is in keeping with the
service on the strength of an unsigned and
basic public policy of the State to afford
undated notice of dismissal. An alleged
protection
to
labor,
promote
full
record or minutes of the said investigation
employment,
ensure
equal
work
was attached to the said dismissal notice.
opportunities regardless of sex, race or
On March
24, 1997,
the
private
creed, and regulate the relations between
respondent filed a complaint for illegal
workers and employers. For the State
dismissal and other monetary claims,
assures the basic rights of all workers to
which case was assigned to Labor Arbiter
self-organization, collective bargaining,
Manuel M. Manansala.
security of tenure, and just and humane
conditions of work [Article 3 of the Labor
Issues:
Code of the Philippines; See also Section
1.
Whether or not respondent is
18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII,
entitled to overtime pay which was
1987 Constitution]. This ruling is likewise
incorporated in his award for the
rendered imperative by Article 17 of the
unexpired portion of the contract despite
Civil Code which states that laws which
the fact that he did not render overtime
have for their object public order, public
work; and
policy and good customs shall not be
2.
Whether or not it is proper for the
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
NLRC to award money claims despite the
promulgated, or by determination or
fact that the NLRC decision, and affirmed
conventions agreed upon in a foreign
by the Court of Appeals, did not state
country.
clearly the facts and the evidence upon
which such conclusions are based.
120. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc.
vs. Reynaldo Chua [G.R. No.
SC Ruling:
162195 April 08, 2008]
It being settled that the dismissal of
respondent was illegal, it follows that the
Facts:
latter is entitled to payment of his salary
Private respondent Reynaldo Chua was
for the unexpired portion of his contract,
hired by the petitioner shipping company,
as provided under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., as a
8042, considering that his employment
restaurant waiter on board a luxury cruise
was pre-terminated on March 9, 1997 or
ship liner M/S Black Watch pursuant to a
four months prior to the expiration of his
Philippine
Overseas
Employment
employment contract on July 17, 1997.
Administration
(POEA)
approved
However, the LA limited the award to an
employment contract dated October 9,
amount equivalent to respondent's salary
1996 for a period of nine (9) months from
for three months. The NLRC affirmed said
October 18, 1996 to July 17, 1997. On
award but deducted therefrom his salary
October 18, 1996, the private respondent
for one day as penalty for the tardiness
left Manila for Heathrow, England to board
incurred. The CA affirmed the one-day
the said sea vessel where he will be
salary deduction imposed by the NLRC but
assigned to work.
removed the three months - salary cap
On February 15, 1997, the private
imposed by the LA. In effect, as this
respondent reported for his working
particular monetary award now stands, it
station one and one-half hours late. On
is to be computed based on the salary of
February 17, 1997, the master of the
respondent covering the period March 9,
vessel served to the private respondent an
1997 to July 17, 1997, less his salary for
official
warning-termination
form
one day.
pertaining to the said incident. On March
Petitioner questions the CA for lifting the
8, 1997, the vessel's master, ship captain
three-month salary cap, pointing out that
Thor Fleten conducted an inquisitorial
the LA and NLRC decisions which imposed

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
the cap can no longer be altered as said
as part of his salary. Petitioner contends
decisions
were
not
questioned
by
that there is no factual or legal basis for
respondent.
the inclusion of said amount because,
Indeed, a party who has failed to appeal
after respondent's repatriation, he could
from a judgment is deemed to have
not have rendered any overtime work.
acquiesced to it and can no longer obtain
This time, petitioner's contention is wellfrom the appellate court any affirmative
taken.
relief other that what was already granted
The Court had occasion to rule on a similar
under said judgment. However, when
issue in Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services
strict adherence to such technical rule will
(Phils.), Inc. v. National Labor Relations
impair a substantive right, such as that of
Commission, where the NLRC was
an illegally dismissed employee to
questioned for awarding to an illegally
monetary compensation as provided by
dismissed overseas worker fixed overtime
law, then equity dictates that the Court
pay equivalent to the unexpired portion of
set aside the rule to pave the way for a full
the latter's contract. In resolving the
and just adjudication of the case.
question, the Court, citing Cagampan v.
The Court has consistently applied the
National Labor Relations Commission, held
foregoing exception to the general rule. It
that although an overseas employment
does so yet again in the present case.
contract may guarantee the right to
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, entitles an
overtime pay, entitlement to such benefit
overseas worker who has been illegally
must first be established, otherwise the
dismissed to "his salaries for the
same cannot be allowed.
unexpired portion of the employment
Hence,
it
being
improbable
that
respondent rendered overtime
work
during the unexpired term of his contract,
less."
the inclusion of his "guaranteed overtime"
The CA correctly applied the interpretation
pay into his monthly salary as basis in the
of the Court in Marsaman Manning
computation of his salaries for the entire
Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
unexpired period of his contract has no
Commission that the second option which
factual or legal basis and the same should
imposes a three months salary cap
have been disallowed.
applies only when the term of the
overseas contract is fixed at one year or
121. Marciano L. Masangcay vs.
longer; otherwise, the first option applies
Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc.
in that the overseas worker shall be
and Ventnor Navigation, Inc. [G. R.
entitled payment of all his salaries for the
No. 172800 October 17, 2008]
entire unexpired period of his contract.
In Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira,wherein the
Facts:
overseas contract involved was only for
six months, the Court held that it is the
On
September
2,
2002,
Marciano
first option provided under Section 10 of
Masangcay was hired by Ventnor (a
R.A. No. 8042 which is applicable in that
foreign company based in Liberia and
the overseas worker who was illegally
engaged in maritime commerce), through
dismissed is entitled to payment of all his
its manning agent, Trans-Global (a
salaries covering the entire unexpired
corporation organized and existing under
period of his contract. The CA committed
Philippine laws), as an oiler on M/T Eastern
no error in adhering to the prevailing
Jewel, an oil tanker. His employment was
interpretation of Section 10 of R.A. No.
to run for a period of seven (7) months.
8042.
He was to receive, inter alia, a basic
Finally, the Court comes to the last issue
monthly salary of US$445.00. While on
on whether in the computation of the
board M/T Eastern Jewel,
Marciano
foregoing
award,
respondent's
Masangcay
noticed
a
reddish
"guaranteed overtime" pay amounting to
discoloration of his urine upon micturation
US$197.00 per month should be included
(urination). Masangcay was brought to the

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
Fujairah Hospital, Fujairah, United Arab
Dr. Vicaldo justified the finding of
Emirates, because of lower abdominal
Impediment Grade III (78.36%) in this
pain and left loin pain of ten (10) days
wise: Masangcay is now unfit to
resume
duration with difficulty in urinating. He
work as seaman in any capacity. His illness
was advised surgery but opted to be
is considered work aggravated. He needs
repatriated back to the Philippines. On
regular monitoring of his renal function for
repatriation, he was confined at Makati
deterioration and possible recurrence of
Medical Center on October 8, 2002 where
kidney stones. His right kidney is nonhe underwent ESWL, left. On December
functioning and his
left kidney has
17-23, 2003, he was confined at National
impaired function. Theres a likelihood that
Kidney Institute and he underwent right
he would need dialysis in the future. He
ureterolithotomy
cannot land a gainful employment given
Dr. dela Cruz pronounced Masangcay fit to
his medical background.
resume work as all his laboratory
Masangcay is claiming that his disability
examinations showed normal results.
was contracted during the term of his
Accordingly, on 30 January 2003, TransContract of Employment ,
therefore
Globals
designated
physician,
Dr.
claiming benefit under Section 20(b),
Barrientos of the Associated Medical &
paragraph 5 of the Philippine Overseas
Clinical Services, Inc., declared Masangcay
Employment
Administration
(POEA)
fit to go back to work after a regular
Revised Standard Terms and Conditions
medical examination and pegged the
Governing the Employment of Filipino
disability period of the latter to be from 3
Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels,
October 2002 until 3 February 2003.
as amended by Memorandum Circular No.
Trans-Global, in behalf of Ventnor, paid
55, Series of 1996, which is deemed
Masangcay his full 120 days Sick Leave
integrated
in
every
contract
of
pay of Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred
employment of Filipino seafarers on
Sixty Four and 52/100 (P95,564.52) Pesos
ocean-going vessels.
representing
One
Thousand
Seven
Trans-Global,
Ventnor,
and
Estaniel,
Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars and 60/100
countered that
Masangcay had fully
(US$1,779.60) U.S. Dollars, as well as all
recovered and was pronounced fit for
his medical and hospital expenses,
employment, his claim for disability
professional
fees
of
his
attending
benefits has no basis ;the right to
physicians, the total amount of which
compensation for disability arises only
reached One Hundred Seventy Four
when it is shown that the seafarer is
Thousand Seventy Five and
10/100
disabled on account of an illness or injury
(P174,075.10) Pesos.
suffered while in the employ of his
Masangcay was asked to report back to
employer.
the office of Trans-Global for deployment
15 April 2004, Labor Arbiter Daisy G.
line-up. He was also asked to undergo
Cauton-Barcelona
found
Masangcays
medical examination in view of his
complaint meritorious and
ordered
impending deployment. He was informed
Trans-Global, Ventnor, and Estaniel to pay
by the Port Captain that he can no longer
Masangcay the amount of Thirty Nine
be deployed due to negative reports about
Thousand One Hundred Eighty U.S. Dollars
him coming from its principal, Ventnor.
(US$39,180.00) representing the latters
More than six months later, armed with a
disability benefit at Impediment Grade III
Medical Certificate issued by one Dr. Efren
(78.36%). Labor arbiter opined that the
R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo), a cardiologist,
compensability of an ailment does not
Masangcay instituted a complaint against
depend on whether or not the injury or
Trans-Global and Ventnor, including Transdisease was pre-existing at the time of
Globals
President, Michael Estaniel,
employment, but rather, if the injury or
before the National Labor Relations
disease was related to or was aggravated
Commission (NLRC) for the payment of
by Masangcays work. The labor arbiter
disability
benefit, damages and
gave great weight to the medical opinion
attorneys fees.
of Dr. Vicaldo rather than that of Trans-

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
Globals
designated
physicians
company-designated or company-referred
considering that respondents accredited
physicians had themselves personally
doctors opinion has (sic) more than meets
attended to, examined and treated
the eye and should not be taken at face
Masangcay in a professional capacity.
value. For most often than not, they are
Thereby, their findings and conclusions
palpably self-serving and bias (sic) in favor
were far from speculation and conjecture.
of the employer and certainly cannot be
considered independent.
Issue:
Trans-Global and Ventnor filed an original
Whether or not Marciano Masangcay can
action for certiorari before the Court of
legally demand and claim disability
Appeals
imputing
grave
abuse
of
benefits from Trans- Global and Ventnor
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
for an illness that became apparent during
jurisdiction on the NLRC for affirming the
his contract of employment with the
decision of the labor arbiter.
shipping company.
On 10 February 2006, the appellate court
granted the petition for certiorari of TransSC Ruling:
Global and Ventnor. It nullified and set
As set forth in Sec. 20(b) of the POEA
aside the challenged Resolutions of the
Standard Employment Contract, the
NLRC for having been issued in grave
employer-vessel owner/principal shall be
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
liable for disability benefits to the seafarer
excess of jurisdiction, considering that the
only in case the latter was declared
claimant was already full (sic) paid the
disabled by the company designated
benefits to which he was lawfully entitled
physician in view of a work-related illness
to.
or injury that he suffered onboard the
The Court of Appeals reasoned in its
vessel. Since petitioner-seafarer was
decision that, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC
declared FIT TO WORK by the company
arbitrarily set aside the fact that
designated physician, clearly then he is
Masangcay was precluded from any
not entitled to disability benefits under the
entitlement to disability benefits after he
POEA Standard Employment Contract. As
was already fully recovered and declared
with all other kinds of worker, the terms
to be fit for employment by the companyand conditions of a seafarers employment
designated physician. The right to
is governed by the provisions of the
compensation for disability arises only
contract he signs at the time he is hired.
when the seafarer has been disabled on
Considering
that
Masangcay
was
account of his illness or injury that he
employed on 3 September 2002, it is the
suffered while in the employ of his
2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and
employer; otherwise, gross injustice would
Conditions Governing the Employment of
result to the petitioners.
Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going
The NLRC could not simply sweep away
Vessels that is considered appended in his
the opinions of Dr. Barrientos and Dr.
contract of employment and is controlling
Agustin, as well s that of Dr. dela Cruz, by
for purposes of resolving the issue at hand
generalizing that company-designated or
and not the 1996 POEA Revised Amended
company-referred physicians were often
Standard Terms and Conditions Governing
biased in favor of the company and that
the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on
their opinions were self-serving without
Board Ocean-Going Vessels as alluded to
specifically indicating how their specific
by Masangcay.
findings were biased and why such
Under Sec. 20(b), paragraph 6, of the
opinions
were
self-serving.
The
generalization was, at the very least, most
unfair to Dr. Agustin and Dr. dela Cruz,
specialists in urology that covered the
Vessels, viz:
ailment of Masangcay. The arbitrariness
SECTION
20.
COMPENSATION
AND
and capriciousness became even more
BENEFITS
blatant in the face of the fact that such

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
Seafarer , to be entitled to compensation
Shipping case are poles apart from that
and benefits under said provision, it is not
attendant to the case at bar. The seafarer
sufficient to establish that the seafarers
in said case had been employed as a Chief
illness or injury has rendered him
Mate of an ocean-going vessel when he
permanently or partially disabled, but it
complained of coughing and hoarseness
must also be shown that there is a causal
and was later diagnosed with thyroid
connection between the seafarers illness
cancer.
or injury and the work for which he had
The company-designated physician and
been contracted for.
seafarers
physician
were
both
in
Masangcay must prove that he is suffering
agreement that the seafarer had been
from permanent total or partial disability
rendered disabled by his illness; they only
due to a work-related illness occurring
differed in their assessments of the degree
during the term of his contract. Proof that
and the impediment grade of such
he not only acquired or contracted his
disability in accordance with the schedule
illness during the term of his employment
of disability or impediment for injuries
contract is clearly not enough; must also
suffered
and
diseases
including
present evidence that such infirmity was
occupational diseases or illness contracted
work-related, or at the very least
under Sec. 32 of the 1996 POEA Revised
aggravated by the conditions of the work
Standard Terms and Conditions Governing
for which he was contracted for. There is
the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on
no substantiation that the progression of
Board Ocean-Going Vessels.
his ailment was brought about largely by
In contrast, Trans-Global and Ventnor are
the conditions of his job as an oiler. His
contesting the right of Masangcay to claim
medical history and/or records prior to his
disability benefits as the companydeployment as an oiler in M/T Eastern
designated physicians have certified the
Jewel were neither presented nor alluded
latter fit to return to work, not to mention
to in order to demonstrate that the
the fact that he was not suffering from a
working conditions on board said vessel
work-related
and/or
work-aggravated
increased the risk of contracting renal
illness.
failure, chronic or otherwise. It is,
All told, except for the bare assertion that
therefore,
highly
improbable
that
he is no longer fit to work due to the
Masangcays
chronic
renal
failure
illness that became manifest during his
developed in just a months time, the
contract of employment with Trans-Global
length of time he was on board M/T
and Ventnor, Masangcay makes no
Eastern Jewel before the symptoms
allegation, much less presents no proof,
became
that the illness was caused or aggravated
Moreover, chronic renal failure, is neither
by his employment.
listed as a disability under Sec. 32 of the
The evidence on record is totally bare of
essential facts on how he contracted or
developed such disease and on how and
why his working conditions increased the
Vessels; nor an occupational disease
risk
of
contracting
the
same.
under Sec. 32-A thereof, which provides
Consequently, the labor arbiter and the
for
the
schedule
of
disability
or
NLRC had no basis at all to rule that
impediment for injuries suffered and
Masangcay is deserving of other disability
diseases including occupational diseases
benefits
espoused
by
Sec.
20(b),
or illness.
paragraph 6 of the 2000 POEA Amended
The only similarity between the two cases,
Standard Terms and Conditions other than
Crystal Shipping and the present petition,
that already extended to him by Transis the fact that the seafarers in both have
Global and Ventnor.
the same personal physician, Dr. Efren R.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Vicaldo, a cardiologist, who declared them
instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
permanently disabled to return to work.
The assailed Decision dated 10 February
The factual circumstances of the Crystal
2006 and Resolution dated 30 May 2006

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
both of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
referred to a company designated
No. 91393 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
physician for further medical care and
against petitioner Marciano L. Masangcay.
treatment; that the initial impression was
Systemic
Staphylococcal
Infections;
122. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., et
Resolving; that he was under the care of
al. vs. Jaime M. Velasquez [ G.R.
said physician for three (3) months during
No. 179802 November 14, 2008]
which
he
underwent
extensive
medications and treatment; that he was
FACTS:
admitted and confined at St. Lukes
Jaime M. Velasquez (respondent) was hired
Medical Center from October 13, 2003 to
by
Magsaysay
Maritime
November 11, 2003; that progress reports
Corporation(petitioner) as second cook for
on his recovery have been issued; that by
its foreign principal, co-petitioner ODF Jell
January 5, 2004, respondent was declared
ASA. The parties had a considerably long
as cleared to work resumption as
employment history covered by about ten
seafarer; and that petitioners were the
(10)
employment
contracts
wherein
ones
who
shouldered
respondents
Velasquez engaged respondents services
hospitalization expenses.
on board vessels owned by ODF Jell ASA.
On March 29, 2005, the Labor Arbiter
On July 28, 2003, on board the vessel M/T
rendered a decision in favor of Jaime M.
Bow Favour, Jaime M. Velasquez suffered
Velasquez, ordering Magsaysay Maritime
high fever and was unable to work. By the
Corporation and/or Conrado N. Dela Cruz
fourth day, his body temperature reached
and ODF Jell ASA to pay complainant Jaime
40.9C. His extremities were swollen and
M. Velasquez the amount of SIXTY TWO
he could not walk. He also had edema in
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY US
the abdominal area.
Respondent was
DOLLARS (US$62,260.00) or its equivalent
brought to a hospital in Singapore where
in Philippine Peso at the prevailing rate of
he was confined from August 12 to
exchange at the time of actual payment
October 13, 2003. Thereafter, he was
representing his disability benefits and
repatriated to the Philippines.
sickness allowance and 10% of the total
It is from this point onwards that the
monetary award by way of attorneys fees.
allegations of the parties differ. Jaime M.
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or
Velasquez
alleged
that
upon
his
Conrado N. Dela Cruz and ODF Jell ASA
repatriation, he was not confined to St.
filed an appeal with the NLRC, alleging
Lukes Medical Center as he expected. He
serious errors in the factual findings of the
claimed that he was compelled to seek
Labor Arbiter.
medical treatment from an independent
NLRC made the following findings:
doctor.
On November 13, 2003, he
By way of a contrary medical finding,
consulted a certain Dr. Efren Vicaldo (Dr.
assail the diagnosis arrived at by the
Vicaldo) who diagnosed him to be
company designated physician, Dr. Natalio
suffering from staphylococcal bacteremia,
G. Alegre II. As noted, the findings of Dr.
multiple metastatic abcesses, pleural
Efren Vicaldo, complainants private
effusion and hypertension and declared
physician, and those of Dr. Alegre, bear
his disability as Impediment Grade 1
consistency with each other save for his
(120%). Dr. Vicaldo further concluded that
hypertensive condition. Above all these,
respondent was unfit to resume work as
complainants credibility suffered a serious
seaman in any capacity.
setback when he declared that he was
Respondent filed a claim for disability
seen by Dr. Alegre only twice and that
benefits, illness allowance/ reimbursement
there was no treatment given to him since
of medical expenses, damages and
repatriation (Records, pp. 88-89). Records
attorneys fees but petitioners refused to
belie such assertion.
Copies of the
pay.
medical reports accomplished by the
Petitioners, on the other hand, maintained
company accredited physician would show
that upon respondents repatriation on
that he was examined and treated by the
October 13, 2003, he was immediately

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
latter for no less than eight (8) times
diagnosed illnesses which were contracted
(Records, pp. 128-135).
as a result of his exposure to the risks
involved in the performance of his job, we
ISSUE:
find the NLRC to have acted in grave
Whether or not it is the company
abuse of discretion in reversing and
designated
physician
or
a
private
setting aside the decision of the Labor
physician who should determine
the
Arbiter awarding disability claims to
disability grading or fitness of a seafarer.
petitioner.
The POEA Contract is clear in its provisions
when it provided who should determine
SC RULING:
the disability grading or fitness to work of
As gleaned therefrom, complainant was
seafarers. The POEA contract recognizes
placed under the care and supervision of
only the disability grading provided by the
Dr. Alegre for about ninety (90) days, his
company-designated physicians. Section
admission at St. Lukes Medical Center
20 B.3 of the POEA contract provides:
being on 13 October 2003 and with his
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical
discharge being had only on 11 November
treatment, the seafarer is entitled to
2003.
sickness allowance equivalent to his basic
NLRC rendered a decision reversing that of
wage until he is declared fit to work or the
the
Labor
Arbiter
and
dismissed
degree of permanent disability has been
respondents complaint for lack of merit.
assessed by the company-designated
Under the POEA Standard Employment
physician but in no case shall exceed one
Contract (Article 1159, Civil Code of the
hundred twenty (120) days.
Philippines).
For this purpose the seafarer shall submit
Court of Appeals rendered the herein
himself to a post-employment medical
challenged Decision setting aside the
examination by a company designated
decision of the NLRC and reinstating that
physician within three working days upon
of the labor arbiter. That the companyhis return except when he is physically
designated physician did declare that
incapacitated to do so, in which case, a
petitioner is fit to sea duty should not
written notice to the agency within the
prejudice petitioners claim for disability
same period is deemed as compliance.
benefits. In the first instance, it is well to
Failure of the seafarer to comply with the
note that there is doubt and question as to
mandatory reporting requirement shall
the accuracy of the declaration of the Dr.
resort in his forfeiture of the right to claim
Alegres cleared to work resumption as
the above benefits.
seafarer. Such certification should not be
Moreover, Section 20 (B), no. 2, paragraph
taken as the only primary consideration,
2 of the POEA Contract provides:
especially when there is contra finding by
However, if after the repatriation the
another doctor giving doubt to the findings
seafarer still requires medical attention
of the company-designated physician.
arising from said injury or illness, he shall
As held in the case of Wallem Maritime
be so provided at cost to the employer
Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, opinions of
until such time he is declared fit or the
petitioners doctor to this effect should not
degree of his disability has been
be given evidentiary weight as they are
established by the company-designated
palpably self-serving and biased in favor of
physician.
petitioners, and certainly could not be
These provisions clearly illustrate that
considered independent.
respondents disability can only be
Petitioner having substantially established
assessed by the company-designated
that he could not able to perform the
physician.
If the company-designated
same work as he used to before his
physician declares him fit to work, then
repatriation, and was found both by his
the seaman is bound by such declaration.
independent physician and Gleneagles
Further, it should be noted that the claim
Hospital in Singapore suffering from
for sickness and permanent disability
severe hypertension as well as other
benefits arose from the stipulations in the

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
standard format contract of employment
accept the assessment made by the
pursuant to a circular of the POEA. Such
company-designated physician that he is
circular was intended for all parties
fit to work.
involved in the employment of Filipino
Under the Standard Terms and
seamen on board any ocean-going vessel.
[6]
The POEA Contract, of which the
Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going
parties are both signatories, is the law
Vessel or the POEA Contract issued
between them and as such, its provisions
pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 4
bind both of them.[7] Thus, the parties
and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 9,
are both bound by the provisions of the
both Series of 2000, respondent could not
POEA Contract which declares that the
disregard the findings of the companydegree of disability or fitness to work of a
designated physician.
Section 20-B,
seafarer should be assessed by the
paragraph 3 of the POEA Contract
company-designated physician.
provides.
In German Marine Agencies v. NLRC, [8]
It is beyond cavil that it is the companythe Court explicitly laid that it is the
designated physician who is entrusted
company-designated physician who should
with the task of assessing the seamans
determine the degree of disability of the
disability.
But under the aforecited
seaman or his fitness to work, thus: In
provision, when the seamans private
order to claim disability benefits under the
physician disagrees with the assessment
Standard Employment Contract, it is the
of the company-designated physician, as
company-designated
physician
who
here, a third doctors opinion may be
must proclaim that the seaman suffered a
availed of in determining his disability.
permanent disability, whether total or
This however was not resorted to by the
partial, due to either injury or illness,
parties. As such, the credibility of the
during
the
term
of
the
latters
findings of their respective doctors was
employment. It is a cardinal rule in the
properly evaluated by the NLRC.
interpretation of contracts that if the
The Court has applied the Labor Code
terms of a contract are clear and leave no
concept of permanent total disability to
doubt upon the
intention of the
the case of seafarers. In a catena of
contracting parties, the literal meaning of
cases,[10] the Court declared that
its stipulation shall control. There is no
disability should not be understood more
ambiguity in the wording of the Standard
on its medical significance but on the loss
Employment
Contract
the
only
of earning capacity.
Permanent total
qualification prescribed for the physician
disability means disablement of an
entrusted with the task of assessing the
employee to earn wages in the same kind
seamans disability is that he be
of work, or work of similar nature that he
company-designated.
was trained for or accustomed to perform,
Again, in Benjamin L. Sarocam v.
or any kind of work which a person of his
Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc., and
mentality and attainment could do. In
Demaco United Ltd, [9] the Court ruled
addition, the Court in GSIS v. Cadiz[11]
that the opinion of the companyand Ijares v. CA[12] held that permanent
designated physician should be upheld
disability is the inability of a worker to
over that of the doctors appointed by the
perform his job for more than 120 days,
seafarer considering that the basis of the
regardless of whether or not he loses the
findings of the seafarers doctor are the
use of any part of his body.
medical
findings
of
the
company
The
company-designated
physician
physician.
cleared respondent for work resumption
Undoubtedly,
jurisprudence
is
upon finding that his infection has
replete with pronouncements that it is the
subsided after successful medication. We
company-designated physicians findings
agree with the NLRC that the doctor more
which should form the basis of any
qualified to assess the disability grade of
disability claim of the seafarer. In this
the respondent seaman is the doctor who
particular case, respondent refused to
regularly monitored and treated him. The

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
company-designated physician possessed
Sailor Antonio Serrano entered into
personal
knowledge
of
the
actual
a
12-month
overseas
employment
condition of respondent.
Since the
contract
with
respondents
Gallant
company-designated physician in this case
Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow
deemed the respondent as fit to work,
Navigation Co., Ltd., initially signing up for
then such declaration should be given
the position of Chief Officer. Sailor
credence, considering the amount of time
Serrano, however, was persuaded to
and effort the company doctor gave to
submit to a downgraded contract as
monitoring and treating respondents
Second Officer, on the assurance of
condition.
It is undisputed that the
eventual promotion to Chief Officer by the
recommendation of Dr. Vicaldo was based
end of the following month. Having
on a single medical report which outlined
wandered around respondents ship for
the alleged findings and medical history of
more than two months without being
respondent despite the fact that Dr.
granted any promotion whatsoever, he
Vicaldo treated or examined respondent
refused to stay on as Second Officer and
only once.
was repatriated back to the Philippines,
On the other hand, the companywith still nine (9) months and twentydesignated
physician
outlined
the
three (23) days left unserved. Sailor
progress
of
respondents
successful
Serrano afterwards filed a complaint with
treatment over a period of several months
the Labor Arbiter, charging respondents
in several reports, as can be gleaned from
with
constructive
dismissal
and
the record. As between the findings of the
demanding that he be paid the salary as
company-designated
physician
(Dr.
corresponds to the remaining term of his
Alegre) and the physician appointed by
contract. The Arbiter ruled for him,
respondent (Dr. Vicaldo), the former
concluding that there was illegal dismissal;
deserves to be given greater evidentiary
however, Sailor Serrano was only awarded
weight.
with salary equivalent to 3 months. The
All told, the Court finds and so rules that
Arbiter relied on Section 10, parag. 5 of
the CA committed reversible error in
R.A. 8042 (the Migrant Workers and
ignoring the medical assessment of the
Overseas Filipino Act of 1995), which puts
company-designated
physician
that
forth that
respondent
was
cleared
for
work
resumption as a seafarer and granting
respondents claim for disability on the
basis of a single medical examination
contract, the workers shall be entitled to
report of respondents appointed physician
contrary to the clear, unambiguous
fee with interest of twelve percent (12%)
provisions regarding disability benefit
per annum, plus his salaries for the
claims contained in the POEA Contract
unexpired portion of his employment
between the parties.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
GRANTED. The assailed decision of the
less.
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97098
Gritty, our man now condemns the
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision
provision as unconstitutional, wailing how
of the NLRC, 2nd Division, is hereby
it impairs the terms of their contract,
REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.
deprives them of equal protection and
denies them due process.
123. Antonio M. Serrano vs. Gallant
Maritime
Services,
Inc.
and
SC Ruling:
Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. [GR
Though it scoffed at the argument
No. 167614 March 24, 2009]
that the law unduly impairs their contract
enacted in 1995, the law is thus deemed
Facts:
read into the agreement forged between
the parties in 1998 the Court, with

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
straitlaced
hesitation, declared the
Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion,
assailed clause for three (3) months for
Inc. (Becmen) to serve as assistant nurse
in Al-Birk Hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi
whichever is less unconstitutional, in that
Arabia (KSA), for a contract duration of
it did deny workers in similar situations
three years, with a corresponding salary of
(particularly OFWs) the right to equal
US$247.00 per month.
protection and due process.
Over a year later, she died allegedly of
the subject clause creates a
poisoning.
sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs**
Jessie Fajardo, a co-worker of
those who are illegally dismissed with
Jasmin, narrated that on June 21, 1998,
less than one year left in their contracts
Jasmin was found dead by a female
shall be entitled to their salaries for the
cleaner lying on the floor inside her
entire unexpired portion thereof, while
dormitory room with her mouth foaming
those who are illegally dismissed with one
and smelling of poison.
year or more remaining in their contracts
Based on the police report and the
shall be covered by the subject clause,
medical report of the examining physician
and their monetary benefits limited to
of the Al-Birk Hospital, who conducted an
their salaries for three months only.
autopsy of Jasmin's body, the likely cause
Further magnifying the clauses
of her death was poisoning.
incompatibility with the right to equal
Jasmin's body was repatriated to
protection of laws is the fact that it
Manila on September 3, 1998. The
deprives overseas workers of a benefit
following day, the City Health Officer of
granted without exception to domestic
Cabanatuan City conducted an autopsy
workers (the right to recover in cases of
and the resulting medical report indicated
illegal dismissal the salary for the entire
that
Jasmin
died
under
violent
unexpired portion of the contract), with
circumstances, and not poisoning as
the government not being able to prove
originally found by the KSA examining
any compelling state interest warranting
physician. The City Health Officer found
such damaging discrimination. As a matter
that Jasmin had abrasions at her inner lip
of fact, before the laws enactment, both
and
gums;
lacerated
wounds
and
domestic and overseas workers enjoyed
abrasions on her left and right ears;
the same right.
lacerated
wounds
and
hematoma
...the subject clause contains a
(contusions) on her elbows; abrasions and
suspect classification in that, in the
hematoma on her thigh and legs; intracomputation of the monetary benefits of
muscular hemorrhage at the anterior
fixed-term employees who are illegally
chest; rib fracture; puncture wounds; and
discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on
abrasions on the labia minora of the
the claim of OFWs with an unexpired
vaginal area.
portion of one year or more in their
On March 11, 1999, Jasmin's remains were
contracts, but none on the claims of other
exhumed and examined by the National
OFWs or local workers with fixed-term
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The
employment. The subject clause singles
toxicology report of the NBI, however,
out one classification of OFWs and
tested negative for non-volatile, metallic
burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.
poison and insecticides.
Bravo, sailor.
Simplicio
and
Mila
Cuaresma
(the
Cuaresmas), Jasmin's parents and her
124. Becmen Service Exporter and
surviving heirs,
received from
the
Promotion Inc., vs. Sps. Cuaresma
Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
[GR No. 182978-79 & 184298-99,
(OWWA)
the
following
amounts:
April 7, 2009]
P50,000.00 for death benefits; P50,000.00
for loss of life; P20,000.00 for funeral
Facts:
expenses; and P10,000.00 for medical
On January 6, 1997, Jasmin
reimbursement.
Cuaresma (Jasmin) was deployed by

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
On November 22, 1999, the Cuaresmas
one area which their employers should be
filed a complaint against Becmen and its
made accountable for.
principal in the KSA, Rajab & Silsilah
However, giving in handily to the idea that
Company (Rajab), claiming death and
Jasmin committed suicide, and adamantly
insurance benefits, as well as moral and
insisting on it just to protect Rajab and
exemplary damages for Jasmin's death.
Becmen's material interest despite
Issue:
evidence to the contrary is against the
Whether
the
Cuaresmas
are
moral law and runs contrary to the good
entitled to monetary claims, by way of
custom of not denouncing one's fellowmen
benefits and damages, for the death of
for alleged grave wrongdoings that
their daughter Jasmin.
undermine their good name and honor.
Ruling:
Whether employed locally or overseas, all
The agreement between Jasmin
Filipino workers enjoy the protective
and employer Rajab does not include
mantle of Philippine labor and social
provisions for insurance, or for accident,
legislation, contract stipulations to the
death or other benefits that the
contrary
notwithstanding.
This
Cuaresmas seek to recover, and which the
pronouncement is in keeping with the
labor tribunals and appellate court
basic public policy of the State to afford
granted variably in the guise
of
protection
to
labor,
promote
full
compensatory damages.
employment,
ensure
equal
work
However, the absence of provisions for
opportunities regardless of sex, race or
social security and other benefits does not
creed, and regulate the relations between
make Jasmin's employment contract
workers and employers. This ruling is
infirm. Under KSA law, her foreign
likewise rendered imperative by Article 17
employer is not obliged to provide her
of the Civil Code which states that laws
these benefits; and neither is Jasmin
which have for their object public order,
entitled to minimum wage unless of
public policy and good customs shall not
course the KSA labor laws have been
be rendered ineffective by laws or
amended to the opposite effect, or that a
judgments
promulgated,
or
by
bilateral wage agreement has been
determinations or conventions agreed
entered into.
upon in a foreign country.
At the time of her death, she was not on
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Court
duty, or else evidence to the contrary
holds that the Cuaresmas are entitled to
would have been adduced. Neither was
moral damages, which Becmen and White
she within hospital premises at the time.
Falcon are jointly and solidarily liable to
Instead, she was at her dormitory room on
pay, together with exemplary damages for
personal time when she died. Neither has
wanton and oppressive behavior, and by
it been shown, nor does the evidence
way of example for the public good.
suggest, that at the time she died, Jasmin
was performing an act reasonably
necessary or incidental to her employment
125. People of the Philippines vs.
as nurse, because she was at her
Larry Lauro Domingo [GR No.
dormitory room. It is reasonable to
181475 April 07, 2009]
suppose that all her work is performed at
the Al-Birk Hospital, and not at her
FACTS:
dormitory room.
Larry
"Lauro"
Domingo
was
It is not fair to require employers to
accused of the crime of illegal recruitment
answer even for their employees' personal
for recruiting and/or placing several
time away from work, which the latter are
workers
under
local
or
overseas
free to spend of their own choosing.
employment despite being a non-licensee
Whether they choose to spend their free
or non-holder of authority from the
time in the pursuit of safe or perilous
Department of Labor and Employment.
undertakings, in the company of friends or
This offense involved economic sabotage,
strangers, lovers or enemies, this is not
as it was committed in large scale.

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
Informations for 23 counts of Estafa
employment to two or more persons shall
were also filed, all of which were similarly
be deemed engaged in recruitment and
worded but varying with respect to the
placement. (Emphasis supplied)
name of each complainant and the
On the other hand, Article 38, paragraph
amount which each purportedly gave to
(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, under
appellant.
which the accused stands charged,
Of the 23 complainants, only five
provides:
testified. One complainant later recanted
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. - (a) Any
his testimony. The substance of their
recruitment
activities,
including
the
respective testimonies state that Domingo
prohibited practices enumerated under
deceived the complainants by assuring
Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken
them of employment abroad provided that
by non-licensees or non-holders of
they submit certain documents and pay
authority shall be deemed illegal and
the required placement fee and that
punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
complainants paid appellant the amount
The Ministry of Labor and Employment or
he asked on account of appellants
any law enforcement officer may initiate
representations which turned out to be
complaints under this Article.
false.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by
By Joint Decision dated October 19,
a syndicate or in large scale shall be
2004, the trial court found appellant guilty
considered an offense involving economic
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
sabotage and shall be penalized in
Recruitment (Large Scale) and of 2 counts
accordance with Article 39 hereof.
of Estafa
Illegal recruitment is deemed
The appellate court affirmed the
committed by a syndicate if carried out by
trial courts decision holding that the
a group of three (3) or more persons
straightforward and consistent testimonies
conspiring and/or confederating with one
of the complaining witnesses sufficiently
another in carrying out any unlawful or
supported the trial courts conclusion that
illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme
appellant undertook recruitment activities
defined under the first paragraph hereof.
beginning September up to December
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed
1999 in Malolos, Bulacan without the
in large scale if committed against three
license therefor, and failed to deploy those
(3) or more persons individually or as a
he recruited.
group. (Emphasis supplied)
As for the estafa cases, the
From the foregoing provisions, it is
appellate court held that the elements
clear that any recruitment activities to be
constituting the crime were sufficiently
undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder
established.
of authority shall be deemed illegal and
Hence, the present appeal.
punishable under Article 39 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines. Illegal recruitment
SC RULING:
is deemed committed in large scale if
The appeal is bereft of merit.
committed against three (3) or more
The
term
"recruitment
and
persons individually or as a group.
placement" is defined under Article 13(b)
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale,
of the Labor Code of the Philippines as
the prosecution must prove three essential
follows:
elements, to wit: (1) the person charged
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to
undertook a recruitment activity under
any
act
of
canvassing,
enlisting,
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring,
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2)
or procuring workers, and includes
he/she did not have the license or the
referrals, contract services, promising or
authority to lawfully engage in the
advertising for employment, locally or
recruitment and placement of workers;
abroad, whether for profit or not. Provided,
and (3) he/she committed the prohibited
That any person or entity which, in any
practice against three or more persons
manner, offers or promises for a fee
individually or as a group.7

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
The
Court
finds
that
the
probationary period which was under the
prosecution ably discharged its onus of
Memorandum of Agreement.
proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Ministry
denied
respondents
of appellant of the crimes charged.
request and she returned to the
That no receipt or document in
Philippines shouldering her own fair.
which appellant acknowledged receipt of
Respondent filed with the National
money for the promised jobs was adduced
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a
in evidence does not free him of liability.
complaint against ATCI forillegal dismissal.
For even if at the time appellant was
Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor
promising employment no cash was given
of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her
to him, he is still considered as having
$3,600.00, her salary for the three months
been engaged in recruitment activities,
unexpired portion of the contract.
since Article 13(b) of the Labor Code
ATCI appealed Labor Arbiters
states that the act of recruitment may be
decision, however, NLRC affirmed the
for profit or not. It suffices that appellant
latters decision and denied petitioner
promised or offered employment for a fee
ATCIs
motion
for
reconsideration.
to the complaining witnesses to warrant
Petitioner appealed to the Court Appeals
his conviction for illegal recruitment.
contending that their principal being a
That one of the original complaining
foreign government agency is immune
witnesses, Cabigao, later recanted, via an
from suit, and as such, immunity extended
affidavit and his testimony in open court,
to them.
does not necessarily cancel an earlier
Appellate Court affirmed NLRCs
declaration. Like any other testimony, the
decision. It noted that under the law, a
same is subject to the test of credibility
private employment agency shall assume
and should be received with caution.8 For
all responsibilities for the implementation
a testimony solemnly given in court
of the contract of employment of an
should not be set aside lightly, least of all
overseas worker; hence, it can be sued
by a mere affidavit executed after the
jointly and severally with the foreign
lapse of considerable time. In the case at
principal for any violation of the
bar, the Affidavit of Recantation was
recruitment agreement or contract of
executed three years after the complaint
employment.
was filed. It is thus not unreasonable to
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was
consider his retraction an afterthought to
denied; hence, this present petition.
deny its probative value.
Issue:
AT ALL EVENTS, the Court finds that the
Whether or not petitioners be held
prosecution evidence consisting of the
liable considering that the contract
testimonies of the four complainants,
specifically stipulates that respondents
whose credibility has not been impaired,
employment shall be governed by the Civil
has not been overcome.
Service Law and Regulations of Kuwait.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Ruling:
Court
denied
the
petition.
126. ATCI Overseas Corp. et al., vs.
According to RA 8042:The obligations
Echin [GR No. 178551, October 11,
covenanted in the recruitment agreement
2010]
entered into by and between the local
Facts:
agent and its foreign principal are not
Respondent Echin was hired by
coterminous with the term of such
petitioner ATCI in behalf of its principal coagreement so that if either or both of the
petitioner, Ministry of Public Health of
parties decide to end the agreement, the
Kuwait, for the position of medical
responsibilities of such parties towards the
technologist under a two-year contract
contracted
employees
under
the
with
a
monthly
salary
of
agreement do not at all end, but the same
US$1,200.00.Within a year, Respondent
extends up to and until the expiration of
was terminated for not passing the
the
employment
contracts
of
the
employees
recruited
and
employed

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
pursuant
to
the
said
recruitment
under Article 285 of the LC. The LA gave
agreement. In international law, the party
credence to the telex of the masters
who wants to have a foreign law applied to
report
that
the
seafarers
indeed
a dispute or case has the burden of
demanded immediate repatriation.
proving the foreign law.
The NLRC agreed with the LAs
Where a foreign law is not pleaded
decision.
or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the
The CA however reversed the LAs
presumption is that foreignlaw is the same
and the NLRCs decision. The Court
as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor
deemed the telex message as a self
laws in determining the issues presented
-serving document that does not satisfy
before us.
the requirement of substantial evidence,
Skippers United Pacific vs. Doza et al., [GR
or that amount of relevant evidence which
No. 175558, February 8, 2012]
a reasonable mind might accept as
Facts:
adequate to justify the conclusion that
Petitioner deployed De Gracia, Lata
petitioners indeed voluntarily demanded
and Aprosta to work on board the vessel
their immediate repatriation.
MV Wisdom Star. On December 3 1998,
Issue:
Skippers alleges that De Garcia smelling
Whether or not the seafarers
strongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of
demand for immediate repatriation can be
Gabriel Oleszek, MV Wisdom Stars Master.
considered an act of voluntary resignation.
Skippers claims that he was rude and
Ruling:
shouted noisily to the master. De Gracia
For a worker's dismissal to be
left the masters cabin after a few minutes
considered valid, it must comply with both
and was heard shouting very loudly
procedural and substantive due process.
somewhere down the corridors. The
The legality of the manner of dismissal
incident was evidenced by the Captains
constitutes procedural due process, while
Report sent on said date.
the legality of the act of dismissal
Furthermore, Skippers also claim
constitutes substantive due process.
that on January 22, 1999, Aprosta, De
Procedural due process in dismissal cases
Gracia, Lata and Daza arrived in the
consists of the twin requirements of notice
masters cabin and demanded immediate
and hearing. The employer must furnish
repatriation because they were not
the employee with two written notices
satisfied with the ship. De Gracia, et al.
before the termination of employment can
threatened that they may become crazy
be effected: (1) the first notice apprises
any moment and demanded for all
the employee of the particular acts or
outstanding payments due to them. The
omissions for which his dismissal is
incident is evidenced by a telex of Cosmo
sought; and (2) the second notice informs
ship MV Wisdom to skippers but had
the employee of the employer's decision
conflicting dates. De Gracia claims that
to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the
Skippers failed to remit their respective
second notice, the requirement of a
allotments, compelling them to vent their
hearing must be complied with by giving
grievances with the Romanian Seafarers
the worker an opportunity to be heard. It
Union. On January 28, 1999, the Filipino
is not necessary that an actual hearing be
seafarers
were
unceremoniously
conducted. Substantive due process, on
discharged and immediately repatriated.
the other hand, requires that dismissal by
Upon arrival in the Philippines, they filed a
the employer be made under a just or
complaint for illegal dismissal with the LA.
authorized cause under Articles282 to 284
The
LA
dismissed
the
of the Labor Code. In this case, there was
seafarerscomplaint
as
the
no written notice furnished to De Gracia,
seafarersdemand
for
immediate
et al., regarding the cause of their
repatriation due to the dissatisfaction with
dismissal. Cosmo ship furnished a written
the ship is considered a voluntary prenotice (telex) to Skippers, the local
termination of employment. Such act was
manning agency, claiming that De Gracia,
deemed akin to resignation recognized
et al., were repatriated because the latter

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts.
month basic wage. He insisted that he was
This telex was given credibility and weight
entitled tothe payment of the unexpired
by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in deciding
portion of his contract since he was
that there was pre-termination of the
illegally dismissed from employment. He
employment contract "akin to resignation"
alleged that heopted for immediate
and no illegal dismissal. However, as
transfer but none was made.
correctly ruled by the CA, the telex
message is "a biased and self-serving
Issue: Whether or not Section 10 of R.A.
document that does not satisfy the
[No.] 8042, to the extent that it affords an
requirement of substantial evidence." If,
illegally
dismissed
migrant
worker
indeed, De Gracia, et al., voluntarily prethelesser benefit of "salaries for [the]
terminated their contracts, then De
Gracia, et al., should have submitted their
written resignations. Article 285 of the
yearof the unexpired term, whichever is
Labor Code recognizes termination by the
less" is unconstitutional.
employee of the employment contract by
"serving written notice on the employer at
Held: Yes. As a general rule, an
least one (1) month in advance." Given
unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers
that provision, the law contemplates the
no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords
requirement of a written notice of
no protection; it creates no office; it is
resignation. In the absence of a written
inoperative as if it has not been passed at
resignation, it is safe to presume that the
all. The doctrine of operative fact serves
employer terminated the seafarers. In
as anexception to the aforementioned
addition, the telex message relied upon by
general rule.The doctrine of operative fact,
the Labor Arbiter and NLRC bore
as an exception to the general rule, only
conflicting dates of 22 January 1998 and
applies as a matter of equity and fair play.
22 January 1999, giving doubt to the
It
nullifies
the
effects
of
an
veracity and authenticity of the document.
unconstitutional law by recognizing that
In 22 January 1998, De Gracia, et al., were
the existence of a statute prior to a
not even employed yet by the foreign
determination of unconstitutionality is an
principal.
operative
fact
and
may
have
consequences which cannot always be
127. Yap
vs.
Thenamaris
Ship
ignored. The past cannot always be erased
Management et al., G.R. No. 179532,
by a new judicial declaration
May 30, 2011
.
The doctrine is applicable when a
declaration
of
unconstitutionalitywill
Facts:
impose
an
undue
burden
on those who
Claudio S. Yap was employed as electrician
have relied on the invalid law. Following
of the vessel, M/T SEASCOUT on 14 August
Serrano, we hold that this case should not
2001 by Intermare MaritimeAgencies, Inc.
be included in the aforementioned
in behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping
exception. To rule otherwisewould be
Limited. for a duration of 12 months. On
iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs,
23
August
2001,
Yapboarded
M/T
and would, in effect, send a wrong signal
SEASCOUT and commenced his job as
that
principals/employers
and
electrician. However, on or about 08
recruitment/manning agencies may violate
November 2001, the vessel wassold. Yap,
an OFWs security of tenure which an
along with the other crewmembers, was
employment contract embodies and
informed by the Master of their vessel that
actually profit from such violation based
the
same
was
sold
and
willbe
on an unconstitutional provision of law.
scrapped.Yap received his seniority bonus,
vacation bonus, extra bonus along with
the scrapping bonus. However, with
respect tothe payment of his wage, he
refused to accept the payment of one-

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
128. Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs.
relevant evidence which a reasonable
Doza, G.R. No. 175558, February
mind might accept as adequate to justify
8, 2012
the conclusion that petitioners indeed
voluntarily demanded their immediate
Facts: Petitioner deployed De Gracia, Lata
repatriation. Aggrieved, Skippers appeals
and Aprosta to work on board the vessel
the case with the Supreme Court.
MV Wisdom Star. On December 3 1998,
Skippers alleges that De Garcia smelling
Issue:
strongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of
Whether or not the seafarers demand for
Gabriel Oleszek, MV Wisdom Stars Master.
immediate repatriation can be conside
Skippers claims that he was rude and
red an act of voluntary resignation.
shouted noisily to the master. De Gracia
left the masters cabin after a few minutes
Held:
and was heard shouting very loudly
For a worker's dismissal to be considered
somewhere down the corridors. The
valid, it must comply with both procedural
incident was evidenced by the Captains
and substantive due process. The legality
Report sent on said date.
of the manner of dismissal constitutes
Furthermore, Skippers also claim that on
procedural due process, while the legality
January 22, 1999, Aprosta, De Gracia, Lata
of the act of dismissal constitutes
and Daza arrived in the masters cabin
substantive due process. Procedural due
and demanded immediate repatriation
process in dismissal cases consists of the
because they were not satisfied with the
twin requirements of notice and hearing.
ship. De Gracia, et al. threatened that they
The employer must furnish the employee
may become crazy any moment and
with two written notices before the
demanded for all outstanding payments
termination of employment can be
due to them. The incident is evidenced by
effected: (1) the first notice apprises the
a telex of Cosmoship MV Wisdom to
employee of the particular acts or
skippers but had conflicting dates. De
omissions for which his dismissal is
Gracia claims that Skippers failed to remit
sought; and (2) the second notice informs
their respective allotments, compelling
the employee of the employer's decision
them to vent their grievances with the
to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the
Romanian Seafarers Union. On January 28,
second notice, the requirement of a
1999,
the
Filipino
seafarers
were
hearing must be complied with by giving
unceremoniously
discharged
and
the worker an opportunity to be heard. It
immediately repatriated. Upon arrival in
is not necessary that an actual hearing be
the Philippines, they filed a complaint for
conducted. Substantive due process, on
illegal dismissal with the LA. The LA
the other hand, requires that dismissal by
dismissed the seafarers complaint as the
the employer be made under a just or
seafarers
demand
for
immediate
authorized cause under Articles 282 to
repatriation due to the dissatisfaction with
284 of the Labor Code. In this case, there
the ship is considered a voluntary prewas no written notice furnished to De
termination of employment. Such act was
Gracia, et al., regarding the cause of their
deemed akin to resignation recognized
dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written
under Article 285 of the LC. The LA gave
notice (telex) to Skippers, the local
credence to the telex of the masters
manning agency, claiming that De Gracia,
report
that
the
seafarers
indeed
et al., were repatriated because the latter
demanded immediate repatriation.
voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts.
This telex was given credibility and weight
by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in deciding
The NLRC agreed with the LAs decision.
that there was pre-termination of the
The CA however reversed the LAs and the
employment contract "akin to resignation"
NLRCs decision. The Court deemed the
and no illegal dismissal. However, as
telex message as a self-serving document
correctly ruled by the CA, the telex
that does not satisfy the requirement of
message is "a biased and self-serving
substantial evidence, or that amount of

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
document that does not satisfy the
and that his last day of work with Petrocon
requirement of substantial evidence." If,
will be on July 1, 1998. Petrocon also
indeed, De Gracia, et al., voluntarily preinformed respondent that all due benefits
terminated their contracts, then De
in accordance with the terms and
Gracia, et al., should have submitted their
conditions of his employment contract will
written resignations.
be paid to respondent, including his ticket
back to the Philippines. Before his
departure from Saudi Arabia, respondent
received his final paycheck from Petrocon
Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes
amounting SR7, 488.57.Upon his return,
termination by the employee of the
respondent filed a complaint with the
employment contract by "serving written
Regional Arbitration Branch VII, National
notice on the employer at least one (1)
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Cebu
month in advance." Given that provision,
City, against petitioner as the recruitment
the law contemplates the requirement of a
agency
which
employed
him
for
written notice of resignation. In the
employment
abroad.
In
filing
the
absence of a written resignation, it is safe
complaint, respondent sought to recover
to presume that the employer terminated
his unearned salaries covering the
the seafarers. In addition, the telex
message relied upon by the Labor Arbiter
contract with Petrocon on the ground that
and NLRC bore conflicting dates of 22
he was illegally dismissed. The Labor
January 1998 and 22 January 1999, giving
Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the
doubt to the veracity and authenticity of
respondent and ordered petitioner to pay
the document. In 22 January 1998, De
the peso equivalent of US$5,600.00 based
Gracia, et al., were not even employed yet
on the rate at the time of actual payment,
by the foreign principal.
as payment of his wages for the unexpired
portion of his contract of employment. The
129. International
Management
NLRC on appeal
Services vs. Logarta [GR No.
affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision but
163657, April 18, 2012]
reduced the award to only US$4,800.00 or
Facts:
its peso equivalent at the time of
Recruitment agency, International
payment. The CA likewise dismissed the
Management Services (IMS), owned and
petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.
operated by Marilyn C. Pascual, deployed
Issue:
respondent Roel P.Logarta to work for
Whether
or
not
respondents
Petrocon Arabia Limited (Petrocon) in
dismissal through retrenchment illegal.
Alkhobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in
Ruling:
connection with general engineering
No. Retrenchment is the reduction
services of Petrocon for the Saudi Arabian
of work personnel usually due to poor
Oil Company (Saudi Aramco). Respondent
financial returns, aimed to cut down costs
was employed for a period of two (2)
for operation particularly on salaries and
years, commencing on October 2, 1997,
wages. It is one of the economic grounds
with a monthly salary of eight hundred US
to dismiss employees and is resorted by
Dollars (US$800.00).On April 29, 1998,
an employer primarily to avoid or
Saudi Aramco notified Petrocon that due
minimize business losses. Retrenchment
to changes in the general engineering
programs are purely business decisions
services work forecast for 1998, the manwithin the purview of a valid and
hours that were formerly allotted to
reasonable exercise of management
Petrocon is going to be reduced by 40%
prerogative. It is one way of downsizing an
which constrained Petrocon to reduce its
employer's workforce and is often resorted
personnel. Thus, on June 1, 1998, Petrocon
to by the employer during periods of
gave
respondent
a
written
notice
business recession, industrial depression,
informing the latter that due to the lack of
or seasonal fluctuations, and during lulls in
project works related to his expertise, he
production occasioned by lack of orders,
is given a 30-day notice of termination,

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
shortage of materials, conversion of the
the considerable reduction of work
plant for a new production program, or
allotments of Petrocon by Saudi Aramco
introduction of new methods or more
was sufficient basis for Petrocon to reduce
efficient machinery or automation. It is a
the number of its personnel. As for the
valid management prerogative, provided it
notice requirement, however, contrary to
is done in good faith and the employer
petitioner's contention, proper notice to
faithfully complies with the substantive
the DOLE within 30 days prior to the
and procedural requirements laid down by
intended
date
of
retrenchment
is
law and jurisprudence. Philippine Law
necessary and must be complied with
recognizes retrenchment as a valid cause
despite the fact that respondent is an
for the dismissal of a migrant or overseas
overseas Filipino worker. In the present
Filipino worker under Article 283 of the
case, although respondent was duly
Labor Code. Thus, retrenchment is a valid
notified of his termination by Petrocon 30
exercise of management prerogative
days before its effectivity, no allegation or
subject to the strict requirements set by
proof was advanced by petitioner to
jurisprudence,
to
wit:(1)That
the
establish that Petrocon ever sent a notice
retrenchment is reasonably necessary and
to the DOLE 30 days before the
likely to prevent business losses which, if
respondent was terminated. Thus, this
already incurred, are not merely de
requirement of the law was not complied
minimis, but substantial, serious, actual
with. In the case at bar, despite the fact
and real, or if only expected, are
that respondent was employed by
reasonably
imminent
as
perceived
Petrocon as an OFW in Saudi Arabia, still
objectively and in good faith by the
both he and his employer are subject to
employer;(2)That the employer served
the provisions of the Labor Code when
written notice both to the employees and
applicable. The basic policy in this
to the Department of Labor and
jurisdiction is that all Filipino workers,
Employment at least one month prior to
whether employed locally or overseas,
the intended date of retrenchment;(3)That
enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine
the employer pays the retrenched
labor and social legislations. Also,
employees separation pay equivalent to
respondent is entitled to the payment of
one month pay or at least 1/2 month pay
his separation pay. However, this Court
for every year of service, whichever is
disagrees with the conclusion of the Labor
higher;(4)That the employer exercises its
Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, that
prerogative to retrench employees in good
respondent should be paid his separation
faith for the advancement of its interest
pay in accordance with the provision of
and not to defeat or circumvent the
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. A plain
employees' right to security of tenure;
reading of the said provision clearly
and(5)That the employer used fair and
reveals that it applies only to an illegally
reasonable criteria in ascertaining who
dismissed overseas contract worker or a
would be dismissed and who would be
worker
dismissed
from
overseas
retained among the employees, such as
status,efficiency,
seniority,
physical
authorized cause. In the case at bar,
fitness, age, and financial hardship for
notwithstanding the fact that respondent's
certain workers.28Applying the abovetermination from his employment was
stated requisites for a valid retrenchment
procedurally infirm, having not complied
in the case at bar, it is apparent that the
with the notice requirement, nevertheless
first, fourth and fifth requirements were
the same remains to be for a just, valid
complied with by respondent's employer.
and authorized cause,i.e., retrenchment as
However, the second and third requisites
a
valid
exercise
of
management
were absent when Petrocon terminated
prerogative. To stress, despite the
the services of respondent. As aptly found
employer's failure to comply with the oneby the NLRC and justly sustained by the
month notice to the DOLE prior to
CA, Petrocon exercised its prerogative to
respondents termination, it is only a
retrench its employees in good faith and
procedural infirmity which does not render

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
the retrenchment illegal. In Agabon v.
repeatedly complainedwith their agency
NLRC, this Court ruled that when the
about their predicament but to no avail.
dismissal is for a just cause, the absence
Respondents resigned from their jobciting
of proper notice should not nullify the
personal/family
problems
for
their
dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual.
resignation except for Era who mentioned
Instead, the employer should indemnify
the realreason which is due to the
the employee for violation of his statutory
company policy. After several weeks,
rights. Consequently, it is Article 283 of
petitioner repatriated the respondent to
the Labor Code and not Section 10 of R.A.
the Philippines who shouldered their own
No. 8042 that is controlling. Thus,
airfare except for Ordovez and Enjambre.
respondent is entitled to payment of
The
agency
countered
that
the
separation pay equivalent to one (1)
respondents werenot illegally dismissed
month pay, or at least one-half (1/2)
alleging that the respondents voluntarily
month pay for every year of service,
resigned from their employmentto seek a
whichever is higher. Considering that
better paying job. The agency furthered
respondent was employed by Petrocon for
alleged that the respondents even
a period of eight (8) months, he is entitled
voluntarilysigned affidavits of quitclaim
to receive one (1) month pay as
and release.Labor Arbiter dismissed the
separation pay. In addition, pursuant to
complaint finding that the respondent
current jurisprudence, for failure to fully
voluntarily resigned from their
job.
comply with the statutory due process of
Respondent appealed to the NLRC which
sufficient notice, respondent is entitled to
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
nominal
damages
in
the
amount
andfound that the respondents were
P50,000.00.
illegally dismissed. NLRC also pointed out
that the signing of adifferent employment
130. Pert/Cpm Manpower Exponent
contract in Dubai is illegal. Consequently
Co., Inc. vs. Vinuya et al., G.R. No.
NLRC ordered the agency andthe principal
197528, September 8, 2012
to pay, jointly and severally the
respondents salary, placement fee, and
FACTS:
exemplarydamages. The petitioner filed a
On March 5, 2008, respondent Vinuya et
motion for reconsideration which was
al.
filed
a
complaint
for
illegal
denied by the NLRC butmodified their
dismissalagainst the petitioner Pert/CPM
judgment
adjusting
the
awards
and its President with labor arbiter
particularly the payment of their salaries
alleging among others that theagency
in the lightof the Courts ruling in Serrano
deployed them to work as aluminium
striking down the clause in Section 10,
fabricator/installer
for
the
agencys
paragraph 5 of the RA8042 which limits
principal,Modern Metal in Dubai, United
the entitlement of illegally dismissed OFW.
Arab Emirates for a two-year employment
The
agency
again
moved
for
whose contracts wereapproved by the
reconsideration reiterating its earlier
POEA providing for nine-hours working
argument and questioned the applicability
day,
salary
of
1,350
AED
with
of the Serranoruling because it is not yet
overtimepay, food allowance, free and
final and effective but was denied by the
suitable housing (four to a room), free
NLRC. Petitioner appealedwith CA which
transportation,
free
laundryand
free
upheld the decision of the NLRC finding
medical and dental services. However, on
the resignation letter as dubious.
April
2,
2007,
Modern
Metal
gaverespondents,
except
Era,
ISSUE: Whether or not the Serrano ruling
appointment letters different from that of
which declared the subject Section 10 of
originally
signed,
increasingtheir
RA8042 unconstitutional can be given
employment terms and reducing their
retroactive application in the present
salaries and allowances and removing
caseWhether or not RA 10022, which was
certainbenefits. Further, the working
enacted on March 8, 2010 restoring the
conditions were not as promised and they
subject clause inSection 10 of RA 8042

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
being amendatory in nature can be
ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 29 and 30
applied retroactively
are valid.
RULING: The SC held that the Serrano
ruling can be given retroactive application
asresolved in Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships
Management in the interest of equity and
that the Serranoruling is an exemption to
the doctrine of operative fact.Moreover,
the SC held that the amendment
introduced by R.A. 10022 cannot be given
retroactiveeffect not only because there is
no express declaration of retroactivity of
the law, but because theretroactive
application will result in an impairment of
right that had accrued to the respondents
byvirtue of the Serrano Ruling. The SC
reiterated that all statutes are to be
construed as havingonly a prospective
application, unless the purpose and
intention of the legislature to give
themretrospective effect are expressly
declared or are necessarily implied from
the language used.
131. Hon. Sto. Tomas, et al., vs.
Salac et al., G.R. No. 152642 &
152710, November 13, 2012
FACTS: G.R. No. 152642 and G.R. No.
152710
In G.R. No. 152642, in 2002, Rey Salac et
al, who are recruiters deploying workers
abroad, sought to enjoin the Secretary of
Labor, Patricia Sto. Tomas, the POEA, and
TESDA, from regulating the activities of
private recruiters.Salac et al invoked
Sections 29 and 30 of the Republic Act
8042 or the Migrant Workers Act which
provides that recruitment agency in the
Philippines shall be deregulated one year
from the passage of the said law; that 5
years thereafter, recruitment should be
fully deregulated. RA 8042 was passed in
1995, hence, Salac et al insisted that as
early as 2000, the aforementioned
government
agencies
should
have
stopped
issuing
memorandums
and
circulars regulating the recruitment of
workers abroad.
Sto. Tomas then questioned the validity of
Sections 29 and 30.
HELD: The issue became moot and

academic. It appears that during the
pendency of this case in 2007, RA 9422
(An Act to Strengthen the Regulatory
Functions of the POEA) was passed which
repealed Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042.
132. Sameer Oversees Placement
Agency, Inc. Vs. Joy C. Cabiles G.R.
No. 170139. August 5, 2014
FACTS: Petitioner, Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment
and placement agency. Responding to an
ad it published, respondent, Joy C. Cabiles,
submitted her application for a quality
control job in Taiwan.
Joy was accepted. She was asked to sign a
one-year employment contract for a
monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. She
alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency
required her to pay a placement fee of
P70,000.00
when
she
signed
the
employment contract. She alleged that in
her employment contract, she agreed to
work as quality control for one year. In
Taiwan, she was asked to work as a cutter.
With her earnings from June 26 - July 14,
1997,
she
earned
9000NTD
since
3000NTD was deducted to cover her plane
ticket.
On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint
with
the
National
Labor
Relations
Commission
against
petitioner
and
Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally
dismissed. She asked for the return of her
placement fee, the withheld amount for
repatriation costs, payment of her salary
for 23 months as well as moral and
exemplary
damages.
She
identified
Wacoal as Sameer Overseas Placement
Agencys foreign principal.
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency
alleged that respondent's termination was
due to her inefficiency, negligence in her
duties, and her failure to comply with the
work requirements [of] her foreign

FILIPINO
PLACEMENT
[employer]. Petitioner asserts that it was
cause for causing Joys dismissal. The
already substituted by Pacific Manpower.
employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord
her due process of law.
Pacific Manpower moved for the dismissal
Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed
of petitioners claims against it. It alleged
by our Constitution. Employees are not
that there was no employer-employee
stripped of their security of tenure when
relationship between them. Therefore, the
they move to work in a different
claims against it were outside the
jurisdiction. With respect to the rights of
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Pacific
overseas Filipino workers, we follow the
Manpower argued that the employment
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of
contract should first be presented so that
the place where the contract is made).
the employers contractual obligations
might be identified. It further denied that
There is no question that the contract of
it assumed liability for petitioners illegal
employment in this case was perfected
acts.
here in the Philippines. Therefore, the
Labor Code, its implementing rules and
Labor arbiter dismissed the case since Joy
regulations, and other laws affecting labor
failed to prove her complaint. An Appeal to
apply in this case.
NLRC resulted to an overturn. Sameer
appealed to CA which upheld the NLRC
Petitioners allegation that respondent was
ruling.
inefficient in her work and negligent in her
duties may, therefore, constitute a just
Hence, the petition.
cause for termination under Article 282(b),
but only if petitioner was able to prove it.
ISSUE: WON the respondent was illegally
The burden of proving that there is just
dismissed and if she is entitled to the full
cause for termination is on the employer.
reimbursement of his placement fee.
The employer must affirmatively show
rationally adequate evidence that the
HELD: Yes, Sameer Overseas Placement
dismissal was for a justifiable cause.
Agency failed to show that there was just

12 Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

12 Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

bereft of sufficient substantiation.

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

HELD: The issue became moot and

LABOR STANDARDS | MIGRANT WORKER'S ACT & OVERSEAS

Você também pode gostar