ANTONIO M. SERRANO VS. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC.

AND
MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC.
GR No. 167614 March 24, 2009
E !ac
FACTS:
Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime
Services, Inc. and Marlow avi!ation Co., Inc., "nder a P#$A%approved
contract o& employment &or '( months, as Chie& #&&icer, with the basic
monthly salary o& )S*',+,,, pl"s *-,,.month overtime pay, and - days
paid vacation leave per month.
#n March '/, '//0, the date o& his depart"re, Serrano was constrained to
accept a down!raded employment contract &or the position o& Second #&&icer
with a monthly salary o& )S*',,,, "pon the ass"rance and representation o&
respondents that he wo"ld be Chie& #&&icer by the end o& April '//0.
1espondents did not deliver on their promise to ma2e Serrano Chie& #&&icer.
3ence, Serrano re&"sed to stay on as second #&&icer and was repatriated to
the Philippines on May (4, '//0, servin! only two 5(6 months and seven 5-6
days o& his contract, leavin! an "ne7pired portion o& nine 5/6 months and
twenty%three 5(86 days.
Serrano &iled with the 9abor Arbiter 59A6 a Complaint a!ainst respondents &or
constr"ctive dismissal and &or payment o& his money claims in the total
amo"nt o& )S*(4,++(.-8 5based on the comp"tation o& *(:/,.month &rom
;"ne '//0 to Febr"ary '//, *+'8./, &or March '//0, and *'4+, &or March
'///6 as well as moral and e7emplary dama!es.
The 9A declared the petitioner<s dismissal ille!al and awarded him )S*0,--,,
representin! his salaray &or three 586 months o& the "ne7pired portion o& the
a&oresaid contract o& employment, pl"s *+: &or salary di&&erential and &or
attorney<s &ees e="ivalent to ',> o& the total amo"nt? however, no
compensation &or dama!es as prayed was awarded.
#n appeal, the 91C modi&ied the 9A decision and awarded Serrano
*+44/.:,, representin! three 586 months salary at *'+,,.month, pl"s ++:
salary di&&erential and ',> &or attorney<s &ees. This decision was based on
the provision o& 1A 0,+(, which was made into law on ;"ly ':, '//:.
Serrano &iled a Motion &or Partial 1econsideration, b"t this time he
="estioned the constit"tionality o& the last cla"se in the :th para!raph o&
Section ', o& 1A 0,+(, which reads:
Sec. ',. Money Claims. @ 7 7 7 In case o& termination o& overseas
employment witho"t A"st, valid or a"thoriBed ca"se as de&ined by law or
contract, the wor2ers shall be entitled to the &"ll reimb"rsement o& his
placement &ee with interest o& twelve percent 5'(>6 per ann"m, pl"s his
salaries &or the "ne7pired portion o& his employment contract or &or three
586 months &or every year o& the "ne7pired term, whichever is less.
The 91C denied the Motion? hence, Serrano &iled a Petition &or Certiorari
with the Co"rt o& Appeals 5CA6, reiteratin! the constit"tional challen!e
a!ainst the s"bAect cla"se. The CA a&&irmed the 91C r"lin! on the red"ction
o& the applicable salary rate, b"t s2irted the constit"tional iss"e raised by
herein petitioner Serrano.
ISS)$S:
'. Chether or not the s"bAect cla"se violates Section ',, Article III o& the
Constit"tion on non%impairment o& contracts?
(. Chether or not the s"bAect cla"se violate Section ', Article III o& the
Constit"tion, and Section '0, Article II and Section 8, Article DIII on labor as
a protected sector.
3$9E:
#n the &irst iss"e.
The answer is in the ne!ative. Petitioner<s claim that the s"bAect cla"se
"nd"ly inter&eres with the stip"lations in his contract on the term o& his
employment and the &i7ed salary pac2a!e he will receive is not tenable.
Section ',, Article III o& the Constit"tion provides: o law impairin! the
obli!ation o& contracts shall be passed.
The prohibition is ali!ned with the !eneral principle that laws newly enacted
have only a prospective operation, and cannot a&&ect acts or contracts
already per&ected? however, as to laws already in e7istence, their provisions
are read into contracts and deemed a part thereo&. Th"s, the non%
impairment cla"se "nder Section ',, Article II is limited in application to
laws abo"t to be enacted that wo"ld in any way dero!ate &rom e7istin! acts
or contracts by enlar!in!, abrid!in! or in any manner chan!in! the intention
o& the parties thereto.
As aptly observed by the #SG, the enactment o& 1.A. o. 0,+( in '//:
preceded the e7ec"tion o& the employment contract between petitioner and
respondents in '//0. 3ence, it cannot be ar!"ed that 1.A. o. 0,+(,
partic"larly the s"bAect cla"se, impaired the employment contract o& the
parties. 1ather, when the parties e7ec"ted their '//0 employment contract,
they were deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions o& 1.A. o.
0,+(.
F"t even i& the Co"rt were to disre!ard the timeline, the s"bAect cla"se may
not be declared "nconstit"tional on the !ro"nd that it impin!es on the
impairment cla"se, &or the law was enacted in the e7ercise o& the police
power o& the State to re!"late a b"siness, pro&ession or callin!, partic"larly
the recr"itment and deployment o& #FCs, with the noble end in view o&
ens"rin! respect &or the di!nity and well%bein! o& #FCs wherever they may
be employed. Police power le!islations adopted by the State to promote the
health, morals, peace, ed"cation, !ood order, sa&ety, and !eneral wel&are o&
the people are !enerally applicable not only to &"t"re contracts b"t even to
those already in e7istence, &or all private contracts m"st yield to the s"perior
and le!itimate meas"res ta2en by the State to promote p"blic wel&are.
#n the second iss"e.
The answer is in the a&&irmative.
Section ', Article III o& the Constit"tion !"arantees: o person shall be
deprived o& li&e, liberty, or property witho"t d"e process o& law nor shall any
person be denied the e="al protection o& the law.
Section '0, Article II and Section 8, Article DIII accord all members o& the
labor sector, witho"t distinction as to place o& deployment, &"ll protection o&
their ri!hts and wel&are.
To Filipino wor2ers, the ri!hts !"aranteed "nder the &ore!oin! constit"tional
provisions translate to economic sec"rity and parity: all monetary bene&its
sho"ld be e="ally enAoyed by wor2ers o& similar cate!ory, while all monetary
obli!ations sho"ld be borne by them in e="al de!ree? none sho"ld be denied
the protection o& the laws which is enAoyed by, or spared the b"rden imposed
on, others in li2e circ"mstances.
S"ch ri!hts are not absol"te b"t s"bAect to the inherent power o& Con!ress
to incorporate, when it sees &it, a system o& classi&ication into its le!islation?
however, to be valid, the classi&ication m"st comply with these
re="irements: '6 it is based on s"bstantial distinctions? (6 it is !ermane to
the p"rposes o& the law? 86 it is not limited to e7istin! conditions only? and
+6 it applies e="ally to all members o& the class.
There are three levels o& scr"tiny at which the Co"rt reviews the
constit"tionality o& a classi&ication embodied in a law: a6 the de&erential or
rational basis scr"tiny in which the challen!ed classi&ication needs only be
shown to be rationally related to servin! a le!itimate state interest? b6 the
middle%tier or intermediate scr"tiny in which the !overnment m"st show that
the challen!ed classi&ication serves an important state interest and that the
classi&ication is at least s"bstantially related to servin! that interest? and c6
strict A"dicial scr"tiny in which a le!islative classi&ication which impermissibly
inter&eres with the e7ercise o& a &"ndamental ri!ht or operates to the
pec"liar disadvanta!e o& a s"spect class is pres"med "nconstit"tional, and
the b"rden is "pon the !overnment to prove that the classi&ication is
necessary to achieve a compellin! state interest and that it is the least
restrictive means to protect s"ch interest.
)pon c"rsory readin!, the s"bAect cla"se appears &acially ne"tral, &or it
applies to all #FCs. 3owever, a closer e7amination reveals that the s"bAect
cla"se has a discriminatory intent a!ainst, and an invidio"s impact on, #FCs
at two levels:
First, #FCs with employment contracts o& less than one year vis%G%vis #FCs
with employment contracts o& one year or more?
Second, amon! #FCs with employment contracts o& more than one year?
and
Third, #FCs vis%G%vis local wor2ers with &i7ed%period employment?
In s"m, prior to 1.A. o. 0,+(, #FCs and local wor2ers with &i7ed%term
employment who were ille!ally dischar!ed were treated ali2e in terms o& the
comp"tation o& their money claims: they were "ni&ormly entitled to their
salaries &or the entire "ne7pired portions o& their contracts. F"t with the
enactment o& 1.A. o. 0,+(, speci&ically the adoption o& the s"bAect cla"se,
ille!ally dismissed #FCs with an "ne7pired portion o& one year or more in
their employment contract have since been di&&erently treated in that their
money claims are s"bAect to a 8%month cap, whereas no s"ch limitation is
imposed on local wor2ers with &i7ed%term employment.
The Co"rt concl"des that the s"bAect cla"se contains a s"spect classi&ication
in that, in the comp"tation o& the monetary bene&its o& &i7ed%term employees
who are ille!ally dischar!ed, it imposes a 8%month cap on the claim o& #FCs
with an "ne7pired portion o& one year or more in their contracts, b"t none
on the claims o& other #FCs or local wor2ers with &i7ed%term employment.
The s"bAect cla"se sin!les o"t one classi&ication o& #FCs and b"rdens it with
a pec"liar disadvanta!e.
There bein! a s"spect classi&ication involvin! a v"lnerable sector protected
by the Constit"tion, the Co"rt now s"bAects the classi&ication to a strict
A"dicial scr"tiny, and determines whether it serves a compellin! state
interest thro"!h the least restrictive means.
Chat constit"tes compellin! state interest is meas"red by the scale o& ri!hts
and powers arrayed in the Constit"tion and calibrated by history. It is a2in to
the paramo"nt interest o& the state &or which some individ"al liberties m"st
!ive way, s"ch as the p"blic interest in sa&e!"ardin! health or maintainin!
medical standards, or in maintainin! access to in&ormation on matters o&
p"blic concern.
In the present case, the Co"rt d"! deep into the records b"t &o"nd no
compellin! state interest that the s"bAect cla"se may possibly serve.
In &ine, the Government has &ailed to dischar!e its b"rden o& provin! the
e7istence o& a compellin! state interest that wo"ld A"sti&y the perpet"ation o&
the discrimination a!ainst #FCs "nder the s"bAect cla"se.
Ass"min! that, as advanced by the #SG, the p"rpose o& the s"bAect cla"se is
to protect the employment o& #FCs by miti!atin! the solidary liability o&
placement a!encies, s"ch callo"s and cavalier rationale will have to be
reAected. There can never be a A"sti&ication &or any &orm o& !overnment
action that alleviates the b"rden o& one sector, b"t imposes the same b"rden
on another sector, especially when the &avored sector is composed o& private
b"sinesses s"ch as placement a!encies, while the disadvanta!ed sector is
composed o& #FCs whose protection no less than the Constit"tion
commands. The idea that private b"siness interest can be elevated to the
level o& a compellin! state interest is odio"s.
Moreover, even i& the p"rpose o& the s"bAect cla"se is to lessen the solidary
liability o& placement a!encies vis%a%vis their &orei!n principals, there are
mechanisms already in place that can be employed to achieve that p"rpose
witho"t in&rin!in! on the constit"tional ri!hts o& #FCs.
The P#$A 1"les and 1e!"lations Governin! the 1ecr"itment and
$mployment o& 9and%Fased #verseas Cor2ers, dated Febr"ary +, (,,(,
imposes administrative disciplinary meas"res on errin! &orei!n employers
who de&a"lt on their contract"al obli!ations to mi!rant wor2ers and.or their
Philippine a!ents. These disciplinary meas"res ran!e &rom temporary
dis="ali&ication to preventive s"spension. The P#$A 1"les and 1e!"lations
Governin! the 1ecr"itment and $mployment o& Sea&arers, dated May (8,
(,,8, contains similar administrative disciplinary meas"res a!ainst errin!
&orei!n employers.
1esort to these administrative meas"res is "ndo"btedly the less restrictive
means o& aidin! local placement a!encies in en&orcin! the solidary liability o&
their &orei!n principals.
Th"s, the s"bAect cla"se in the :th para!raph o& Section ', o& 1.A. o. 0,+(
is violative o& the ri!ht o& petitioner and other #FCs to e="al protection.
The s"bAect cla"se Hor &or three months &or every year o& the "ne7pired
term, whichever is lessI in the :th para!raph o& Section ', o& 1ep"blic Act
o. 0,+( is E$C9A1$E )C#STIT)TI#A9.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioer, !s. "a##at MARITIME
SER$I%ES, IN%. ad MAR&O' NA$I"ATION %O., IN%.,
Res(odets
EN BANC
G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner,
vs.
Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARO! NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
A"STRIA#MARTINE$, J.:
For decades, the toil of solitary i!rants has helped lift entire failies and co"nities o"t of poverty.
#heir earnin!s have $"ilt ho"ses, provided health care, e%"ipped schools and planted the seeds of
$"sinesses. #hey have &oven to!ether the &orld $y transittin! ideas and 'no&led!e fro co"ntry to
co"ntry. #hey have provided the dynaic h"an lin' $et&een c"lt"res, societies and econoies. (et, only
recently have &e $e!"n to "nderstand not only ho& "ch international i!ration ipacts developent,
$"t ho& sart p"$lic policies can a!nify this effect.
)nited Nations Secretary*+eneral Ban ,i*-oon
+lo$al For" on -i!ration and Developent
Br"ssels, ."ly /0, 1002
/
For Antonio Serrano 3petitioner4, a Filipino seafarer, the last cla"se in the 5th para!raph of Section /0,
Rep"$lic Act 3R.A.4 No. 6071,
1
to &it8
Sec. /0. Money Claims. * 9 9 9 In case of terination of overseas eployent &itho"t :"st, valid or
a"thori;ed ca"se as defined $y la& or contract, the &or'ers shall $e entitled to the f"ll rei$"rseent of
his placeent fee &ith interest of t&elve percent 3/1<4 per ann", pl"s his salaries for the "ne9pired
portion of his eployent contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less.
9 9 9 9 3Ephasis and "nderscorin! s"pplied4
does not a!nify the contri$"tions of overseas Filipino &or'ers 3OF=s4 to national developent, $"t
e9acer$ates the hardships $orne $y the $y "nd"ly liitin! their entitleent in case of ille!al disissal
to their l"p*s" salary either for the "ne9pired portion of their eployent contract >or for three
onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter, &hichever is less> 3s"$:ect cla"se4. Petitioner clais that the
last cla"se violates the OF=s? constit"tional ri!hts in that it ipairs the ters of their contract, deprives
the of e%"al protection and denies the d"e process.
By &ay of Petition for Revie& "nder R"le 75 of the R"les of Co"rt, petitioner assails the Dece$er 6,
1007 Decision
@
and April /, 1005 Resol"tion
7
of the Co"rt of Appeals 3CA4, &hich applied the s"$:ect
cla"se, entreatin! this Co"rt to declare the s"$:ect cla"se "nconstit"tional.
Petitioner &as hired $y +allant -aritie Services, Inc. and -arlo& Navi!ation Co., Atd. 3respondents4
"nder a Philippine Overseas Eployent Adinistration 3POEA4*approved Contract of Eployent
&ith the follo&in! ters and conditions8
D"ration of contract /1 onths
Position Chief Officer
Basic onthly salary )SB/,700.00
Co"rs of &or' 76.0 ho"rs per &ee'
Overtie )SB200.00 per onth
Dacation leave &ith pay 2.00 days per onth
5
On -arch /E, /EE6, the date of his depart"re, petitioner &as constrained to accept a do&n!raded
eployent contract for the position of Second Officer &ith a onthly salary of )SB/,000.00, "pon the
ass"rance and representation of respondents that he &o"ld $e ade Chief Officer $y the end of April
/EE6.
F
Respondents did not deliver on their proise to a'e petitioner Chief Officer.
2
Cence, petitioner ref"sed
to stay on as Second Officer and &as repatriated to the Philippines on -ay 1F, /EE6.
6
Petitioner?s eployent contract &as for a period of /1 onths or fro -arch /E, /EE6 "p to -arch /E,
/EEE, $"t at the tie of his repatriation on -ay 1F, /EE6, he had served only t&o 314 onths and seven 324
days of his contract, leavin! an "ne9pired portion of nine 3E4 onths and t&enty*three 31@4 days.
Petitioner filed &ith the Aa$or Ar$iter 3AA4 a Coplaint
E
a!ainst respondents for constr"ctive disissal
and for payent of his oney clais in the total ao"nt of )SB1F,771.2@, $ro'en do&n as follo&s8
-ay
12G@/,
/EE6 35
days4
incl.
Aeave
pay
)SB 7/@.E0
."ne
0/G@0,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
."ly
0/G@/,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
A"!"st
0/G@/,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
Sept.
0/G@0,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
Oct.
0/G@/,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
Nov.
0/G@0,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
Dec.
0/G@/,
/EE6
1,5E0.00
.an.
0/G@/,
/EEE
1,5E0.00
Fe$.
0/G16,
/EEE
1,5E0.00
-ar.
/G/E,
/EEE 3/E
days4
incl.
leave
pay
/,F70.00
********************************************************************************
15,@61.1@
Ao"nt
ad:"sted
to chief
ate?s
salary
3-arch
/EG@/,
/EE6 to
April
/G@0,
/EE64 H
/,0F0.50
/0
*********************************************************************************************
*
#O#AA
CAAI-
)SB 1F,771.2@
//

as &ell as oral and e9eplary daa!es and attorney?s fees.
#he AA rendered a Decision dated ."ly /5, /EEE, declarin! the disissal of petitioner ille!al and
a&ardin! hi onetary $enefits, to &it8
=CEREFORE, preises considered, :"d!ent is here$y rendered declarin! that the disissal of
the coplainant 3petitioner4 $y the respondents in the a$ove*entitled case &as ille!al and the
respondents are here$y ordered to pay the coplainant IpetitionerJ, :ointly and severally, in
Philippine C"rrency, $ased on the rate of e9chan!e prevailin! at the tie of payent, the ao"nt
of EIG! !"#$%&' $E(E& #&')E' $E(E&!* #.$. '"++%)$ (#$ ,-,.././/),
representin0 the complainant1s salary for three (3) months of the unexpired
portion of the aforesaid contract of employment.1avvphi1
#he respondents are li'e&ise ordered to pay the coplainant IpetitionerJ, :ointly and severally, in
Philippine C"rrency, $ased on the rate of e9chan!e prevailin! at the tie of payent, the ao"nt
of FOR#( FIDE ).S. DOAAARS 3)SB 75.004,
/1
representin! the coplainantKs clai for a salary
differential. In addition, the respondents are here$y ordered to pay the coplainant, :ointly and
severally, in Philippine C"rrency, at the e9chan!e rate prevailin! at the tie of payent, the
coplainantKs 3petitioner?s4 clai for attorneyKs fees e%"ivalent to ten percent 3/0<4 of the total
ao"nt a&arded to the aforesaid eployee "nder this Decision.
#he clais of the coplainant for oral and e9eplary daa!es are here$y DIS-ISSED for lac'
of erit.
All other clais are here$y DIS-ISSED.
SO ORDERED.
/@
3Ephasis s"pplied4
In a&ardin! petitioner a l"p*s" salary of )SB6,220.00, the AA $ased his cop"tation on the
salary period of three onths only ** rather than the entire "ne9pired portion of nine onths and
1@ days of petitioner?s eployent contract * applyin! the s"$:ect cla"se. Co&ever, the AA
applied the salary rate of )SB1,5E0.00, consistin! of petitioner?s >I$Jasic salary,
)SB/,700.00Gonth H )SB200.00Gonth, fi9ed overtie pay, H )SB7E0.00Gonth, vacation
leave pay L )SB1,5E0.00Gcopensation per onth.>
/7
Respondents appealed
/5
to the National Aa$or Relations Coission 3NARC4 to %"estion the
findin! of the AA that petitioner &as ille!ally disissed.
Petitioner also appealed
/F
to the NARC on the sole iss"e that the AA erred in not applyin! the
r"lin! of the Co"rt in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
/2

that in case of ille!al disissal, OF=s are entitled to their salaries for the "ne9pired portion of
their contracts.
/6
In a Decision dated ."ne /5, 1000, the NARC odified the AA Decision, to &it8
=CEREFORE, the Decision dated /5 ."ly /EEE is -ODIFIED. Respondents are here$y ordered
to pay coplainant, :ointly and severally, in Philippine c"rrency, at the prevailin! rate of
e9chan!e at the tie of payent the follo&in!8
/. #hree 3@4 onths salary
B/,700 9 @ )SB7,100.00
1. Salary differential 75.00
)SB7,175.00
@. /0< AttorneyKs fees 717.50
#O#AA )SB7,FFE.50
#he other findin!s are affired.
SO ORDERED.
/E
#he NARC corrected the AA?s cop"tation of the l"p*s" salary a&arded to petitioner $y red"cin! the
applica$le salary rate fro )SB1,5E0.00 to )SB/,700.00 $eca"se R.A. No. 6071 >does not provide for the
a&ard of overtie pay, &hich sho"ld $e proven to have $een act"ally perfored, and for vacation leave
pay.>
10
Petitioner filed a -otion for Partial Reconsideration, $"t this tie he %"estioned the constit"tionality of
the s"$:ect cla"se.
1/
#he NARC denied the otion.
11
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari
1@
&ith the CA, reiteratin! the constit"tional challen!e a!ainst the
s"$:ect cla"se.
17
After initially disissin! the petition on a technicality, the CA event"ally !ave d"e co"rse
to it, as directed $y this Co"rt in its Resol"tion dated A"!"st 2, 100@ &hich !ranted the petition for
certiorari, doc'eted as +.R. No. /5/6@@, filed $y petitioner.
In a Decision dated Dece$er 6, 1007, the CA affired the NARC r"lin! on the red"ction of the
applica$le salary rateM ho&ever, the CA s'irted the constit"tional iss"e raised $y petitioner.
15
Cis -otion for Reconsideration
1F
havin! $een denied $y the CA,
12
petitioner $rin!s his ca"se to this Co"rt
on the follo&in! !ro"nds8
I
#he Co"rt of Appeals and the la$or tri$"nals have decided the case in a &ay not in accord &ith applica$le
decision of the S"pree Co"rt involvin! siilar iss"e of !rantin! "nto the i!rant &or'er $ac' &a!es
e%"al to the "ne9pired portion of his contract of eployent instead of liitin! it to three 3@4 onths
II
In the alternative that the Co"rt of Appeals and the Aa$or #ri$"nals &ere erely applyin! their
interpretation of Section /0 of Rep"$lic Act No. 6071, it is s"$itted that the Co"rt of Appeals !ravely
erred in la& &hen it failed to dischar!e its :"dicial d"ty to decide %"estions of s"$stance not theretofore
deterined $y the Conora$le S"pree Co"rt, partic"larly, the constit"tional iss"es raised $y the
petitioner on the constit"tionality of said la&, &hich "nreasona$ly, "nfairly and ar$itrarily liits payent
of the a&ard for $ac' &a!es of overseas &or'ers to three 3@4 onths.
III
Even &itho"t considerin! the constit"tional liitations IofJ Sec. /0 of Rep"$lic Act No. 6071, the Co"rt of
Appeals !ravely erred in la& in e9cl"din! fro petitionerKs a&ard the overtie pay and vacation pay
provided in his contract since "nder the contract they for part of his salary.
16
On Fe$r"ary 1F, 1006, petitioner &rote the Co"rt to &ithdra& his petition as he is already old and sic'ly,
and he intends to a'e "se of the onetary a&ard for his edical treatent and edication.
1E
Re%"ired
to coent, co"nsel for petitioner filed a otion, "r!in! the co"rt to allo& partial e9ec"tion of the
"ndisp"ted onetary a&ard and, at the sae tie, prayin! that the constit"tional %"estion $e resolved.
@0
Considerin! that the parties have filed their respective eoranda, the Co"rt no& ta'es "p the f"ll erit
of the petition indf"l of the e9tree iportance of the constit"tional %"estion raised therein.
"n the first and second issues
#he "nanio"s findin! of the AA, NARC and CA that the disissal of petitioner &as ille!al is not
disp"ted. Ai'e&ise not disp"ted is the salary differential of )SB75.00 a&arded to petitioner in all three
fora. =hat reains disp"ted is only the cop"tation of the l"p*s" salary to $e a&arded to petitioner
$y reason of his ille!al disissal.
Applyin! the s"$:ect cla"se, the NARC and the CA cop"ted the l"p*s" salary of petitioner at the
onthly rate of )SB/,700.00 coverin! the period of three onths o"t of the "ne9pired portion of nine
onths and 1@ days of his eployent contract or a total of )SB7,100.00.
Ip"!nin! the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se, petitioner contends that, in addition to the
)SB7,100.00 a&arded $y the NARC and the CA, he is entitled to )SB1/,/61.1@ ore or a total of
)SB15,@61.1@, e%"ivalent to his salaries for the entire nine onths and 1@ days left of his eployent
contract, cop"ted at the onthly rate of )SB1,5E0.00.
@/
Th% Ar&'(%nt) o* +%t,t,on%r
Petitioner contends that the s"$:ect cla"se is "nconstit"tional $eca"se it "nd"ly ipairs the freedo of
OF=s to ne!otiate for and stip"late in their overseas eployent contracts a deterinate eployent
period and a fi9ed salary pac'a!e.
@1
It also ipin!es on the e%"al protection cla"se, for it treats OF=s
differently fro local Filipino &or'ers 3local &or'ers4 $y p"ttin! a cap on the ao"nt of l"p*s" salary
to &hich OF=s are entitled in case of ille!al disissal, &hile settin! no liit to the sae onetary a&ard
for local &or'ers &hen their disissal is declared ille!alM that the disparate treatent is not reasona$le as
there is no s"$stantial distinction $et&een the t&o !ro"psM
@@
and that it defeats Section /6,
@7
Article II of
the Constit"tion &hich !"arantees the protection of the ri!hts and &elfare of all Filipino &or'ers, &hether
deployed locally or overseas.
@5
-oreover, petitioner ar!"es that the decisions of the CA and the la$or tri$"nals are not in line &ith
e9istin! :"rispr"dence on the iss"e of oney clais of ille!ally disissed OF=s. #ho"!h there are
conflictin! r"lin!s on this, petitioner "r!es the Co"rt to sort the o"t for the !"idance of affected OF=s.
@F
Petitioner f"rther "nderscores that the insertion of the s"$:ect cla"se into R.A. No. 6071 serves no other
p"rpose $"t to $enefit local placeent a!encies. Ce ar's the stateent ade $y the Solicitor +eneral in
his -eorand", viz.8
Often, placeent a!encies, their lia$ility $ein! solidary, sho"lder the payent of oney clais in the
event that :"risdiction over the forei!n eployer is not ac%"ired $y the co"rt or if the forei!n eployer
rene!es on its o$li!ation. Cence, placeent a!encies that are in !ood faith and &hich f"lfill their
o$li!ations are "nnecessarily penali;ed for the acts of the forei!n eployer. To protect them and to
promote their contined help!l contribtion in deploying "ilipino migrant #or$ers, liability !or money
claims #as redced nder Section 1% o! R.&. No. '%().
@2
3Ephasis s"pplied4
Petitioner ar!"es that in iti!atin! the solidary lia$ility of placeent a!encies, the s"$:ect cla"se
sacrifices the &ell*$ein! of OF=s. Not only that, the provision a'es forei!n eployers $etter off than
local eployers $eca"se in cases involvin! the ille!al disissal of eployees, forei!n eployers are lia$le
for salaries coverin! a a9i" of only three onths of the "ne9pired eployent contract &hile local
eployers are lia$le for the f"ll l"p*s" salaries of their eployees. As petitioner p"ts it8
In ters of practical application, the local eployers are not liited to the ao"nt of $ac'&a!es they
have to !ive their eployees they have ille!ally disissed, follo&in! &ell*entrenched and "ne%"ivocal
:"rispr"dence on the atter. On the other hand, forei!n eployers &ill only $e liited to !ivin! the
ille!ally disissed i!rant &or'ers the a9i" of three 3@4 onths "npaid salaries not&ithstandin!
the "ne9pired ter of the contract that can $e ore than three 3@4 onths.
@6
Aastly, petitioner clais that the s"$:ect cla"se violates the d"e process cla"se, for it deprives hi of the
salaries and other eol"ents he is entitled to "nder his fi9ed*period eployent contract.
@E
Th% Ar&'(%nt) o* R%)-ond%nt)
In their Coent and -eorand", respondents contend that the constit"tional iss"e sho"ld not $e
entertained, for this &as $elatedly interposed $y petitioner in his appeal $efore the CA, and not at the
earliest opport"nity, &hich &as &hen he filed an appeal $efore the NARC.
70
Th% Ar&'(%nt) o* th% Sol,c,tor G%n%ral
#he Solicitor +eneral 3OS+4
7/
points o"t that as R.A. No. 6071 too' effect on ."ly /5, /EE5, its provisions
co"ld not have ipaired petitioner?s /EE6 eployent contract. Rather, R.A. No. 6071 havin! preceded
petitioner?s contract, the provisions thereof are deeed part of the ini" ters of petitioner?s
eployent, especially on the atter of oney clais, as this &as not stip"lated "pon $y the parties.
71
-oreover, the OS+ ephasi;es that OF=s and local &or'ers differ in ters of the nat"re of their
eployent, s"ch that their ri!hts to onetary $enefits "st necessarily $e treated differently. #he OS+
en"erates the essential eleents that distin!"ish OF=s fro local &or'ers8 first, &hile local &or'ers
perfor their :o$s &ithin Philippine territory, OF=s perfor their :o$s for forei!n eployers, over &ho
it is diffic"lt for o"r co"rts to ac%"ire :"risdiction, or a!ainst &ho it is alost ipossi$le to enforce
:"d!entM and second, as held in Coyoca v. National Aa$or Relations Coission
7@
and -illares v.
National Aa$or Relations Coission,
77
OF=s are contract"al eployees &ho can never ac%"ire re!"lar
eployent stat"s, "nli'e local &or'ers &ho are or can $ecoe re!"lar eployees. Cence, the OS+
posits that there are ri!hts and privile!es e9cl"sive to local &or'ers, $"t not availa$le to OF=sM that these
pec"liarities a'e for a reasona$le and valid $asis for the differentiated treatent "nder the s"$:ect
cla"se of the oney clais of OF=s &ho are ille!ally disissed. #h"s, the provision does not violate the
e%"al protection cla"se nor Section /6, Article II of the Constit"tion.
75
Aastly, the OS+ defends the rationale $ehind the s"$:ect cla"se as a police po&er eas"re adopted to
iti!ate the solidary lia$ility of placeent a!encies for this >redo"nds to the $enefit of the i!rant
&or'ers &hose &elfare the !overnent see's to proote. #he s"rvival of le!itiate placeent a!encies
helps Iass"reJ the !overnent that i!rant &or'ers are properly deployed and are eployed "nder
decent and h"ane conditions.>
7F

Th% Co'rt.) R'l,n&
#he Co"rt s"stains petitioner on the first and second iss"es.
=hen the Co"rt is called "pon to e9ercise its po&er of :"dicial revie& of the acts of its co*e%"als, s"ch as
the Con!ress, it does so only &hen these conditions o$tain8 3/4 that there is an act"al case or controversy
involvin! a conflict of ri!hts s"scepti$le of :"dicial deterinationM
72
314 that the constit"tional %"estion is
raised $y a proper party
76
and at the earliest opport"nityM
7E
and 3@4 that the constit"tional %"estion is the
very lis ota of the case,
50
other&ise the Co"rt &ill disiss the case or decide the sae on soe other
!ro"nd.
5/

=itho"t a do"$t, there e9ists in this case an act"al controversy directly involvin! petitioner &ho is
personally a!!rieved that the la$or tri$"nals and the CA cop"ted his onetary a&ard $ased on the
salary period of three onths only as provided "nder the s"$:ect cla"se.
#he constit"tional challen!e is also tiely. It sho"ld $e $orne in ind that the re%"ireent that a
constit"tional iss"e $e raised at the earliest opport"nity entails the interposition of the iss"e in the
pleadin!s $efore a competent court, s"ch that, if the iss"e is not raised in the pleadin!s $efore that
copetent co"rt, it cannot $e considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot $e
considered on appeal.
51
Records disclose that the iss"e on the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se &as
first raised, not in petitioner?s appeal &ith the NARC, $"t in his -otion for Partial Reconsideration &ith
said la$or tri$"nal,
5@
and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari $efore the CA.
57
Nonetheless, the iss"e is
deeed seasona$ly raised $eca"se it is not the NARC $"t the CA &hich has the copetence to resolve the
constit"tional iss"e. #he NARC is a la$or tri$"nal that erely perfors a %"asi*:"dicial f"nction N its
f"nction in the present case is liited to deterinin! %"estions of fact to &hich the le!islative policy of
R.A. No. 6071 is to $e applied and to resolvin! s"ch %"estions in accordance &ith the standards laid do&n
$y the la& itselfM
55
th"s, its foreost f"nction is to adinister and enforce R.A. No. 6071, and not to
in%"ire into the validity of its provisions. #he CA, on the other hand, is vested &ith the po&er of :"dicial
revie& or the po&er to declare "nconstit"tional a la& or a provision thereof, s"ch as the s"$:ect cla"se.
5F

Petitioner?s interposition of the constit"tional iss"e $efore the CA &as "ndo"$tedly seasona$le. #he CA
&as therefore reiss in failin! to ta'e "p the iss"e in its decision.
#he third condition that the constit"tional iss"e $e critical to the resol"tion of the case li'e&ise o$tains
$eca"se the onetary clai of petitioner to his l"p*s" salary for the entire "ne9pired portion of his
/1*onth eployent contract, and not :"st for a period of three onths, stri'es at the very core of the
s"$:ect cla"se.
#h"s, the sta!e is all set for the deterination of the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se.
*oes the sb+ect clase violate Section 1%,
&rticle III o! the Constittion on non,impairment
o! contracts-
#he ans&er is in the ne!ative.
Petitioner?s clai that the s"$:ect cla"se "nd"ly interferes &ith the stip"lations in his contract on the ter
of his eployent and the fi9ed salary pac'a!e he &ill receive
52
is not tena$le.
Section /0, Article III of the Constit"tion provides8
No la& ipairin! the o$li!ation of contracts shall $e passed.
#he prohi$ition is ali!ned &ith the !eneral principle that la&s ne&ly enacted have only a prospective
operation,
56
and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfectedM
5E
ho&ever, as to la&s already in
e9istence, their provisions are read into contracts and deeed a part thereof.
F0
#h"s, the non*ipairent
cla"se "nder Section /0, Article II is liited in application to la&s a$o"t to $e enacted that &o"ld in any
&ay dero!ate fro e9istin! acts or contracts $y enlar!in!, a$rid!in! or in any anner chan!in! the
intention of the parties thereto.
As aptly o$served $y the OS+, the enactent of R.A. No. 6071 in /EE5 preceded the e9ec"tion of the
eployent contract $et&een petitioner and respondents in /EE6. Cence, it cannot $e ar!"ed that R.A.
No. 6071, partic"larly the s"$:ect cla"se, ipaired the eployent contract of the parties. Rather, &hen
the parties e9ec"ted their /EE6 eployent contract, they &ere deeed to have incorporated into it all
the provisions of R.A. No. 6071.
B"t even if the Co"rt &ere to disre!ard the tieline, the s"$:ect cla"se ay not $e declared
"nconstit"tional on the !ro"nd that it ipin!es on the ipairent cla"se, for the la& &as enacted in the
e9ercise of the police po&er of the State to re!"late a $"siness, profession or callin!, partic"larly the
recr"itent and deployent of OF=s, &ith the no$le end in vie& of ens"rin! respect for the di!nity and
&ell*$ein! of OF=s &herever they ay $e eployed.
F/
Police po&er le!islations adopted $y the State to
proote the health, orals, peace, ed"cation, !ood order, safety, and !eneral &elfare of the people are
!enerally applica$le not only to f"t"re contracts $"t even to those already in e9istence, for all private
contracts "st yield to the s"perior and le!itiate eas"res ta'en $y the State to proote p"$lic
&elfare.
F1

*oes the sb+ect clase violate Section 1,
&rticle III o! the Constittion, and Section 1',
&rticle II and Section ., &rticle /III on labor
as a protected sector-
#he ans&er is in the affirative.
Section /, Article III of the Constit"tion !"arantees8
No person shall $e deprived of life, li$erty, or property &itho"t d"e process of la& nor shall any person $e
denied the e%"al protection of the la&.
Section /6,
F@
Article II and Section @,
F7
Article OIII accord all e$ers of the la$or sector, &itho"t
distinction as to place of deployent, f"ll protection of their ri!hts and &elfare.
#o Filipino &or'ers, the ri!hts !"aranteed "nder the fore!oin! constit"tional provisions translate to
econoic sec"rity and parity8 all onetary $enefits sho"ld $e e%"ally en:oyed $y &or'ers of siilar
cate!ory, &hile all onetary o$li!ations sho"ld $e $orne $y the in e%"al de!reeM none sho"ld $e denied
the protection of the la&s &hich is en:oyed $y, or spared the $"rden iposed on, others in li'e
circ"stances.
F5
S"ch ri!hts are not a$sol"te $"t s"$:ect to the inherent po&er of Con!ress to incorporate, &hen it sees fit,
a syste of classification into its le!islationM ho&ever, to $e valid, the classification "st coply &ith
these re%"ireents8 /4 it is $ased on s"$stantial distinctionsM 14 it is !erane to the p"rposes of the la&M
@4 it is not liited to e9istin! conditions onlyM and 74 it applies e%"ally to all e$ers of the class.
FF
#here are three levels of scr"tiny at &hich the Co"rt revie&s the constit"tionality of a classification
e$odied in a la&8 a4 the deferential or rational $asis scr"tiny in &hich the challen!ed classification needs
only $e sho&n to $e rationally related to servin! a le!itiate state interestM
F2
$4 the iddle*tier or
interediate scr"tiny in &hich the !overnent "st sho& that the challen!ed classification serves an
iportant state interest and that the classification is at least s"$stantially related to servin! that interestM
F6
and c4 strict :"dicial scr"tiny
FE
in &hich a le!islative classification &hich iperissi$ly interferes &ith the
e9ercise of a f"ndaental ri!ht
20
or operates to the pec"liar disadvanta!e of a s"spect class
2/
is pres"ed
"nconstit"tional, and the $"rden is "pon the !overnent to prove that the classification is necessary to
achieve a compellin0 state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect s"ch
interest.
21
)nder Aerican :"rispr"dence, strict :"dicial scr"tiny is tri!!ered $y s"spect classifications
2@
$ased on
race
27
or !ender
25
$"t not &hen the classification is dra&n alon! incoe cate!ories.
2F
It is different in the Philippine settin!. In Central Ban' 3no& Ban!'o Sentral n! Pilipinas4 Eployee
Association, Inc. v. Ban!'o Sentral n! Pilipinas,
22
the constit"tionality of a provision in the charter of the
0ang$o Sentral ng 1ilipinas 3BSP4, a !overnent financial instit"tion 3+FI4, &as challen!ed for
aintainin! its ran'*and*file eployees "nder the Salary Standardi;ation Aa& 3SSA4, even &hen the
ran'*and*file eployees of other +FIs had $een e9epted fro the SSA $y their respective charters.
Findin! that the disp"ted provision contained a s"spect classification $ased on salary !rade, the Co"rt
deli$erately eployed the standard of strict :"dicial scr"tiny in its revie& of the constit"tionality of said
provision. -ore si!nificantly, it &as in this case that the Co"rt revealed the $road o"tlines of its :"dicial
philosophy, to &it8
Con!ress retains its &ide discretion in providin! for a valid classification, and its policies sho"ld $e
accorded reco!nition and respect $y the co"rts of :"stice e9cept &hen they r"n afo"l of the Constit"tion.
#he deference stops &here the classification violates a f"ndaental ri!ht, or -r%/'d,c%) -%r)on)
accord%d )-%c,al -rot%ct,on 01 th% Con)t,t't,on. =hen these violations arise, this Co"rt "st
dischar!e its priary role as the van!"ard of constit"tional !"aranties, and re%"ire a stricter and ore
e9actin! adherence to constit"tional liitations. Rational $asis sho"ld not s"ffice.
Adittedly, the vie& that pre:"dice to persons accorded special protection $y the Constit"tion re%"ires a
stricter :"dicial scr"tiny finds no s"pport in Aerican or En!lish :"rispr"dence. Nevertheless, these
forei!n decisions and a"thorities are not per se controllin! in this :"risdiction. At $est, they are pers"asive
and have $een "sed to s"pport any of o"r decisions. =e sho"ld not place "nd"e and fa&nin! reliance
"pon the and re!ard the as indispensa$le ental cr"tches &itho"t &hich &e cannot coe to o"r o&n
decisions thro"!h the eployent of o"r o&n endo&ents. =e live in a different a$ience and "st
decide o"r o&n pro$les in the li!ht of o"r o&n interests and needs, and of o"r %"alities and even
idiosyncrasies as a people, and al&ays &ith o"r o&n concept of la& and :"stice. O"r la&s "st $e
constr"ed in accordance &ith the intention of o"r o&n la&a'ers and s"ch intent ay $e ded"ced fro
the lan!"a!e of each la& and the conte9t of other local le!islation related thereto. -ore iportantly, they
"st $e constr"ed to serve o"r o&n p"$lic interest &hich is the $e*all and the end*all of all o"r la&s. And
it need not $e stressed that o"r p"$lic interest is distinct and different fro others.
9 9 9 9
F"rther, the %"est for a $etter and ore >e%"al> &orld calls for the "se of e%"al protection as a tool of
effective :"dicial intervention.
E%"ality is one ideal &hich cries o"t for $old attention and action in the Constit"tion. #he Prea$le
proclais >e%"ality> as an ideal precisely in protest a!ainst cr"shin! ine%"ities in Philippine society. #he
coand to proote social :"stice in Article II, Section /0, in >all phases of national developent,>
f"rther e9plicitated in Article OIII, are clear coands to the State to ta'e affirative action in the
direction of !reater e%"ality. 9 9 9 I#Jhere is th"s in the Philippine Constit"tion no lac' of doctrinal
s"pport for a ore vi!oro"s state effort to&ards achievin! a reasona$le eas"re of e%"ality.
O"r present Constit"tion has !one f"rther in !"aranteein! vital social and econoic ri!hts to
ar!inali;ed !ro"ps of society, incl"din! la$or. )nder the policy of social :"stice, the la& $ends over
$ac'&ard to accoodate the interests of the &or'in! class on the h"ane :"stification that those &ith
less privile!e in life sho"ld have ore in la&. And the o$li!ation to afford protection to la$or is inc"$ent
not only on the le!islative and e9ec"tive $ranches $"t also on the :"diciary to translate this pled!e into a
livin! reality. Social :"stice calls for the h"ani;ation of la&s and the e%"ali;ation of social and econoic
forces $y the State so that :"stice in its rational and o$:ectively sec"lar conception ay at least $e
appro9iated.
9 9 9 9
)nder ost circ"stances, the Co"rt &ill e9ercise :"dicial restraint in decidin! %"estions of
constit"tionality, reco!ni;in! the $road discretion !iven to Con!ress in e9ercisin! its le!islative po&er.
."dicial scr"tiny &o"ld $e $ased on the >rational $asis> test, and the le!islative discretion &o"ld $e !iven
deferential treatent.
B"t if the challen!e to the stat"te is preised on the denial of a f"ndaental ri!ht, or th% -%r-%t'at,on
o* -r%/'d,c% a&a,n)t -%r)on) *a2or%d 01 th% Con)t,t't,on 3,th )-%c,al -rot%ct,on, /'d,c,al
)cr't,n1 o'&ht to 0% (or% )tr,ct. A &ea' and &atered do&n vie& &o"ld call for the a$dication of this
Co"rtKs solen d"ty to stri'e do&n any la& rep"!nant to the Constit"tion and the ri!hts it enshrines. #his
is tr"e &hether the actor coittin! the "nconstit"tional act is a private person or the !overnent itself
or one of its instr"entalities. Oppressive acts &ill $e str"c' do&n re!ardless of the character or nat"re of
the actor.
9 9 9 9
In the case at $ar, the challen!ed proviso operates on the $asis of the salary !rade or officer*eployee
stat"s. It is a'in to a distinction $ased on econoic class and stat"s, &ith the hi!her !rades as recipients
of a $enefit specifically &ithheld fro the lo&er !rades. Officers of the BSP no& receive hi!her
copensation pac'a!es that are copetitive &ith the ind"stry, &hile the poorer, lo&*salaried eployees
are liited to the rates prescri$ed $y the SSA. #he iplications are %"ite dist"r$in!8 BSP ran'*and*file
eployees are paid the strictly re!iented rates of the SSA &hile eployees hi!her in ran' * possessin!
hi!her and $etter ed"cation and opport"nities for career advanceent * are !iven hi!her copensation
pac'a!es to entice the to stay. Considerin! that a:ority, if not all, the ran'*and*file eployees consist
of people &hose stat"s and ran' in life are less and liited, especially in ters of :o$ ar'eta$ility, it is
they * and not the officers * &ho have the real econoic and financial need for the ad:"stent . #his is in
accord &ith the policy of the Constit"tion >to free the people fro poverty, provide ade%"ate social
services, e9tend to the a decent standard of livin!, and iprove the %"ality of life for all.> Any act of
Con!ress that r"ns co"nter to this constit"tional desiderat" deserves strict scr"tiny $y this Co"rt $efore
it can pass "ster. 3Ephasis s"pplied4
I$"ed &ith the sae sense of >o$li!ation to afford protection to la$or,> the Co"rt in the present case also
eploys the standard of strict :"dicial scr"tiny, for it perceives in the s"$:ect cla"se a s"spect
classification pre:"dicial to OF=s.
)pon c"rsory readin!, the s"$:ect cla"se appears facially ne"tral, for it applies to all OF=s. Co&ever, a
closer e9aination reveals that the s"$:ect cla"se has a discriinatory intent a!ainst, and an invidio"s
ipact on, OF=s at t&o levels8
First, OF=s &ith eployent contracts of less than one year vis*P*vis OF=s &ith eployent
contracts of one year or oreM
Second, aon! OF=s &ith eployent contracts of ore than one yearM and
#hird, OF=s vis*P*vis local &or'ers &ith fi9ed*period eployentM
O4!) 3,th %(-lo1(%nt contract) o* l%)) than on% 1%ar vis232vis O4!) 3,th %(-lo1(%nt
contract) o* on% 1%ar or (or%
As pointed o"t $y petitioner,
26
it &as in Marsaman Manning &gency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission
2E
3Second Division, /EEE4 that the Co"rt laid do&n the follo&in! r"les on the application of
the periods prescri$ed "nder Section /0354 of R.A. No. 607, to &it8
% plain readin0 of $ec. 4/ clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an
ille0ally dismissed overseas contract wor5er, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or three (3) months1 salary for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract
concerned has a term of at least one (4) year or more. !his is evident from the words 6for
every year of the unexpired term6 which follows the words 6salaries x x x for three
months.6 #o follo& petitionersK thin'in! that private respondent is entitled to three 3@4 onths salary
only siply $eca"se it is the lesser ao"nt is to copletely disre!ard and overloo' soe &ords "sed in
the stat"te &hile !ivin! effect to soe. #his is contrary to the &ell*esta$lished r"le in le!al herene"tics
that in interpretin! a stat"te, care sho"ld $e ta'en that every part or &ord thereof $e !iven effect since the
la&*a'in! $ody is pres"ed to 'no& the eanin! of the &ords eployed in the stat"e and to have "sed
the advisedly. )t res a!is valeat %"a pereat.
60
3Ephasis s"pplied4
In -arsaan, the OF= involved &as ille!ally disissed t&o onths into his /0*onth contract, $"t &as
a&arded his salaries for the reainin! 6 onths and F days of his contract.
Prior to Marsaman, ho&ever, there &ere t&o cases in &hich the Co"rt ade conflictin! r"lin!s on Section
/0354. One &as &sian Center !or Career and 2mployment System and Services v. National Labor
Relations Commission 3Second Division, Octo$er /EE64,
6/
&hich involved an OF= &ho &as a&arded a
t&o*year eployent contract, $"t &as disissed after &or'in! for one year and t&o onths. #he AA
declared his disissal ille!al and a&arded hi SR/@,F00.00 as l"p*s" salary coverin! ei!ht onths,
the "ne9pired portion of his contract. On appeal, the Co"rt red"ced the a&ard to SR@,F00.00 e%"ivalent
to his three onthsK salary, this $ein! the lesser val"e, to &it8
)nder Section /0 of R.A. No. 6071, a &or'er disissed fro overseas eployent &itho"t :"st, valid or
a"thori;ed ca"se is entitled to his salary for the "ne9pired portion of his eployent contract or for three
3@4 onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter, &hichever is less.
In the case at $ar, the "ne9pired portion of private respondentKs eployent contract is ei!ht 364 onths.
Private respondent sho"ld therefore $e paid his $asic salary correspondin! to three 3@4 onths or a total
of SR@,F00.
61
Another &as Triple,2ight Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission 3#hird
Division, Dece$er /EE64,
6@
&hich involved an OF= 3therein respondent Erlinda Osdana4 &ho &as
ori!inally !ranted a /1*onth contract, &hich &as deeed rene&ed for another /1 onths. After servin!
for one year and seven*and*a*half onths, respondent Osdana &as ille!ally disissed, and the Co"rt
a&arded her salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion of fo"r and one*half onths of her contract.
#he Marsaman interpretation of Section /0354 has since $een adopted in the follo&in! cases8
Ca)% T,tl% Contract
+%r,od
+%r,od o*
S%r2,c%
"n%5-,r%d +%r,od +%r,od A--l,%d ,n
th% Co(-'tat,on o*
th% Mon%tar1
A3ard
S'ippers v.
-a!"ad
67
F onths 1 onths 7 onths 7 onths
Bahia Shippin! v.
Reynaldo Ch"a
65
E onths 6 onths 7 onths 7 onths
Centennial
#ransarine v.
dela Cr"; l
6F
E onths 7 onths 5 onths 5 onths
#alidano v.
Falcon
62

/1 onths @ onths E onths @ onths
)nivan v. CA
66
/1 onths @ onths E onths @ onths
Oriental v. CA
6E
/1 onths ore than 1
onths
/0 onths @ onths
PCA v. NARC
E0
/1 onths ore than 1
onths
ore or less E
onths
@ onths
Olarte v. Nayona
E/
/1 onths 1/ days // onths and E
days
@ onths
.SS v.Ferrer
E1
/1 onths /F days // onths and 17
days
@ onths
Penta!on v.
Adelantar
E@
/1 onths E onths and 2
days
1 onths and 1@
days
1 onths and 1@ days
Phil. Eploy v.
Paraio, et al.
E7
/1 onths /0 onths 1 onths )ne9pired portion
Flo"rish -aritie
v. Alan;or
E5
1 years 1F days 1@ onths and 7
days
F onths or @ onths
for each year of
contract
Athenna
-anpo&er v.
Dillanos
EF
/ year, /0
onths and
16 days
/ onth / year, E onths and
16 days
F onths or @ onths
for each year of
contract
As the fore!oin! atri9 readily sho&s, the s"$:ect cla"se classifies OF=s into t&o cate!ories. #he first
cate!ory incl"des OF=s &ith fi9ed*period eployent contracts of less than one yearM in case of ille!al
disissal, they are entitled to their salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion of their contract. #he second
cate!ory consists of OF=s &ith fi9ed*period eployent contracts of one year or oreM in case of ille!al
disissal, they are entitled to onetary a&ard e%"ivalent to only @ onths of the "ne9pired portion of
their contracts.
#he disparity in the treatent of these t&o !ro"ps cannot $e disco"nted. In S$ippers, the respondent
OF= &or'ed for only 1 onths o"t of his F*onth contract, $"t &as a&arded his salaries for the
reainin! 7 onths. In contrast, the respondent OF=s in 3riental and 1CL &ho had also &or'ed for
a$o"t 1 onths o"t of their /1*onth contracts &ere a&arded their salaries for only @ onths of the
"ne9pired portion of their contracts. Even the OF=s involved in Talidano and 4nivan &ho had &or'ed
for a lon!er period of @ onths o"t of their /1*onth contracts $efore $ein! ille!ally disissed &ere
a&arded their salaries for only @ onths.
#o ill"strate the disparity even ore vividly, the Co"rt ass"es a hypothetical OF=*A &ith an
eployent contract of /0 onths at a onthly salary rate of )SB/,000.00 and a hypothetical OF=*B
&ith an eployent contract of /5 onths &ith the sae onthly salary rate of )SB/,000.00. Both
coenced &or' on the sae day and "nder the sae eployer, and &ere ille!ally disissed after one
onth of &or'. )nder the s"$:ect cla"se, OF=*A &ill $e entitled to )SBE,000.00, e%"ivalent to his
salaries for the reainin! E onths of his contract, &hereas OF=*B &ill $e entitled to only )SB@,000.00,
e%"ivalent to his salaries for @ onths of the "ne9pired portion of his contract, instead of )SB/7,000.00
for the "ne9pired portion of /7 onths of his contract, as the )SB@,000.00 is the lesser ao"nt.
#he disparity $ecoes ore a!!ravatin! &hen the Co"rt ta'es into acco"nt :"rispr"dence that, prior to
the effectivity of ).%. &o. -/78 on July 47, 499:,
E2
ille!ally disissed OF=s, no atter ho& lon!
the period of their eployent contracts, &ere entitled to their salaries for the entire "ne9pired portions
of their contracts. #he atri9 $elo& spea's for itself8
Ca)% T,tl% Contract
+%r,od
+%r,od o*
S%r2,c%
"n%5-,r%d
+%r,od
+%r,od A--l,%d ,n th%
Co(-'tat,on o* th%
Mon%tar1 A3ard
A#CI v. CA, et al.
E6
1 years 2 (onth) 11 onths 11 onths
Phil. Inte!rated v.
NARC
EE
1 years 2 days 1@ onths and
1@ days
1@ onths and 1@ days
.+B v. NAC
/00
1 years E onths /5 onths /5 onths
A!oy v. NARC
/0/
1 years 1 onths 11 onths 11 onths
EDI v. NARC, et
al.
/01
1 years 5 onths /E onths /E onths
Barros v. NARC, et
al.
/0@
/1 onths 7 onths 6 onths 6 onths
Philippine
#ransarine v.
Carilla
/07
/1 onths F onths and
11 days
5 onths and /6
days
5 onths and /6 days
It is plain that prior to R.&. No. '%(), all 3"5s, regardless o! contract periods or the ne6pired
portions thereo!, #ere treated ali$e in terms o! the comptation o! their monetary bene!its in case o!
illegal dismissal. Their claims #ere sb+ected to a ni!orm rle o! comptation7 their basic salaries
mltiplied by the entire ne6pired portion o! their employment contracts.
#he enactent of the s"$:ect cla"se in R.A. No. 6071 introd"ced a differentiated r"le of cop"tation of
the oney clais of ille!ally disissed OF=s $ased on their eployent periods, in the process
sin0lin0 out one cate!ory &hose contracts have an "ne9pired portion of one year or ore and
s"$:ectin! the to the pec"liar disadvanta!e of havin! their onetary a&ards liited to their salaries for
@ onths or for the "ne9pired portion thereof, &hichever is less, $"t all the &hile sparin! the other
cate!ory fro s"ch pre:"dice, siply $eca"se the latter?s "ne9pired contracts fall short of one year.
A(on& O4!) !,th E(-lo1(%nt Contract) o* Mor% Than On% 6%ar
)pon closer e9aination of the terinolo!y eployed in the s"$:ect cla"se, the Co"rt no& has is!ivin!s
on the acc"racy of the Marsaman interpretation.
#he Co"rt notes that the s"$:ect cla"se >or for three 3@4 onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter,
&hichever is less> contains the %"alifyin! phrases >every year> and >"ne9pired ter.> By its ordinary
eanin!, the &ord >ter> eans a liited or definite e9tent of tie.
/05
Corollarily, that >every year> is $"t
part of an >"ne9pired ter> is si!nificant in any &ays8 first, the "ne9pired ter "st $e at least one
year, !or i! it #ere any shorter, there #old be no occasion !or sch ne6pired term to be measred by
every yearM and second, the ori!inal ter "st $e ore than one year, for other&ise, &hatever &o"ld $e
the "ne9pired ter thereof &ill not reach even a year. Conse%"ently, the ore decisive factor in the
deterination of &hen the s"$:ect cla"se >for three 3@4 onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter,
&hichever is less> shall apply is not the len!th of the ori!inal contract period as held in Marsaman,
/0F
$"t
the len!th of the "ne9pired portion of the contract period ** the s"$:ect cla"se applies in cases &hen the
"ne9pired portion of the contract period is at least one year, &hich arithetically re%"ires that the
ori!inal contract period $e ore than one year.
Die&ed in that li!ht, the s"$:ect cla"se creates a s"$*layer of discriination aon! OF=s &hose contract
periods are for ore than one year8 those &ho are ille!ally disissed &ith less than one year left in their
contracts shall $e entitled to their salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion thereof, &hile those &ho are
ille!ally disissed &ith one year or ore reainin! in their contracts shall $e covered $y the s"$:ect
cla"se, and their onetary $enefits liited to their salaries for three onths only.
#o concretely ill"strate the application of the fore!oin! interpretation of the s"$:ect cla"se, the Co"rt
ass"es hypothetical OF=*C and OF=*D, &ho each have a 17*onth contract at a salary rate of
)SB/,000.00 per onth. OF=*C is ille!ally disissed on the /1th onth, and OF=*D, on the /@th
onth. Considerin! that there is at least /1 onths reainin! in the contract period of OF=*C, the
s"$:ect cla"se applies to the cop"tation of the latter?s onetary $enefits. #h"s, OF=*C &ill $e entitled,
not to )SB/1,000,00 or the latter?s total salaries for the /1 onths "ne9pired portion of the contract, $"t
to the lesser ao"nt of )SB@,000.00 or the latter?s salaries for @ onths o"t of the /1*onth "ne9pired
ter of the contract. On the other hand, OF=*D is spared fro the effects of the s"$:ect cla"se, for there
are only // onths left in the latter?s contract period. #h"s, OF=*D &ill $e entitled to )SB//,000.00,
&hich is e%"ivalent to hisGher total salaries for the entire //*onth "ne9pired portion.
O4!) vis232vis ocal !or7%r)
!,th 4,5%d#+%r,od E(-lo1(%nt
As disc"ssed earlier, prior to R.A. No. 6071, a "nifor syste of cop"tation of the onetary a&ards of
ille!ally disissed OF=s &as in place. #his "nifor syste &as applica$le even to local &or'ers &ith
fi9ed*ter eployent.
/02
#he earliest r"le prescri$in! a "nifor syste of cop"tation &as act"ally Article 1EE of the Code of
Coerce 3/6664,
/06
to &it8
Article 1EE. If the contracts $et&een the erchants and their shop cler's and eployees sho"ld have $een
ade of a fi9ed period, none of the contractin! parties, &itho"t the consent of the other, ay &ithdra&
fro the f"lfillent of said contract "ntil the terination of the period a!reed "pon.
Persons violatin! this cla"se shall $e s"$:ect to indenify the loss and daa!e s"ffered, &ith the
e9ception of the provisions contained in the follo&in! articles.
In Reyes v. #he CopaQia -aritia,
/0E
the Co"rt applied the fore!oin! provision to deterine the lia$ility
of a shippin! copany for the ille!al dischar!e of its ana!ers prior to the e9piration of their fi9ed*ter
eployent. #he Co"rt therein held the shippin! copany lia$le for the salaries of its ana!ers for the
reainder of their fi9ed*ter eployent.
#here is a ore specific r"le as far as seafarers are concerned8 Article F05 of the Code of Coerce &hich
provides8
Article F05. If the contracts of the captain and e$ers of the cre& &ith the a!ent sho"ld $e for a definite
period or voya!e, they cannot $e dischar!ed "ntil the f"lfillent of their contracts, e9cept for reasons of
ins"$ordination in serio"s atters, ro$$ery, theft, ha$it"al dr"n'enness, and daa!e ca"sed to the vessel
or to its car!o $y alice or anifest or proven ne!li!ence.
Article F05 &as applied to -adri!al Shippin! Copany, Inc. v. O!ilvie,
//0
in
&hich the Co"rt held the shippin! copany lia$le for the salaries and s"$sistence allo&ance of its ille!ally
disissed eployees for the entire "ne9pired portion of their eployent contracts.
=hile Article F05 has reained !ood la& "p to the present,
///
Article 1EE of the Code of Coerce &as
replaced $y Art. /56F of the Civil Code of /66E, to &it8
Article /56F. Field hands, echanics, artisans, and other la$orers hired for a certain tie and for a certain
&or' cannot leave or $e disissed &itho"t s"fficient ca"se, $efore the f"lfillent of the contract.
3Ephasis s"pplied.4
Citin! Manresa, the Co"rt in Aeoine v. Al'an
//1
read the dis:"nctive >or> in Article /56F as a con:"nctive
>and> so as to apply the provision to local &or'ers &ho are eployed for a tie certain altho"!h for no
partic"lar s'ill. #his interpretation of Article /56F &as reiterated in +arcia Paloar v. Cotel de France
Copany.
//@
And in $oth Aeoine and Paloar, the Co"rt adopted the !eneral principle that in actions for
&ron!f"l dischar!e fo"nded on Article /56F, local &or'ers are entitled to recover daa!es to the e9tent of
the ao"nt stip"lated to $e paid to the $y the ters of their contract. On the cop"tation of the
ao"nt of s"ch daa!es, the Co"rt in Alda; v. +ay
//7
held8
#he doctrine is &ell*esta$lished in Aerican :"rispr"dence, and nothin! has $een $ro"!ht to o"r
attention to the contrary "nder Spanish :"rispr"dence, that &hen an eployee is &ron!f"lly dischar!ed it
is his d"ty to see' other eployent of the sae 'ind in the sae co"nity, for the p"rpose of
red"cin! the daa!es res"ltin! fro s"ch &ron!f"l dischar!e. Co&ever, &hile this is the !eneral r"le, the
$"rden of sho&in! that he failed to a'e an effort to sec"re other eployent of a li'e nat"re, and that
other eployent of a li'e nat"re &as o$taina$le, is "pon the defendant. 5hen an employee is
#rong!lly discharged nder a contract o! employment his prima !acie damage is the amont #hich he
#old be entitled to had he contined in sch employment ntil the termination o! the period. 3Co&ard
vs. Daly, F/ N. (., @F1M Allen vs. =hitlar', EE -ich., 7E1M Farrell vs. School District No. 1, E6 -ich., 7@.4
//5

3Ephasis s"pplied4
On A"!"st @0, /E50, the Ne& Civil Code too' effect &ith ne& provisions on fi9ed*ter eployent8
Section 1 3O$li!ations &ith a Period4, Chapter @, #itle I, and Sections 1 3Contract of Aa$or4 and @
3Contract for a Piece of =or'4, Chapter @, #itle DIII, Boo' ID.
//F
-"ch li'e Article /56F of the Civil Code of
/66E, the ne& provisions of the Civil Code do not e9pressly provide for the reedies availa$le to a fi9ed*
ter &or'er &ho is ille!ally dischar!ed. Co&ever, it is noted that in -ac'ay Radio R #ele!raph Co., Inc.
v. Rich,
//2
the Co"rt carried over the principles on the payent of daa!es "nderlyin! Article /56F of the
Civil Code of /66E and applied the sae to a case involvin! the ille!al dischar!e of a local &or'er &hose
fi9ed*period eployent contract &as entered into in /E51, &hen the ne& Civil Code &as already in
effect.
//6
-ore si!nificantly, the sae principles &ere applied to cases involvin! overseas Filipino &or'ers &hose
fi9ed*ter eployent contracts &ere ille!ally terinated, s"ch as in First Asian #rans R Shippin!
A!ency, Inc. v. Ople,
//E
involvin! seafarers &ho &ere ille!ally dischar!ed. In #e'ni'a S'ills and #rade
Services, Inc. v. National Aa$or Relations Coission,
/10
an OF= &ho &as ille!ally disissed prior to the
e9piration of her fi9ed*period eployent contract as a $a$y sitter, &as a&arded salaries correspondin!
to the "ne9pired portion of her contract. #he Co"rt arrived at the sae r"lin! in Anderson v. National
Aa$or Relations Coission,
/1/
&hich involved a forean hired in /E66 in Sa"di Ara$ia for a fi9ed ter
of t&o years, $"t &ho &as ille!ally disissed after only nine onths on the :o$ ** the Co"rt a&arded hi
salaries correspondin! to /5 onths, the "ne9pired portion of his contract. In Asia =orld Recr"itent,
Inc. v. National Aa$or Relations Coission,
/11
a Filipino &or'in! as a sec"rity officer in /E6E in An!ola
&as a&arded his salaries for the reainin! period of his /1*onth contract after he &as &ron!f"lly
dischar!ed. Finally, in 8inta Maritime Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
/1@
an OF=
&hose /1*onth contract &as ille!ally c"t short in the second onth &as declared entitled to his salaries
for the reainin! /0 onths of his contract.
In sm, prior to R.&. No. '%(), 3"5s and local #or$ers #ith !i6ed,term employment #ho #ere
illegally discharged #ere treated ali$e in terms o! the comptation o! their money claims7 they #ere
ni!ormly entitled to their salaries !or the entire ne6pired portions o! their contracts. B"t &ith the
enactent of R.A. No. 6071, specifically the adoption of the s"$:ect cla"se, ille!ally disissed OF=s &ith
an "ne9pired portion of one year or ore in their eployent contract have since $een differently treated
in that their oney clais are s"$:ect to a @*onth cap, &hereas no s"ch liitation is iposed on local
&or'ers &ith fi9ed*ter eployent.
!he ;ourt concludes that the su<=ect clause contains a suspect classification in that, in
the computation of the monetary <enefits of fixed2term employees who are ille0ally
dischar0ed, it imposes a 32month cap on the claim of ">?s with an unexpired portion of
one year or more in their contracts, <ut none on the claims of other ">?s or local
wor5ers with fixed2term employment. !he su<=ect clause sin0les out one classification of
">?s and <urdens it with a peculiar disadvanta0e.
#here $ein! a s"spect classification involvin! a v"lnera$le sector protected $y the Constit"tion, the Co"rt
no& s"$:ects the classification to a strict :"dicial scr"tiny, and deterines &hether it serves a copellin!
state interest thro"!h the least restrictive eans.
=hat constit"tes copellin! state interest is eas"red $y the scale of ri!hts and po&ers arrayed in the
Constit"tion and cali$rated $y history.
/17
It is a'in to the parao"nt interest of the state
/15
for &hich soe
individ"al li$erties "st !ive &ay, s"ch as the p"$lic interest in safe!"ardin! health or aintainin!
edical standards,
/1F
or in aintainin! access to inforation on atters of p"$lic concern.
/12
In the present case, the Co"rt d"! deep into the records $"t fo"nd no copellin! state interest that the
s"$:ect cla"se ay possi$ly serve.
#he OS+ defends the s"$:ect cla"se as a police po&er eas"re >desi!ned to protect the eployent of
Filipino seafarers overseas 9 9 9. By liitin! the lia$ility to three onths IsicJ, Filipino seafarers have
$etter chance of !ettin! hired $y forei!n eployers.> #he liitation also protects the interest of local
placeent a!encies, &hich other&ise ay $e ade to sho"lder illions of pesos in >terination pay.>
/16
#he OS+ e9plained f"rther8
Often, placeent a!encies, their lia$ility $ein! solidary, sho"lder the payent of oney clais in the
event that :"risdiction over the forei!n eployer is not ac%"ired $y the co"rt or if the forei!n eployer
rene!es on its o$li!ation. Cence, placeent a!encies that are in !ood faith and &hich f"lfill their
o$li!ations are "nnecessarily penali;ed for the acts of the forei!n eployer. #o protect the and to
proote their contin"ed helpf"l contri$"tion in deployin! Filipino i!rant &or'ers, lia$ility for oney
are red"ced "nder Section /0 of RA 6071.
#his eas"re redo"nds to the $enefit of the i!rant &or'ers &hose &elfare the !overnent see's to
proote. #he s"rvival of le!itiate placeent a!encies helps Iass"reJ the !overnent that i!rant
&or'ers are properly deployed and are eployed "nder decent and h"ane conditions.
/1E
3Ephasis
s"pplied4
Co&ever, no&here in the Coent or -eorand" does the OS+ cite the so"rce of its perception of the
state interest so"!ht to $e served $y the s"$:ect cla"se.
#he OS+ locates the p"rpose of R.A. No. 6071 in the speech of Rep. Bonifacio +alle!o in sponsorship of
Co"se Bill No. /7@/7 3CB /7@/74, fro &hich the la& ori!inatedM
/@0
$"t the speech a'es no reference to
the "nderlyin! reason for the adoption of the s"$:ect cla"se. #hat is only nat"ral for none of the 1E
provisions in CB /7@/7 rese$les the s"$:ect cla"se.
On the other hand, Senate Bill No. 1022 3SB 10224 contains a provision on oney clais, to &it8
Sec. /0. Money Claims. * Not&ithstandin! any provision of la& to the contrary, the Aa$or Ar$iters of the
National Aa$or Relations Coission 3NARC4 shall have the ori!inal and e9cl"sive :"risdiction to hear
and decide, &ithin ninety 3E04 calendar days after the filin! of the coplaint, the clais arisin! o"t of an
eployer*eployee relationship or $y virt"e of the coplaint, the clai arisin! o"t of an eployer*
eployee relationship or $y virt"e of any la& or contract involvin! Filipino &or'ers for overseas
eployent incl"din! clais for act"al, oral, e9eplary and other fors of daa!es.
#he lia$ility of the principal and the recr"itentGplaceent a!ency or any and all clais "nder this
Section shall $e :oint and several.
Any coproiseGaica$le settleent or vol"ntary a!reeent on any oney clais e9cl"sive of daa!es
"nder this Section shall not $e less than fifty percent 350<4 of s"ch oney clais8 1rovided, #hat any
installent payents, if applica$le, to satisfy any s"ch coproise or vol"ntary settleent shall not $e
ore than t&o 314 onths. Any coproiseGvol"ntary a!reeent in violation of this para!raph shall $e
n"ll and void.
Non*copliance &ith the andatory period for resol"tions of cases provided "nder this Section shall
s"$:ect the responsi$le officials to any or all of the follo&in! penalties8
3/4 #he salary of any s"ch official &ho fails to render his decision or resol"tion &ithin the
prescri$ed period shall $e, or ca"sed to $e, &ithheld "ntil the said official coplies there&ithM
314 S"spension for not ore than ninety 3E04 daysM or
3@4 Disissal fro the service &ith dis%"alification to hold any appointive p"$lic office for five 354
years.
Provided, ho&ever, #hat the penalties herein provided shall $e &itho"t pre:"dice to any lia$ility &hich
any s"ch official ay have inc"rred "nder other e9istin! la&s or r"les and re!"lations as a conse%"ence of
violatin! the provisions of this para!raph.
B"t si!nificantly, Section /0 of SB 1022 does not provide for any r"le on the cop"tation of oney clais.
A r"le on the cop"tation of oney clais containin! the s"$:ect cla"se &as inserted and event"ally
adopted as the 5th para!raph of Section /0 of R.A. No. 6071. #he Co"rt e9ained the rationale of the
s"$:ect cla"se in the transcripts of the >Bicaeral Conference Coittee 3Conference Coittee4
-eetin!s on the -a!na Carta on OC=s 3Disa!reein! Provisions of Senate Bill No. 1022 and Co"se Bill
No. /7@/74.> Co&ever, the Co"rt finds no discerni$le state interest, let alone a copellin! one, that is
so"!ht to $e protected or advanced $y the adoption of the s"$:ect cla"se.
In fine, the +overnent has failed to dischar!e its $"rden of provin! the e9istence of a copellin! state
interest that &o"ld :"stify the perpet"ation of the discriination a!ainst OF=s "nder the s"$:ect cla"se.
Ass"in! that, as advanced $y the OS+, the p"rpose of the s"$:ect cla"se is to protect the eployent of
OF=s $y iti!atin! the solidary lia$ility of placeent a!encies, s"ch callo"s and cavalier rationale &ill
have to $e re:ected. #here can never $e a :"stification for any for of !overnent action that alleviates the
$"rden of one sector, $"t iposes the sae $"rden on another sector, especially &hen the favored sector
is coposed of private $"sinesses s"ch as placeent a!encies, &hile the disadvanta!ed sector is
coposed of OF=s &hose protection no less than the Constit"tion coands. #he idea that private
$"siness interest can $e elevated to the level of a copellin! state interest is odio"s.
-oreover, even if the p"rpose of the s"$:ect cla"se is to lessen the solidary lia$ility of placeent a!encies
vis,a,vis their forei!n principals, there are echaniss already in place that can $e eployed to achieve
that p"rpose &itho"t infrin!in! on the constit"tional ri!hts of OF=s.
#he POEA R"les and Re!"lations +overnin! the Recr"itent and Eployent of Aand*Based Overseas
=or'ers, dated Fe$r"ary 7, 1001, iposes adinistrative disciplinary eas"res on errin! forei!n
eployers &ho defa"lt on their contract"al o$li!ations to i!rant &or'ers andGor their Philippine a!ents.
#hese disciplinary eas"res ran!e fro teporary dis%"alification to preventive s"spension. #he POEA
R"les and Re!"lations +overnin! the Recr"itent and Eployent of Seafarers, dated -ay 1@, 100@,
contains siilar adinistrative disciplinary eas"res a!ainst errin! forei!n eployers.
Resort to these adinistrative eas"res is "ndo"$tedly the less restrictive eans of aidin! local
placeent a!encies in enforcin! the solidary lia$ility of their forei!n principals.
#h"s, the s"$:ect cla"se in the 5th para!raph of Section /0 of R.A. No. 6071 is violative of the ri!ht of
petitioner and other OF=s to e%"al protection.1avvphi1
F"rther, there &o"ld $e certain is!ivin!s if one is to approach the declaration of the "nconstit"tionality
of the s"$:ect cla"se fro the lone perspective that the cla"se directly violates state policy on la$or "nder
Section @,
/@/
Article OIII of the Constit"tion.
=hile all the provisions of the /E62 Constit"tion are pres"ed self*e9ec"tin!,
/@1
there are soe &hich this
Co"rt has declared not =udicially enforcea<le, Article OIII $ein! one,
/@@
partic"larly Section @ thereof,
the nat"re of &hich, this Co"rt, in &gabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,
/@7
has descri$ed to
$e not self*act"atin!8
#h"s, the constit"tional andates of protection to la$or and sec"rity of ten"re ay $e deeed as self*
e9ec"tin! in the sense that these are a"toatically ac'no&led!ed and o$served &itho"t need for any
ena$lin! le!islation. Co&ever, to declare that the constit"tional provisions are eno"!h to !"arantee the
f"ll e9ercise of the ri!hts e$odied therein, and the reali;ation of ideals therein e9pressed, &o"ld $e
ipractical, if not "nrealistic. #he espo"sal of s"ch vie& presents the dan!ero"s tendency of $ein!
over$road and e9a!!erated. #he !"arantees of >f"ll protection to la$or> and >sec"rity of ten"re>, &hen
e9ained in isolation, are facially "n%"alified, and the $roadest interpretation possi$le s"!!ests a $lan'et
shield in favor of la$or a!ainst any for of reoval re!ardless of circ"stance. #his interpretation
iplies an "nipeacha$le ri!ht to contin"ed eployent*a "topian notion, do"$tless*$"t still hardly
&ithin the conteplation of the fraers. S"$se%"ent le!islation is still needed to define the paraeters of
these !"aranteed ri!hts to ens"re the protection and prootion, not only the ri!hts of the la$or sector,
$"t of the eployers? as &ell. =itho"t specific and pertinent le!islation, :"dicial $odies &ill $e at a loss,
for"latin! their o&n concl"sion to appro9iate at least the ais of the Constit"tion.
#ltimately, therefore, $ection 3 of %rticle @III cannot, on its own, <e a source of a positive
enforcea<le ri0ht to stave off the disissal of an eployee for :"st ca"se o&in! to the fail"re to serve
proper notice or hearin!. As anifested $y several fraers of the /E62 Constit"tion, the provisions on
social :"stice re%"ire le!islative enactents for their enforcea$ility.
/@5
3Ephasis added4
#h"s, Section @, Article OIII cannot $e treated as a principal so"rce of direct enforcea$le ri!hts, for the
violation of &hich the %"estioned cla"se ay $e declared "nconstit"tional. It ay "n&ittin!ly ris'
openin! the flood!ates of liti!ation to every &or'er or "nion over every conceiva$le violation of so $road a
concept as social :"stice for la$or.
It "st $e stressed that Section @, Article OIII does not directly $esto& on the &or'in! class any act"al
enforcea$le ri!ht, $"t erely clothes it &ith the stat"s of a sector for &ho the Constit"tion "r!es
protection thro"!h e9ec"tive or le!islative action and =udicial reco0nition. Its "tility is $est liited to
$ein! an ipet"s not :"st for the e9ec"tive and le!islative departents, $"t for the :"diciary as &ell, to
protect the &elfare of the &or'in! class. And it &as in fact consistent &ith that constit"tional a!enda that
the Co"rt in Central 0an$ 9no# 0ang$o Sentral ng 1ilipinas: 2mployee &ssociation, Inc. v. 0ang$o
Sentral ng 1ilipinas, penned $y then Associate ."stice no& Chief ."stice Reynato S. P"no, for"lated the
:"dicial precept that &hen the challen!e to a stat"te is preised on the perpet"ation of pre:"dice a!ainst
persons favored $y the Constit"tion &ith special protection ** s"ch as the &or'in! class or a section
thereof ** the Co"rt ay reco!ni;e the e9istence of a s"spect classification and s"$:ect the sae to strict
:"dicial scr"tiny.
#he vie& that the concepts of s"spect classification and strict :"dicial scr"tiny for"lated in Central 0an$
2mployee &ssociation e9a!!erate the si!nificance of Section @, Article OIII is a !ro"ndless apprehension.
Central 0an$ applied Article OIII in con:"nction &ith the e%"al protection cla"se. Article OIII, $y itself,
&itho"t the application of the e%"al protection cla"se, has no life or force of its o&n as el"cidated in
&gabon.
Alon! the sae line of reasonin!, the Co"rt f"rther holds that the s"$:ect cla"se violates petitioner?s ri!ht
to s"$stantive d"e process, for it deprives hi of property, consistin! of onetary $enefits, &itho"t any
e9istin! valid !overnental p"rpose.
/@F
#he ar!"ent of the Solicitor +eneral, that the act"al p"rpose of the s"$:ect cla"se of liitin! the
entitleent of OF=s to their three*onth salary in case of ille!al disissal, is to !ive the a $etter
chance of !ettin! hired $y forei!n eployers. #his is plain spec"lation. As earlier disc"ssed, there is
nothin! in the te9t of the la& or the records of the deli$erations leadin! to its enactent or the pleadin!s
of respondent that &o"ld indicate that there is an e9istin! !overnental p"rpose for the s"$:ect cla"se, or
even :"st a prete9t of one.
#he s"$:ect cla"se does not state or iply any definitive !overnental p"rposeM and it is for that precise
reason that the cla"se violates not :"st petitioner?s ri!ht to e%"al protection, $"t also her ri!ht to
s"$stantive d"e process "nder Section /,
/@2
Article III of the Constit"tion.
#he s"$:ect cla"se $ein! "nconstit"tional, petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire "ne9pired
period of nine onths and 1@ days of his eployent contract, p"rs"ant to la& and :"rispr"dence prior
to the enactent of R.A. No. 6071.
"n the !hird Issue
Petitioner contends that his overtie and leave pay sho"ld for part of the salary $asis in the
cop"tation of his onetary a&ard, $eca"se these are fi9ed $enefits that have $een stip"lated into his
contract.
Petitioner is ista'en.
#he &ord salaries in Section /0354 does not incl"de overtie and leave pay. For seafarers li'e petitioner,
DOAE Departent Order No. @@, series /EEF, provides a Standard Eployent Contract of Seafarers, in
&hich salary is "nderstood as the $asic &a!e, e9cl"sive of overtie, leave pay and other $on"sesM &hereas
overtie pay is copensation for all &or' >perfored> in e9cess of the re!"lar ei!ht ho"rs, and holiday
pay is copensation for any &or' >perfored> on desi!nated rest days and holidays.
By the fore!oin! definition alone, there is no $asis for the a"toatic incl"sion of overtie and holiday pay
in the cop"tation of petitioner?s onetary a&ard, "nless there is evidence that he perfored &or'
d"rin! those periods. As the Co"rt held in Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. *ela Crz,
/@6
Co&ever, the payent of overtie pay and leave pay sho"ld $e disallo&ed in li!ht of o"r r"lin! in
Ca!apan v. National Aa$or Relations Coission, to &it8
#he rendition of overtie &or' and the s"$ission of s"fficient proof that said &as act"ally perfored
are conditions to $e satisfied $efore a seaan co"ld $e entitled to overtie pay &hich sho"ld $e
cop"ted on the $asis of @0< of the $asic onthly salary. In short, the contract provision !"arantees the
ri!ht to overtie pay $"t the entitleent to s"ch $enefit "st first $e esta$lished.
In the sae vein, the clai for the day?s leave pay for the "ne9pired portion of the contract is "n&arranted
since the sae is !iven d"rin! the act"al service of the seaen.
!8ERE4ORE, the Co"rt GRANTS the Petition. #he s"$:ect cla"se >or for three onths for every year
of the "ne9pired ter, &hichever is less> in the 5th para!raph of Section /0 of Rep"$lic Act No. 6071 is
9ECARE9 "NCONSTIT"TIONAM and the Dece$er 6, 1007 Decision and April /, 1005
Resol"tion of the Co"rt of Appeals are MO9I4IE9 to the effect that petitioner is A!AR9E9 his
salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion of his eployent contract consistin! of nine onths and 1@
days cop"ted at the rate of )SB/,700.00 per onth.
No costs.
SO OR9ERE9.
MA. AICIA A"STRIA#MARTINE$
Associate ."stice
=E CONC)R8
RE6NATO S. +"NO
Chief ."stice
EONAR9O A. :"IS"M;ING
Associate ."stice
CONS"EO 6NARES#SANTIAGO
Associate ."stice
ANTONIO T. CAR+IO
Associate ."stice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate ."stice
CONC8ITA CAR+IO MORAES
Associate ."stice
9ANTE O. TINGA
Associate ."stice
3On leave4 +RES;ITERO <. VEASCO, <R.
MINITA V. C8ICO#NA$ARIO
Associate ."stice
Associate ."stice
ANTONIO E9"AR9O ;. NAC8"RA
Associate ."stice
TERESITA <. EONAR9O#9E CASTRO
Associate ."stice
3see conc"rrin! opinion4
ART"RO 9. ;RION
Associate ."stice
9IOS9A9O M. +ERATA
Associate ."stice
C E R # I F I C A # I O N
P"rs"ant to Section /@, Article DIII of the Constit"tion, it is here$y certified that the concl"sions in the
a$ove Decision &ere reached in cons"ltation $efore the case &as assi!ned to the &riter of the opinion of
the Co"rt.
RE6NATO S. +"NO
Chief ."stice
4ootnot%)
/
http8GG&&&."n.or!GNe&sGPressGdocsG1002Gs!s//067.doc.ht.
1
-i!rant =or'ers and Overseas Filipinos Act of /EE5, effective ."ly /5, /EE5.
@
Penned $y Associate ."stice Andres B. Reyes, .r. and conc"rred in $y Associate ."stices A"cas P.
Bersain and Celia C. Ai$rea*Aea!o!oM rollo, p. 1@/.
7
Id. at 176.
5
Rollo, p. 52.
F
Id. at 56.
2
Id. at 5E.
6
Id. at 76.
E
Id. at 55.
/0
Accordin! to petitioner, this ao"nt represents the pro*rated difference $et&een the salary of
)SB1,5E0.00 per onth &hich he &as s"pposed to receive as Chief Officer fro -arch /E, /EE6
to April @0, /EE6 and the salary of )SB/,650.00 per onth &hich he &as act"ally paid as Second
Officer for the sae period. See AA Decision, rollo, pp. /02 and //1.
//
Position Paper, id. at 5@*57.
/1
#he AA a&arded petitioner )SB75.00 o"t of the )SB/,760.00 salary differential to &hich
petitioner is entitled in vie& of his havin! received fro respondents )SB/,7@5.00 as evidenced
$y receipts ar'ed as Anne9es >F>, >+> and >C>, id. at @/E*@1/.
/@
Id. at //7.
/7
Rollo, pp. ///*//1.
/5
Id. at /17.
/F
Id. at //5.
/2
+.R. No. /1E567, Dece$er @, /EE6, 1EE SCRA F06.
/6
Appeal -eorand", rollo, p. /1/.
/E
Id. at /@7.
10
NARC Decision, rollo, p. /70.
1/
Id. at /7F*/50.
11
Id. at /5@.
1@
Id. at /55.
17
Id. at /FF*/22.
15
CA Decision, id. at 1@E*17/.
1F
Id. at 171.
12
Id. at 176.
16
Petition, rollo, p. 16.
1E
Id. at 262.
@0
Id. at 2EE.
@/
Rollo, p. 161
@1
-eorand" for Petitioner, id. at 27/*271.
@@
Id. at 27F*25@.
@7
Section /6. #he State affirs la$or as a priary social econoic force. It shall protect the ri!hts
of &or'ers and proote their &elfare.
@5
Rollo, pp. 2F@*2FF.
@F
Petition, id. at 2@5.
@2
-eorand" of the Solicitor +eneral, rollo, p. F60.
@6
-eorand" for Petitioner, id. at 255.
@E
Id. at 2F/*2F@.
70
Rollo, pp. F75*F7F and 5/1*5/@.
7/
Alfredo A. Benipayo &as Solicitor +eneral at the tie the Coent &as filed. Antonio Ed"ardo
B. Nach"ra 3no& an Associate ."stice of the S"pree Co"rt4 &as Solicitor +eneral &hen the
-eorand" &as filed.
71
-eorand" of the Solicitor +eneral, id. at FF1*FF5.
7@
+.R. No. //@F56, -arch @/, /EE5, 17@ SCRA /E0.
77
+.R. No. //0517, ."ly 1E, 1001, @65 SCRA @0F.
75
-eorand" of the Solicitor +eneral, rollo, pp. FF6*F26.
7F
Id. at F61.
72
The 1rovince o! North Cotabato v. The ;overnment o! the Repblic o! the 1hilippines 1eace
1anel on &ncestral *omain, +.R. No. /6@5E/ Octo$er /7, 1006.
76
&tomotive Indstry 5or$ers &lliance v. Romlo, G.R. No. 1=7=09, <an'ar1 1>, 200=,
449 SCRA 1.
7E
*avid v. Macapagal,&rroyo, +.R. No. /2/@EF, -ay @, 100F, 76E SCRA /F0.
50
&rceta v. Mangrobang, +.R. No. /516E5, ."ne /5, 1007, 7@1 SCRA /@F.
5/
Molde6 Realty, Inc. v. <osing and Land 4se Reglatory 0oard, +.R. No. /7E2/E, ."ne 1/,
1002, 515 SCRA /E6M Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 1=607>, March 14, 200>, =4>
SCRA 409.
51
Matibag v. 0enipayo, +.R. No. /7E0@F, April 1, 1001, @60 SCRA 7E.
5@
Rollo, p. /75.
57
Id. at /FF.
55
Smart Commnications, Inc. v. National Telecommnications Commission, +.R. No. /5/E06,
A"!"st /1, 100@, 706 SCRA F26.
5F
2=i,&sia 1lacement, Inc. v. *epartment o! "oreign &!!airs, +.R. No. /511/7, Septe$er /E,
100F, 501 SCRA 1E5.
52
-eorand" for Petitioner, rollo, pp. 27/*271.
56
"rti0as A ;o., +td. v. ;ourt of %ppeals, +.R. No. /1F/01, Dece$er 7, 1000, @7F SCRA
276.
5E
1icop Resorces, Inc. v. 0ase Metals Mineral Resorces Corporation, +.R. No. /F@50E,
Dece$er F, 100F, 5/0 SCRA 700.
F0
5al$er v. 5hitehead, 6@ ).S. @/7 3/62@4M 5ood v. Lovett, @/@ ).S. @F1, @20 3/E7/4M Intrata,
&ssrance Corporation v. Repblic o! the 1hilippines, +.R. No. /5F52/, ."ly E, 1006M Smart
Commnications, Inc. v. City o! *avao, G.R. No. 1==491, S%-t%(0%r 16, 200>.
F/
26ective Secretary v. Cort o! &ppeals, +.R. No. /@/2/E, -ay 15, 1007, 71E SCRA 6/, citin!
>MM 1romotion and Management, Inc. v. Cort o! &ppeals, +.R. No. /100E5, A"!"st 5, /EEF,
1F0 SCRA @/E.
F1
3rtigas ? Co., Ltd. v. Cort o! &ppeals, s"pra note 56.
F@
Section /6. #he State affirs la$or as a priary social econoic force. It shall protect the ri!hts
of &or'ers and proote their &elfare.
F7
Section @, #he State shall afford f"ll protection to la$or, local and overseas, or!ani;ed and
"nor!ani;ed, and proote f"ll eployent and e%"ality of eployent opport"nities for all.
F5
See City o! Manila v. Lagio, +.R. No. //6/12, April /1, 1005, 755 SCRA @06M 1imentel III v.
Commission on 2lections, +.R. No. /267/@, -arch /@, 1006, 576 SCRA /FE.
FF
Leage o! Cities o! the 1hilippines v. Commission on 2lections +.R. No. /2FE5/, Nove$er /6,
1006M 0eltran v. Secretary o! <ealth, +.R. No. /@E/72,Nove$er 15, 1005, 72F SCRA /F6.
F2
&ssociation o! Small Lando#ners in the 1hilippines v. Secretary o! &grarian Re!orm, +.R. No.
26271, ."ly /7, /E6E, /25 SCRA @7@.
F6
Los &ngeles v. &lmeda 0oo$s, Inc., 5@5 ).S. 715 310014M Craig v. 0oren, 71E )S /E0 3/E2F4.
FE
#here is also the >hei!htened scr"tiny> standard of revie& &hich is less deandin! than >strict
scr"tiny> $"t ore deandin! than the standard rational relation test. Cei!htened scr"tiny has
!enerally $een applied to cases that involve discriinatory classifications $ased on se9 or
ille!itiacy, s"ch as in 1lyler v. *oe, 752 ).S. 101, &here a hei!htened scr"tiny standard &as
"sed to invalidate a State?s denial to the children of ille!al aliens of the free p"$lic ed"cation that
it ade availa$le to other residents.
20
&merica v. *ale, 5@0 ).S. F70 310004M 1arents Involved in Commnity Schools v. Seattle
School *istrict No. 1, 55/ ).S. 310024M http8GG&&&.s"preeco"rt"s.!ovGopinionsG0FpdfG05*
E06.pdf.
2/
Adarand Constr"ctors, Inc. v. PeQa, 5/5 )S 1@0 3/EE54.
21
;rtter v. 0ollinger, 5@E )S @0F 3100@4M 0ernal v. "ainter, 7F2 )S 1/F 3/E674.
2@
#he concept of s"spect classification first eer!ed in the fao"s footnote in the opinion of
."stice Carlan Stone in ).S. v. Carolene Prod"cts Co., @07 ).S. /77 3/E@64, the f"ll te9t of &hich
footnote is reprod"ced $elo&8
#here ay $e narro&er scope for operation of the pres"ption of constit"tionality &hen
le!islation appears on its face to $e &ithin a specific prohi$ition of the Constit"tion, s"ch
as those of the first ten aendents, &hich are deeed e%"ally specific &hen held to $e
e$raced &ithin the Fo"rteenth. See Stro$er! v. California, 16@ ).S. @5E, @FE*@20M
Aovell v. +riffin, @0@ ).S. 777, 751.
It is "nnecessary to consider no& &hether le!islation &hich restricts those political
processes &hich can ordinarily $e e9pected to $rin! a$o"t repeal of "ndesira$le
le!islation is to $e s"$:ected to ore e9actin! :"dicial scr"tiny "nder the !eneral
prohi$itions of the Fo"rteenth Aendent than are ost other types of le!islation. On
restrictions "pon the ri!ht to vote, see Ni9on v. Cerndon, 12@ ).S. 5@FM Ni9on v. Condon,
16F ).S. 2@M on restraints "pon the disseination of inforation, see Near v. -innesota
e9 rel. Olson, 16@ ).S. FE2, 2/@*2/7, 2/6*210, 211M +ros:ean v. Aerican Press Co., 1E2
).S. 1@@M Aovell v. +riffin, s"praM on interferences &ith political or!ani;ations, see
Stro$er! v. California, s"pra, @FEM Fis'e v. ,ansas, 127 ).S. @60M =hitney v. California,
127 ).S. @52, @2@*@26M Cerndon v. Ao&ry, @0/ ).S. 171, and see Coles, .., in +itlo& v.
Ne& (or', 1F6 ).S. F51, F2@M as to prohi$ition of peacea$le asse$ly, see De .on!e v.
Ore!on, 1EE ).S. @5@, @F5.
Nor need &e en%"ire &hether siilar considerations enter into the revie& of stat"tes
directed at partic"lar reli!io"s, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1F6 ).S. 5/0, or national,
-eyer v. Ne$ras'a, 1F1 ).S. @E0M Bartels v. Io&a, 1F1 ).S. 707M Farrin!ton v. #o'"shi!e,
12@ ).S. 167, or racial inorities, Ni9on v. Cerndon, s"praM Ni9on v. Condon, s"pra8
&hether pre:"dice a!ainst discrete and ins"lar inorities ay $e a special condition,
&hich tends serio"sly to c"rtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to $e
relied "pon to protect inorities, and &hich ay call for a correspondin!ly ore
searchin! :"dicial in%"iry. Copare -cC"lloch v. -aryland, 7 =heat. @/F, 716M So"th
Carolina v. Barn&ell Bros., @0@ ).S. /22, /67, n 1, and cases cited.
27
,oreats" v. )nited States, @1@ ).S. 1/7 3/E774M Regents o! the 4niversity o! Cali!ornia v.
0a$$e, 7@6 ).S. 1F5 3/E264.
25
"rontiero v. Richardson, 7// ).S. F22 3/E2@4M 4.S. v. 8irginia, 5/6 ).S. 5/5 3/EEF4.
2F
San &ntonio Independent School *istrict v. Rodrigez, 7// ).S. / 3/E2@4.
22
+.R. No. /76106, Dece$er /5, 1007, 77F SCRA 1EE.
26
Rollo, pp. 212 and 2@5.
2E
@2/ Phil. 612 3/EEE4.
60
Id. at 670*67/.
6/
+.R. No. /@/F5F, Octo$er 10, /EE6, 1E2 SCRA 212.
61
Id.
6@
S"pra note /2.
67
+.R. No. /FF@F@, A"!"st /5, 100F, 7E6 SCRA F@E.
65
+.R. No. /F1/E5, April 6, 1006, 550 SCRA F00.
6F
+.R. No. /602/E, A"!"st 11, 1006.
62
+.R. No. /210@/, ."ly /7, 1006, 556 SCRA 12E.
66
+.R. No. /525@7, ."ne /6, 100@ 3Resol"tion4.
6E
+.R. No. /5@250, .an"ary 15, 100F, 760 SCRA /00.
E0
+.R. No. /767/6, ."ly 16, 1005, 7F7 SCRA @/7.
E/
+.R. No. /76702, Nove$er /1, 100@, 7/5 SCRA 210.
E1
+.R. No. /5F@6/, Octo$er /7, 1005, 72@ SCRA /10.
E@
+.R. No. /52@2@, ."ly 12, 1007, 7@5 SCRA @71.
E7
+.R. No. /7726F, April /5, 1007, 712 SCRA 2@1.
E5
+.R. No. /22E76, -arch /7, 1006, 576 SCRA 2/1.
EF
+.R. No. /5/@0@, April /5, 1005, 75F SCRA @/@.
E2
&sian Center v. National Labor Relations Commission, s"pra note 6/.
E6
+.R. No. /7@E7E, A"!"st E, 100/, @F1 SCRA 52/.
EE
+.R. No. /1@@57, Nove$er /E, /EEF, 1F7 SCRA 7/6.
/00
+.R. No. /0E@E0, -arch 2, /EEF, 157 SCRA 752.
/0/
+.R. No. //10EF, .an"ary @0, /EEF, 151 SCRA 566.
/01
+.R. No. /75562, Octo$er 1F, 1002, 5@2 SCRA 70E.
/0@
+.R. No. /1@E0/, Septe$er 11, /EEE, @/5 SCRA 1@.
/07
+.R. No. /52E25, ."ne 1F, 1002, 515 SCRA 56F.
/05
&&&.erria*&e$ster.coGdictionary visited on Nove$er 11, 1006 at @80E.
/0F
See also "lorish, s"pra note E5@ and &thena, s"pra note EF.
/02
It is noted that $oth petitioner and the OS+ dre& coparisons $et&een OF=s in !eneral and
local &or'ers in !eneral. Co&ever, the Co"rt finds that the ore relevant coparison is $et&een
OF=s &hose eployent is necessarily s"$:ect to a fi9ed ter and local &or'ers &hose
eployent is also s"$:ect to a fi9ed ter.
/06
Pro"l!ated on A"!"st F, /666 $y S"een -aria Cristina of Spain and e9tended to the
Philippines $y Royal Decree of A"!"st 6, /666. It too' effect on Dece$er /, /666.
/0E
No. //@@, -arch 1E, /E07, @ SCRA 5/E.
//0
No. A*67@/, Octo$er @0, /E56, /07 SCRA 276.
///
See also 5allem 1hilippines Shipping, Inc. v. <on. Minister o! Labor, No. A*502@7*@2,
Fe$r"ary 10, /E6/, /01 scra 6@5, &here Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc. v. 3gilvie is cited.
//1
No. A*/0711, .an"ary //, /E/F, @@ SCRA /F1.
//@
No. A*/5626, .an"ary //, /E11, 71 SCRA FF0.
//7
2 Phil. 1F6 3/E024.
//5
See also Anst v. Morse, 7/ Phil /67 3/E104.
//F
0rent School, Inc. v. Bamora, No. A*767E7, Fe$r"ary 5, /EE0, /6/ SCRA 201.
//2
No. A*11F06, ."ne @0, /EFE, 16 SCRA FEE.
//6
#he Aa$or Code itself does not contain a specific provision for local &or'ers &ith fi9ed*ter
eployent contracts. As the Co"rt o$served in 0rent School, Inc., the concept of fi9ed*ter
eployent has slo&ly faded a&ay fro o"r la$or la&s, s"ch that reference to o"r la$or la&s is of
liited "se in deterinin! the onetary $enefits to $e a&arded to fi9ed*ter &or'ers &ho are
ille!ally disissed.
//E
No. A*F5575, ."ly E, /E6F., /71 SCRA 571.
/10
+.R. No. /00@EE, A"!"st 7, /EE1, 1/1 SCRA /@1.
/1/
+.R. No. ///1/1, .an"ary 11, /EEF, 151 SCRA //F.
/11
+.R. No. //@@F@, A"!"st 17, /EEE, @/@ SCRA /.
/1@
+.R. No. //@E//, .an"ary 1@, /EE6, 167 SCRA F5F.
/17
See 2strada v. 2scritor, A.-. No. P*01*/F5/, A"!"st 7, 100@, 706 SCRA /.
/15
Id.
/1F
Roe v. 5ade, 7/0 ).S. //@ 3/E2/4M see also Carey v. 1oplation Service International, 7@/ ).S.
F26 3/E224.
/12
Sabio v. ;ordon, +.R. Nos. /27@70, /27@/6, /27/22, Octo$er /F, 100F, 507 SCRA 207.
/16
Coent, rollo, p. 555.
/1E
-eorand" of the Solicitor +eneral, id. at F61*F6@
/@0
Id. at p. FE@.
/@/
Section @. #he State shall afford f"ll protection to la$or, local and overseas, or!ani;ed and
"nor!ani;ed, and proote f"ll eployent and e%"ality of eployent opport"nities for all.
It shall !"arantee the ri!hts of all &or'ers to self*or!ani;ation, collective $ar!ainin! and
ne!otiations, and peacef"l concerted activities, incl"din! the ri!ht to stri'e in accordance &ith
la&. #hey shall $e entitled to sec"rity of ten"re, h"ane conditions of &or', and a livin! &a!e.
#hey shall also participate in policy and decision*a'in! processes affectin! their ri!hts and
$enefits as ay $e provided $y la&.
#he State shall proote the principle of shared responsi$ility $et&een &or'ers and eployers
and the preferential "se of vol"ntary odes in settlin! disp"tes, incl"din! conciliation, and shall
enforce their "t"al copliance there&ith to foster ind"strial peace.
#he State shall re!"late the relations $et&een &or'ers and eployers, reco!ni;in! the ri!ht of
la$or to its :"st share in the fr"its of prod"ction and the ri!ht of enterprises to reasona$le ret"rns
to investents, and to e9pansion and !ro&th.
/@1
Manila 1rince <otel v. ;overnment Service Insrance System, +.R. No. /11/5F, Fe$r"ary @,
/EE2, 1F2 SCRA 706.
/@@
0asco v. 1hilippine &msement and ;aming Corporation, +.R. No. E/F7E, -ay /7, /EE/, /E2
SCRA 51.
/@7
+.R. No. /56FE@, Nove$er /2, 1007, 771 SCRA 52@.
/@5
&gabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, s"pra note /@7, at F6F.
/@F
&ssociated Commnications and 5ireless Services, Ltd. v. *mlao, +. R. No. /@F2F1,
Nove$er 1/, 1001, @E1 SCRA 1FE.
/@2
Section /. No person shall $e deprived of life, li$erty, or property &itho"t d"e process of la&,
nor shall any person $e denied the e%"al protection of the la&s.
/@6
G.R. No. 1>0719, A'&')t 22, 200>. See also 1CL Shipping 1hilippines, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission. +.R. No. /5@0@/, Dece$er /7, 100F, 5// SCRA 77.