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

AND
MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC.
G.R. NO. 167614 ; MARCH 24, 2009
Facts:
Petitioner Serrano herein filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on
the NLRC questioning the constitutionality of the last clause in the 5th
paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042, which reads:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas
employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or
contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his
placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the subject clause violates Section 10, Article III of the
Constitution on non-impairment of contracts;
2. Whether or not the subject clause violates Section 1, Article III of the
Constitution, and Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a
protected sector.
Held:
1.
No. Petitioner's claim that the subject clause unduly interferes with the
stipulations in his contract on the term of his employment and the fixed
salary package he will receive is not tenable. As aptly observed by the OSG,
the enactment of R.A. No. 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of the
employment contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998. Hence, it
cannot be argued that R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause,
impaired the employment contract of the parties. Rather, when the parties
executed their 1998 employment contract, they were deemed to have
incorporated into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 8042.
But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subject clause
may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the

impairment clause, for the law was enacted in the exercise of the police
power of the State.

2.
Yes. The subject clause, the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act
No. 8042, is declared unconstitutional.
Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all members of
the labor sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection
of their rights and welfare. There can never be a justification for any form of
government action that alleviates the burden of one sector, but imposes the
same burden on another sector, especially when the favored sector is
composed of private businesses such as placement agencies, while the
disadvantaged sector is composed of OFWs whose protection no less than
the Constitution commands.