JMM Promotion and Management vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 120095 – 260 SCRA 319 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Police
Power

Due to the death of one Maricris Sioson in 1991, Cory banned the
deployment of performing artists to Japan and other destinations. This was
relaxed however with the introduction of the Entertainment Industry
Advisory Council which later proposed a plan to POEA to screen and train
performing artists seeking to go abroad. In pursuant to the proposal POEA
and the secretary of DOLE sought a 4 step plan to realize the plan which
included an Artist’s Record Book which a performing artist must acquire
prior to being deployed abroad. The Federation of Talent Managers of the
Philippines assailed the validity of the said regulation as it violated the right
to travel, abridge existing contracts and rights and deprives artists of their
individual rights. JMM intervened to bolster the cause of FETMOP. The
lower court ruled in favor of EIAC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation by EIAC is valid.

HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the lower court. The regulation is a valid
exercise of police power. Police power concerns government enactments
which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare or the common good. As the assailed
Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, it follows that the burden
rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said order, particularly, its
ARB requirement, does not enhance the public welfare or was exercised
arbitrarily or unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists,
particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of Department
Order No. 3. Short of a total and absolute ban against the deployment of
performing artists to “”high risk”” destinations, a measure which would only
drive recruitment further underground, the new scheme at the very least
rationalizes the method of screening performing artists by requiring
reasonable educational and artistic skills from them and limits deployment
to only those individuals adequately prepared for the unpredictable
demands of employment as artists abroad. It cannot be gainsaid that this
scheme at least lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous
individuals and agencies.

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC vs. HON.

DRILON
G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988
Digested by: RL Lagundino

Facts:
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a
recruitment firm for overseas placement," challenges the Constitutional validity of
Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and
Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC
AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS.” In this petition for certiorari and prohibition,
PASEI, challenges the validity of Department Order No. 1 (deployment ban) of the
DOLE on the following grounds: 1) it is discriminatory as it only applies to female
workers; 2) it is an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. The respondents
invoke the police power of the Philippine State.

Issue: Whether or not the enactment of DO No. 1 is a valid exercise of police

power.

RULING:
Yes, it is a valid exercise of police power. Police power has been defined as
the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare." It constitutes an implied
limitation on the Bill of Rights. However, police power is not without its own
limitations. It may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.
DO No. 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby
make an undue discrimination between the sexes. “Equality before the law" admits
of classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not
confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the
same class. It is the avowed objective of DO No. 1 to "enhance the protection for
Filipino female overseas workers. Discrimination in this case is justified.
 Police power is the domain of the legislature, but it does not mean that such
an authority may not be lawfully delegated. The Labor Code itself vests the DOLE
with rulemaking powers in the enforcement whereof. Hence it is a valid exercise of
police power.

CASE: PNB vs. Cabansag

Facts:

Florence Cabansag went to Singapore as a tourist. While she was there, she looked for a job and
eventually applied with the Singapore Branch of the Philippine National Bank. PNB is a private
banking corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. She was eventually employed
and was issued an employment pass. In her job offer, it was stated, among others, that she was to
be put on probation for 3 months and termination of her employment may be made by either
party after 1 day notice while on probation, and 1 month notice or 1 month pay in lieu of notice
upon confirmation. She accepted the terms and was issued an OEC by the POEA. She was
commended for her good work. However, she was informed by Ruben Tobias, the bank
president, that she would have to resign in line with some cost cutting and realignment measures
of the company. She refused but was informed by Tobias that if she does not resign, he will
terminate her instead.

Issues:
W/N the arbitration branch of the NLRC has jurisdiction
W/N the arbitration of the NLRC in the NCR is the proper venue
W/N Cabansag was illegally dismissed

Ruling:
Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-
employee relations including termination disputes involving all workers, including OFWs. Here,
Cabansag applied for and secured an OEC from the POEA through the Philippine Embassy. The
OEC authorized her working status in a foreign country and entitled her to all benefits and
processes under our statutes. Although she may been a direct hire at the commencement of her
employment, she became an OFW who was covered by Philippine labor laws and policies upon
certification by the POEA. When she was illegally terminated, she already possessed the POEA
employment certificate.

A migrant worker “refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a
remunerated activity in a state of which he or she is not a legal resident; to be used
interchangeably with overseas Filipino worker.” Here, Cabansag was a Filipino, not a legal
resident of Singapore, and employed by petitioner in its branch office in Singapore. She is
clearly an OFW/migrant worker. Thus, she has the option where to file her Complaint for illegal
dismissal. She can either file at the Regional Arbitration Branch where she resides or the RAB
where the employer is situated. Thus, in filing her Complaint before the RAB office in Quezon
City, she has made a valid choice of proper venue.
The appellate court was correct in holding that respondent was already a regular employee at the
time of her dismissal, because her three-month probationary period of employment had already
ended. This ruling is in accordance with Article 281 of the Labor Code: “An employee who is
allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.” Indeed,
petitioner recognized respondent as such at the time it dismissed her, by giving her one month’s
salary in lieu of a one-month notice, consistent with provision No. 6 of her employment
Contract.

PEOPLE VS DIAZ
GR No. 112175
26 July 1996

FACTS: Three women (Navarro, Fabricante, and Ramirez) were enrolled at the
Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao City, studying Niponggo,
when they were informed by their teacher, Mrs. Aplicador, that she knew of a Mr.
Paulo Lim who also knew of one Engineer Erwin Diaz who was recruiting
applicants for Brunei.

Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three women went to Mr. Lim who told them
that his children had already applied with Engr. Diaz. The four women were then
accompanied by Mr. Lim to the CIS Detention Center where Engr. Diaz was
already being detained. After Navarro and Ramirez had already given 20k as
placement fee, Fabricante went to the office of the POEA and found out the Engr.
Diaz was not licensed. Fabricante informed the two women about her discovery
and they all withdrew their applications. Engr. Diaz refunded their payments.

The trial court held Engr. Diaz guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
ISSUE: WON Diaz was engaged in illegal recruitment.
HELD: YES. Diaz was neither a licensee nor a holder of authority to qualify him
to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement activity. Appellant told the three
women that he was recruiting contract workers for abroad, particularly Brunei, and
promised them job opportunities if they can produce various amounts of money for
expenses and processing of documents. He manifestly gave the impression to the
three women that he had the ability to send workers abroad. Misrepresenting
himself as a recruiter of workers for Brunei, he promised them work for a fee and
convinced them to give their money for the purpose of getting an employment
overseas.