ASSIGNMENT OF CASES FOR Monday, July 29, 2019

Preliminary Title
Chapter 1 General Provisions
Articles 1 to 12
Labor Standards
Maternity Children’s Hospital v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 78909, June 30, 1989. –
ALVERDE
Employees of the petitioner hospital allege that there was underpayment of their salaries. Upon
investigation, the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers did, in fact, find that there was underpayment of
salaries. As such, Regional director ordered the petitioner to pay currently employed personnel their
due wages as well s some personnel that were no longer employed.

When the case was raised to the minister of Labor and Employment, the order was modified but the
petitioner was still tasked to pay the employees the salaries due to them. The petitioner appealed the
case to the SC arguing that the RD had no jurisdiction to award salary differentials as they only had
visitorial powers. The Court held that, RDs do have the authority to award salary deferential to
employees that were still employed since PD no. 850 gives them enforcement powers. However, these
powers do NOT extend to those that were no longer employed by the company.

 Labor standards - the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules, and regulations
relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary and welfare
benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards (Section 7, Rule I, Rules on the
Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office, dated September 16, 1987).
 proceedings before the Regional Director must, perforce, be upheld on the basis of Article
128(b) as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24, 1986, this executive order "to be
considered in the nature of a curative statute with retrospective application."
o EO 111 authorizes a Regional Director to order compliance by an employer with labor
standards provisions of the Labor Code and other legislation
 a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards cases,
and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims, provided there still exists an
employer-employee relationship, and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the
employer concerned.
o enforcement powers - the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing,
compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code based on the findings of
labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection,
and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their
order.
 a complaining employee who was denied his rights and benefits due him under
labor standards law need not litigate. The Regional Director, by virtue of his
enforcement power, assured "expeditious delivery to him of his rights and
benefits free of charge", provided of course, he was still in the employ of the
firm
o Visitorial Powers - access to employers' records and premises at any time of the day or
night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to
 question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be
necessary to determine violations or in aid in the enforcement of this Title and of any
Wage Order or regulation issued pursuant to this Code
 the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is relevant to, and
exercisable over establishments, not over the individual members/employees, because what is
sought to be achieved by its exercise is the observance of, and/or compliance by, such
firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations. Necessarily, in case of an award
resulting from a violation of labor legislation by such establishment, the entire
members/employees should benefit therefrom.
o there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were no
longer connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed
 enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot legally be upheld in cases of
separated employees
 Article 129 of the Labor Code, cited by petitioner (p. 54, Rollo) is not
applicable as said article is in aid of the enforcement power of the
Regional Director; hence, not applicable where the employee seeking to
be paid underpayment of wages is already separated from the service.
His claim is purely a money claim that has to be the subject of
arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

Discussion

 Labor standard must known in order to improve or contest labor relations

o Kailangan alam ang ipaglalaban

Labor Relations
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. NLRC and P. Endozo, G.R. No. 132564, October
20, 1999. – CRUZ
The respondent was informed by the petitioner that she was qualified to work in Taiwan. Unfortunately,
when the respondent was sent to Taiwan, her employer terminated her employment, allegedly, due to
her incompetence. Instead of the 1 year and 6 moths employment, he was only able to work for 11 days.
Upon her return, she confronted the petitioner, and demanded to be paid the salary she was supposed
to receive during her supposed 1 year and 6 months employment.

The LA, NLRC, and the SC ruled in favor of the respondent. It was held that the employer was not able to
show just cause for the termination of the respondent employment.

 a probationary employee is entitled to security of tenure. 9 A probationary employee can not be

terminated, except for cause.
o a probationary employee may be terminated on two grounds:
 for just cause or
 when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his
engagement."
 o "the power of the employer to terminate a probationary employment contract is subject
to limitations
 First, it must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the
contract.
 Secondly, the dissatisfaction of the employer must be real and in good faith, not
feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law; and
 thirdly, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal."
o In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an
employee rests on the employer.
o "Due process dictates that an employee be apprised beforehand of the conditions of his
employment and of the terms of advancement therein."
 implicit in Article 281 of the Code is the requirement that reasonable standards
be previously made known by the employer to the probationary employee at
the time of his engagement."

Discussion

 probationary employee – both employer and employee are given the opportunity to assess
whether or not they are willing to work under said relation

4. Police Power as the Basis of Labor Law

PeoplE v. Vera, 67 Phil. 190. - DANS
Labor Code
ECOP v. NWCP, etc., G.R. No. 96169, September 24, 1991. – FLORDELIZA
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727, the respondent issued an order that effectively dictated the
minimum wage. Herein petitioner argues that the power to determine the minimum wage is reserved to
the congress alone.

The Court held that Republic Act No. 6727 was not unconstitutional because there were sufficient
standards provided when the power to determine the minimum wage was delegated to the respondent.

 legislation involving the adjustment of the minimum wage made use of two methods
o "floor-wage" - first method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would be
added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage
o "the salary-ceiling-method" - the wage adjustment is applied to employees receiving a
certain denominated salary ceiling
 ART. 124. Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing — The regional minimum wages to be
established by the Regional Board shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to
maintain the minimum standards of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general well-
being of the employees within the framework of the national economic and social development
program. In the determination of such regional minimum wages, the Regional Board shall,
among other relevant factors, consider the following:
o "(a) The demand for living wages;
o "(b) Wage adjustment vis-a-vis the consumer price index;
o "(c) The cost of living and changes or increases therein;
 o "(d) The needs of workers and their families;
o "(e) The need to induce industries to invest in the countryside;
o "(f) Improvements in standards of living;
o "(g) The prevailing wage levels;
o "(h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay of employers;
o "(i) Effects of employment generation and family income; and
o "(j) The equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of economic
and social development." 12
 "Wage" - paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated,
capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task,
piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an
employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done
or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable
value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily
formatted by the employer to the employee. "Fair and reasonable value" shall not include any
profit to the employer or to any person affiliated with the employer.
 "minimum wage" - the effort of the State, as Republic Act No. 6727 expresses it, "to promote
productivity-improvement and gainsharing measures to ensure a decent standard of living for
the workers and their families; to guarantee the rights of labor to its just share in the fruits of
production; to enhance employment generation in the countryside through industry dispersal;
and to allow business and industry reasonable returns on investment, expansion and growth,"
25 and as the Constitution expresses it, to affirm "labor as a primary social economic force." 26
As the Court indicated, the statute would have no need for a board if the question were simply
"how much." The State is concerned, in addition, that wages are not distributed unevenly, and
more important, that social justice is subserved

Art. 3 Declaration of Basic Policy

Art. 4 Construction in Favor of Labor
Interpretation and Construction of Labor Laws
Manila Electric Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78763, July 12, 1989. – HERNANDEZ
Respondent Signo was as employee of the petitioner. Unfortunately, the respondent was found to be
guilty of participating in an illegal transaction with an Engr. de Lara. As uch, the petitioner company
meted out the corresponding penalty which is the dismissal of the former. In response thereto, the
respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner.

The LA, NLRC, and SC all ruled that despite the respondent being guilty for violating the trust of the
employer, the same must be reinstated without back wages. Such was held because the record of the
respondent showed that his 20 years of service should have tempered the penalty he received.

 An employer, generally, can dismiss or lay-off an employee for just and authorized causes
enumerated under Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code
o the right of an employer to freely discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the
State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police power.
  This is so because the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of
the State, more vital than the preservation of corporate profits
 notwithstanding the existence of a valid cause for dismissal, such as breach of
trust by an employee, nevertheless, dismissal should not be imposed, as it is too
severe a penalty if the latter has been employed for a considerable length of
time in the service of his employer
 in carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code’s provisions and its
implementing regulations, the workingman’s welfare should be the primordial
and paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and
substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in
Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including
its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor"

Management Rights
Right to Prescribe Rules
China Banking Corp. v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 156515, October 19, 2004. – JOSON
The respondent was an employee of the petitioner bank with the position of Assistant Vice-President,
Branch Banking Group for the Mindanao area. During the tenure of the respondent, he acted beyond his
authority and accepted DAUD/BP without complying with the standard operating procedure. When
petitioner bank caught wind of such developments, a memorandum was sent to the respondent
clarifying the details of the aforementioned transaction, to which the respondent replied to. While the
petitioner bank was attempting to recover the money it has lost to the third party, the respondent
resigned. In response thereto, the petitioner bank withheld a portion of his separation pay stating that
the same will be provided once the matter involving the DAUD/BP has been settled. As such, the
respondent filed a complaint demanding that his separation pay be released in full.

The LA, and NLRC both held that such withholding was valid and that petitioner bank was acting within
reasonable means. Upon appeal to the CA, the decision was reversed. It held that the respondent was
deprived of due process since no formal investigation was conducted nor was there any trial over such
matters. Petitioner raised an appeal to the SC which reinstated the ruling of the LA and NLRC. It was held
that as they are administrative bodies, the rules of evidence need not be strictly applied to the LA, and
NLRC. Furthermore, when the respondent replied to the memorandum sent to him, such
correspondence as enough to satisfy the necessary due process in the case at bar since. The tenor of the
memorandum sufficiently established the petitioner’s concern over the mater. Respondents subsequent
reply also contained the admissions that sufficiently proved that he committed infractions against the
petitioner. Lastly, the withholding of the separation pay was valid since the petitioner was left with no
recourse when the respondent resigned from his position before the matters could be resolved.

 administrative bodies like the NLRC, including the Labor Arbiter, are not bound by the technical
niceties of the law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law
o Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies
like the NLRC, where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers.[15] The
 holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter and is
something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right.[16]
o As a corollary, trial-type hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided
based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavit
 factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, both bodies being deemed to
have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, when sufficiently supported by
evidence on record, are accorded respect, if not finality, and are considered binding on this
Court.[19]
o As long as their decisions are devoid of any arbitrariness in the process of their
deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, all that is left is for the Court to
stamp its affirmation.
 It is well recognized that company policies and regulations are, unless shown to be grossly
oppressive or contrary to law, generally binding and valid on the parties and must be complied
with until finally revised or amended unilaterally or preferably through negotiation or by
competent authority.[29]
o Moreover, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose
appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations.

Right to Transfer or Discharge Employees

Roldan v. Cebu Portland Cement Co., et. al. v. CA, G.R. No. 24276-R, May 20, 1960. -
LEDESMA
Art. 6 Applicability
Non-Applicability to Government Agencies
Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, et. al., G.R.
No. 120319, October 6, 1995, 64 SCAD 918. – MARIANO
During a conference between the parties, despite the voluntary arbiter’s reminder, the petitioner failed
to provide position papers. As such, the voluntary arbiter held that the petitioner violated the CBA. In
response thereto, the petitioner raised the present case to the SC.

The SC held that the position of the voluntary arbiter, whether as an individual or as a panel, enjoys in
law the status of a quasi-judicial agency but independent of, and apart from, the NLRC since his
decisions are not appealable to the latter. However, despite the common practice where the decisions
of these bodies are automatically raised to the SC, the court held that it was proper to appeal the same
to the Court of Appeals. This is pursuant to Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95.

 Arbitration - the reference of a labor dispute to an impartial third person for determination on
the basis of evidence and arguments presented by such parties who have bound themselves to
accept the decision of the arbitrator as final and binding
o Compulsory arbitration - a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by
the government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the
resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party.
o voluntary arbitration - referral of a dispute by the parties is made, pursuant to a
voluntary arbitration clause in their collective agreement, to an impartial third person
for a final and binding resolution
Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 87676, December 20, 1989. – QUIMORA
Due to a strike organized by NPDCSA, petitioner NPDC filed a complaint with the RTC stating that such
strikes were not legal.

The RTC, and CA both held that they had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Furthermore, they
stated that since there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties, the issues involved
fell under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Upon its appeal to the SC, the decision was set
aside. It was held that since the employer was a government agent and that the employees were civil
servants, the case should be raised to the Public Sector Labor Management Council as provided in
Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180.

Title I Recruitment and Placement of Workers

Chapter I General Provisions
Articles 13 to 21
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Executive Order No. 797, May 1, 1982, creation of POEA.
Executive Order No. 247, July 24, 1987, reorganization of POEA.
Republic Act No. 8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, June 7, 1995
Republic Act No. 10022, to further improve the standard of protection and promotion of welfare
provided in R.A. No. 8042, March 8, 2010.
Art. 20 National Seamen Board
3. Employment Conditions
3.1 Protection of OFWs; Lex loci contractus
Do the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules cover a Filipino working abroad?
Sameer Overseas Placement v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014. – VIDAL
Petitioner is a recruitment agency that has sent the respondent to Taiwan. The respondent was
promised an entire year of employment corresponding to her supposed position of quality
management. However, when she got there, she was only a cutter, and was subsequently removed
from her position. In response thereto, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner
demanding for her back wages and alleging that she has been illegally dismissed.

The LA dismissed the respondents complaint. Upon her appeal, the NLRC, CA, and SC held that she was
illegally dismissed and was entitled to her back wages. The petitioner’s contention that as an employee
of the Taiwan company, their rules should have applied to her and not those of the Philippines.
However, such contention had no merit since the employment contract of the respondent was made
here in the Philippines and as such the rules of this country were to be applied.

 Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may
not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and
without going through the proper procedure
  Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC,
o lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs in this
jurisdiction. There is no question that the contract of employment in this case was
perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, the Labor Code, its implementing rules and
regulations, and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.
 The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. “The employer
must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable
cause.”70 Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily
mean that the dismissal was illegal.
o 1) the employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the
employee will be judged;
o 2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the
employee; and
o 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee’s
performance assessment.

3.3 Disability Benefits for Injury or Illness

Maunlad Trans. Inc. v. Camoral, G.R. No. 211454, February 11, 2015. – ALVERDE
The respondent was an employee of the petitioner. While the former was employed by the latter as an
ice carver, he experiences pains. Upon consultation, it was discovered that the respondent was due for
surgery. After surgery and rehabilitation, the attending physician held that the respondent has healed
completely. However, such assessment did not take into account that the pains would continue and that
the action of the affected areas has been restricted. The petitioner, relying on the fact that the
respondent has heled completely, gave him a Grade 1 disability pay. The Respondent filed a complaint
arguing that, despite his alleged healing, he is still unfit to work and that he is eligible for a higher grade
disability pay.

The LA, NLRC, CA, and the SC ruled in favor of the respondent. They held that despite the respondent
healing, due to his disability preventing him to work for more than 120 days, already classifies his
disability as total or permanent. As such, the petitioner was ordered to provide the corresponding
disability pay.

 Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al

o (a) the 120 days provided in Section 20-B(3) of the POEA SEC is the period given to the
employer to determine the fitness of the seafarer to work, during which the seafarer is
deemed to be in a state of total and temporary disability;
o (b) the 120 days of total and temporary disability may be extended by a maximum of
120 days, or up to 240 days, should the seafarer require further medical treatment; and
o (c) a total and temporary disability becomes permanent when so declared by the
company-designated physician within 120 days or 240 days, as the case may be, or upon
the expiration of the said periods without a declaration of either fitness to work or
permanent disability and the seafarer is still unable to resume his regular seafaring
duties.
 Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar,
 o while the seafarer is partially injured or disabled, he must not be precluded from
earning doing the same work he had before his injury or disability or that he is
accustomed or trained to do. Otherwise, if his illness or injury prevents him from
engaging in gainful employment for more than 120 days or 240 days, as is the case here,
then he shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.
 Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad
o it is of no consequence that he recovered, for what is important is that he was unable to
perform his customary work for more than 120 days, and this constitutes permanent
total disability
 Alpha Ship Management Corporation v. Calo
o An employee’s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the
company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of
fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120- or 240-day treatment
period, while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful
employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at
a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability

3.3a Permanent / total Disability

3.4 POEA-SEC, Labor Code, and Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC)
Harmonized
Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, G.R. No. 198501, January 30, 2013. - CRUZ
3.4a Need for definite Assessment within 120 / 240 Days
3.4b Third-doctor Referral
3.5 Seafarer’s Death Need Not have Occurred During Term of Employment
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Legal Heirs of the Late Godofredo Repiso, etc., G.R. No.
190534, February 10, 2016. – DANS
 Death need not occur during the term of employment as long as the injury is work-related

3.7 Invalid Side Agreement

4.1 Employment-at-will May Not be Valid in Overseas Employment
Valid Employment-at-will of an OFW
GBMLT Manpower Services v. Malinao, G.R. No. 189262, July 6, 2015. – FLORDELIZA
 If the employee quits, such employee is not allowed to claim the wages for the unexpired term
and damages
 Generally, a Philippine employee may not quit or be dismissed at will
o Exception - In foreign land, employee may quit or be dismissed at will

4.2 Employment-at-will Not Valid in Local Employment

4.3 Pretermination of Employment: Relief
ASSIGNMENT OF CASES FOR Monday, August 5, 2019
Title I Recruitment and Placement of Workers
Chapter I General Provisions
Articles 13 to 21
Executive Order No. 797, May 1, 1982, creation of POEA.
Executive Order No. 247, July 24, 1987, reorganization of POEA.
Republic Act No. 8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, June 7, 1995
Republic Act No. 10022, to further improve the standard of protection and promotion of welfare
provided in R.A. No. 8042, March 8, 2010.
Comments
2.2 OFW cannot be left stranded
Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. Department of Foreign Affairs, et. al., G.R. No. 152214, September
19, 2006. – ALONZO
a. As the legal representative of a foreign company, makes such agent liable for any
responsibility brought upon by an employee’s employment
- Liability of the agent is solidary with the principal employer
b. Repatriation, all costs related thereto shall be borne by the employer

Articles 22 to 24
Validity of POEA Regulations
POEA Circular No. 11 (1983) Unenforceable for Lack of Publication
Chapter II
Regulations of Recruitment and Placement Activities
Requisites and Conditions of License
Articles 25 to 31
Comments and Cases
Enforcement
Apart from Appeal Bond
Garnishment of Bonds
Law as Part of the Bond
Article 32 Fees to be Paid by Workers
Refund of Fees
Eastern Assurance and Surety Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, et. al., G.R. Nos. 79436-50, January
17, 1990. – AVILES
 a. POEA has jurisdiction to award money claims to parties without employer-employee
relations provided that it is a sanction penalizing an erring recruitment agency

Article 33. Reports on Employment Status

Article 34. Prohibited Practices
Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Balatongan, G.R. No. 82252, February 28, 1989. – BALDOS
a. prohibited practices p.97
b. generally, prohibition of any alteration of the employment contract once it has been
approved by the POEA
- exception, there is no prohibition against supplementing the original contract
specially when such supplement works to the benefit of the employee

Suspension or Cancellation of License

Concurrent Jurisdiction of DOLE Secretary and POEA Administrator to Suspend or Cancel a
License
Persons Liable; Duration of Liability
Solidary Liability Assumed by Recruitment Agent
Royal Crown Internationale v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78085, October
16, 1989. – CRISOSTOMO
a. As the legal representative of a foreign company, makes such agent liable for any
responsibility brought upon by an employee’s employment
b. Liability of the agent is solidary with the principal employer

Proper Party
Contract by Principal
Exceptions
Extension of Employment Unknown to the Agency, “Imputed Knowledge Rule” Does Not Apply
Sunace International Management Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 161757, January 25, 2006.
– ECAHUZ
a. Imputed knowledge rule - ascribes the knowledge of the agent, to the principal, not the
other way around

Liability for Moral Damages

Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc. v. Cuaresma, et. al., G.R. No. 182978-79, April 7,
2009. – HEGINA
a. Jasmin was supposed to be working in Saudi Arabia but she met an untimely death.
Investigation yield that she was killed. Family received 130K from the employer as a
benefit. However the family wanted to claim moral damages. The employer did not give
such moral damages.
 The SC held that the petitioners are liable from moral damage because they were acting
contrary to public policy or public morals
b. Death related to work is not synonymous to death while in work premises
- In the present case, Jasmin died in the dormitory of the employer
c. Liability for moral damages
- Art 21., Art. 2219
d. How will the respondent enforce the judgment on the foreign national?

Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, et. al. v. Salac, G.R. No. 152642, November 13, 2012. –
JALANDONI
a. Constitutionality of RA8042, repealed by ra 9422 – gave the POEA power to regulate the
private section’s participation in recruitment and deployment
- Defined illegal recruiter
- Within the prerogative of Congress to determine which acts are punishable
- The jurisdiction of the criminal court was validly adjusted
1. It is considered as an exception to the general rule
b. Corporate directors, officers and partners are jointly and solidary liable for the money
claims filed by the OFW

Suability of a Foreign Corporation which Hired Filipino Workers

Chapter III
Miscellaneous Provisions [Illegal Recruitment and Prohibited Activities]
Article 38 Illegal Recruitement
Illegal Recruitment as Economic Sabotage
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment by a Syndicate: Separate Categories
People v. F. Hernandez, K. Reichl, and Y.G. de Reichl, G.R. Nos. 141221-36, March 7, 2002. –
KING
a. Illegal recruitment and estafa
- Illegal recruitment (Art. 38 of the Labor Code)
1. There must be 3 or more cases wherein illegal recruitment is
established, it cannot be done through a consolidated case
b. CEDY! You didn’t understand the reason behind the spouses Reichl’s conviction! They
were not held guilty but penalized for omething

Simple Illegal Recruitment

Essential Element as Criminal Offense
Illegal recruitment as a criminal offense presupposes deceit or misrepresentation.
People v. Laogo, G.R. No. 176264, January 10, 2011. – LAZARO
a. Large scare illegal recruitment
- How to prove illegal recruitment?
Recruitment: Done with One or More Persons
“Distinct Impression”
Lack of Receipts
People v. Sagaydo, G.R. Nos. 124671-75, September 29, 2000. - MARCIA
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) Revised Penal Code.
Persons Liable for Illegal Recruitment
Employee, When Liable
Power to Issue Search Warrants or Arrest Warrants; Article 38 (c) Unconstitutional
Illegal Recruiters Still Subject to Arrest
Cases on Illegal Recruitment
People v. Remullo, G.R. Nos. 124443-46, June 6, 2002. - RELOX
Title II
Employment of Non-Resident Aliens
Articles 40 to 42
Republic Act No. 5980, Financing Company Act.
Opinion No. 143, s. 1976, Secretary of Justice.
Employment of Aliens
Employment Permit for Foreign Workers
Department Order No. 146-15, dated August 20, 2015. - SONGANO
Legality of Limiting Employment of Aliens
Effect of Lack of Work Permit
WPD Marketing, et. al. v. Jocelyn M. Galera, G.R. No. 169207, March 25, 2010. - TIU
Book Two Human Resources Development
Title I National Manpower Development Program
Chapter I National Policies and Administrative Machinery for Their Implementation
Republic Act No. 7796, The TESDA Act of 1994.
Article 45, Labor Code. National Manpower and Youth Council (NMYC).
(Note: The NMYC has been replaced and absorbed by the TESDA [Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority] created under R.A. 7796 which was approved on August 25,
1994.)
Title II Training and Employment of Special Workers
Article 59. Qualifications of Apprentices.
Article 60. Employment of Apprentices.
Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC and R. Capili, G.R. No. 114337, September 29, 1995. - HERNANDEZ
Working Scholar: Liability of School
Filamer Christian Institute v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et. al., G.R. No. 75112, August
17, 1992. – JOSON
a. Funtecha is a part-time Janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer. One day, he asked
Allan Masa if he was allowed to use the car on their way home. Allan Masa is the son
and driver of Augustin Masa, the school principal. During their drive home, a fast
moving truck prompted Funtecha to swerve out of its way. In doing so he hit respondent
Potenciano Kapunan. Herein petitioner questions whether or not it should be held liable
for the acts of Funtecha considering that he was not an authorized driver by the
petitioner.
The RTC, CA, and SC all ruled in favor of the respondent. It was held that the acts of
Funtecha were in furtherance of the interest and for the benefit of the petitioner. As
such, as the employer, under Article 2180, his liability is primary and solidary with the
employee. Furthermore, it could be said that the petitioner was negligent because it
was evident that the he had no protocols to prevent unauthorized individuals from
using the vehicle.