GR 125903 November 15, 2000 they would later discover to be a vain hope of obtaining employment abroad.

 It is not
PEOPLE vs. SUALO
Facts:
 Accused-appellant Romulo Saulo, Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz,
were charged with violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code for illegal
recruitment in large scale;
 Benny Maligaya applied for an overseas employment as factory worker in Taiwan,
with the help of the appellant and his two co-accused. They assured that they are
authorized by the POEA to recruit workers in Taiwan. Hence, upon processing her
documents, he paid the amount of P35,000 as processing fees. Seeing that he had
reneged on his promise to send her Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint against
POEA;
 Angeles Javier, also applied for the same job and location. Accused-appellants
asked him to pay P35,000 as processing fees. Javier gave an initial amount of
P20,000. The overseas employment never materialized, which prompted Javier to
bring the matter to POEA;
 Leodigario Maullon, as in the case of Maligaya and Javier, was assured by
accused-appellant that he could secure him the same job if he paid him P30,000 as
processing fees. Maullon paid on a staggered basis. Again, accused-appellant failed
to deliver on promised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint with POEA;
 After trial, RTC found accused-appellant guilty of three counts of estafa and of
illegal recruitment in large scale.
disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor licensed by the Department of Labor and
Employment to engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary
license or authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.
Notes:
 Accused-appellant contends that he could not have committed the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale since Nancy Avelino, a labor and employment officer at
the POEA, testified that licenses for recruitment and placement are issued only to
corporations and not to natural persons. This argument is specious and
illogical. The Labor Code states that any person or entity which, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement. Corrolarily, a nonlicensee or nonholder of
authority is any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid
license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of
Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked, or canceled by
the POEA or the Secretary. It also bears stressing that agents or representatives
appointed by a licensee or a holder of authority but whose appointments are not
previously authorized by the POEA fall within the meaning of the
term nonlicensee or nonholder of authority. Thus, any person, whether natural or
juridical, that engages in recruitment activities without the necessary license or
authority shall be penalized under Art. 39 of the Labor Code.

Issue: W/N appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale

Ruling: YES. The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38
(b) of the Labor Code and penalized under Art. 39 of the same Code, are as follows:
(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined
under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor
Code;
(2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an
authority to recruit and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and
(3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as
a group.

Under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or
abroad, whether for profit or not; Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.

After a careful and circumspect review of the records, the Court finds that the trial court was
justified in holding that accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful recruitment and
placement activities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant promised the
three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment
in Taiwan as factory workers and that he asked them for money in order to process their
papers and procure their passports. Relying completely upon such representations,
complainants entrusted their hard-earned money to accused-appellant in exchange for what
G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., vs. POEA, MINISTER OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL BASAR and KATHLEEN D. SACO
Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in
Japan, 1985. His widow sued for damages under E.O. No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 of
the POEA. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cognizable not by
the POEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State Insurance
Fund. The POEA ruled in favor of the complainant and the award consisted of P180,000.00 as
death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses.
The petitioner immediately came to this Court, prompting the Solicitor General to move for
dismissal on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Petitioner does not contend its relationship with the deceased. What it does urge is that he was not
an overseas worker but a 'domestic employee and consequently his widow's claim should have
been filed with Social Security System, subject to appeal to the Employees Compensation
Commission.
Was the deceased an overseas worker under the jurisdiction of the POEA?
Under the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, overseas employment is defined
as "employment of a worker outside the Philippines, including employment on board vessels
plying international waters, covered by a valid contract. A contract worker is described as "any
person working or who has worked overseas under a valid employment contract and shall include
seamen" 4 or "any person working overseas or who has been employed by another which may be a
local employer, foreign employer, principal or partner under a valid employment contract and shall
include seamen." 5 These definitions clearly apply to Vitaliano Saco for it is not disputed that he
died while under a contract of employment with the petitioner and alongside the petitioner's vessel,
the M/V Eastern Polaris, while berthed in a foreign country. 6
Petitioner’s argument that the deceased employee should be likened to the employees of the PAL
who, although working abroad in its international flights, are not considered overseas workers
shoul fail for the deceased’s (1) submission of shipping articles to the POEA for processing,
formalization and approval in the exercise of its regulatory power over overseas employment and
(2) its payment 8 of the contributions mandated by law and regulations to the Welfare Fund for
Overseas Workers, "for the purpose of providing social and welfare services to Filipino overseas
workers" should not have been found necessary for such acts are available only to overseas
workers. Moreover, PAL employees are not seamen nor are their appointments coursed through the
POEA.
Petitioner alleges that it should not be bound by POEA’s Memorandum Circular No. 2 prescribing
a standard contract for hiring Filipino seamen for it had never entered into such a contract.
However, such compliance was required by the circular, which specifically declared that "all
parties to the employment of any Filipino seamen on board any ocean-going vessel are advised to
adopt and use this employment contract and to desist from using any other format of employment
contract.", the provisions of the said circular are nevertheless deemed written into the contract with
Saco as a postulate of the police power of the State. 11
Further, petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as violative of the
principle of non-delegation of legislative power. However, the authority to issue the said regulation
is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797, reading as follows:
... The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as hereunder provided
shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of
the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA).
(Admin Law na to, i-delete mo na lang kung trip mo) The second challenge is more serious as it is
true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What
can be delegated is the discretion to determine  how  the law may be enforced, not  what the law
shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This
prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate. There are two
accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power,  viz, the
completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in
all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate
the only thing he will have to do is enforce it.  13 Under the sufficient standard test, there must be
adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot.  14
Memorandum Circular No. 2 is an administrative regulation. The power of the POEA (and before
it the National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a
sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. That standard is
discoverable in the executive order itself which, in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration, mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable
employment practices."
The private respondent's claim against the petitioner for death and burial benefits are specifically
reserved in the standard contract of employment for Filipino seamen under Memorandum Circular
No. 2, Series of 1984, which is merely a reiteration of Memorandum Circular No. 22, issued by the
National Seamen Board on July 12, 1976.
The above provisions are manifestations of the concern of the State for the working class,
consistently with the social justice policy and the specific provisions in the Constitution for the
protection of the working class and the promotion of its interest.
Lastly. Its argument that it has been denied due process because the same POEA that issued
Memorandum Circular No. 2 has also sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of
administrative law itself. Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers, the quasi-
legislative and the quasi-judicial. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and
regulations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. Such an
arrangement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern governments and cannot be considered
violative of due process as long as the cardinal rights laid down by Justice Laurel in the landmark
case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations  21 are observed.
When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the
heavier influence of the latter must be counter-balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law
must accord the underprivileged worker. This is only fair if he is to be given the opportunity and
the right to assert and defend his cause not as a subordinate but as a peer of management, with
which he can negotiate on even plane. Labor is not a mere employee of capital but its active and
equal partner. Petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. –xxx-
G.R. No. 103144    April 4, 2001
PHILSA vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR
Facts:
 Private respondents, who were recruited by petitioner Petitioner Philsa International
Placement and Services Corporation for employment in Saudi Arabia, were
required to pay placement fees in the amount of P5,000.00 for private respondent
Rodrigo L. Mikin and P6,500.00 each for private respondents Vivencio A. de Mesa
and Cedric P. Leyson;
 After the execution of their respective work contracts, private respondents left for
Saudi Arabia. They then began work for Al-Hejailan Consultants A/E, the foreign
principal of petitioner;
 While in Saudi Arabia, private respondents were allegedly made to sign a second
contract which changed some of the provisions of their original contract resulting in
the reduction of some of their benefits and privileges. Subsequently, their foreign
employer allegedly forced them to sign a third contract which increased their work
hours from 48 hours to 60 hours a week without any corresponding increase in their
basic monthly salary. When they refused to sign this third contract, the services of
private respondents were terminated by Al-Hejailan and they were repatriated to the
Philippines;
 Upon their arrival in the Philippines, private respondents demanded from petitioner
Philsa the return of their placement fees and for the payment of their salaries for the
unexpired portion of their contract. When petitioner refused, they filed a case
before the POEA against petitioner Philsa and Al-Hejailan.;
 POEA rendered the decision in favor of respondents. NLRC modified the appealed
decision of POEA Adjudication Office by deleting the award of salary deductions
and differentials. Despite such, POEA issued a separate Order resolving that
petitioner if guilty of illegal exaction, contract substitution and unlawful deduction,
and ordering the refund of placement fees.
 Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner was denied by Secretary of Labor
affirming assailed Order.
Issue: W/N petitioner is guilty of illegal exaction, contract substitution, and unlawful
deduction
Ruling: As to illegal exaction which is committed by collecting placement fees in excess of
the amounts allowed by law, petitioner cannot be sanctioned under POEA Memorandum
Circular No. 11, Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected
from applicants and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983, which provides for
the applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment
agencies or authority holders. Under the said Order, the maximum amount which may be
collected from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00, for it is void for lack of
publication.
As to second ground, indeed, the ruling that petitioner is guilty of two (2) counts of prohibited
contract substitution is supported by substantial evidence. Thus:
"2. As admitted by respondent, there was definitely a contract of substitution in the
first count. The first contract was duly approved by the Administration and,
therefore, the parties are bound by the terms and condition thereof until its
expiration. The mere intention of respondents to increase the number of hours of
work, even if there was a corresponding increase in wage is clear violation of the
contract as approved by the Administration, and notwithstanding the same, the
amendment is evidently contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy
and hence, must be shunned (Art. 1306, Civil Code of the Philippines, Book III,
Title I, Chapter 1, Article 83, Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended).
Moreover, it would appear that the proposed salary increase corresponding to the
increase in number of work bonus may just have been a ploy as complainant were
(sic) thereafter not paid at the increased rate.
As to contract substitution in the second part, a third contract was emphatically
intended by respondent to be signed by complainants which, however, was not
consummated due to the adamant refusal of complainants to sign thereon. Mere
intention of the respondent to commit contract substitution for a second time should
not be left unpunished. It is the duty of this Office to repress such acts by teaching
agencies a lesson to avoid repetition of the same violation." 31
As to unlawful deduction of salary, Petitioner is correct in stating that the Decision of the
NLRC has attained finality by reason of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari
assailing the same. However, the said NLRC Decision dealt only with the money claims
of private respondents arising from employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal
and as such, it is only for the payment of the said money claims that petitioner is
absolved. The administrative sanctions, which are distinct and separate from the money
claims of private respondents, may still be properly imposed by the POEA. In fact, in the
Decision of the POEA dealing with the money claims of private respondents, the POEA
Adjudication Office precisely declared that "respondent's liability for said money claims
is without prejudice to and independent of its liabilities for the recruitment violations
aspect of the case which is the subject of a separate Order."  As such, the fact that
petitioner has been absolved by final judgment for the payment of the money claim to
private respondent de Mesa does not mean that it is likewise absolved from the
administrative sanctions which may be imposed as a result of the unlawful deduction or
withholding of private respondents' salary. The POEA thus committed no grave abuse of
discretion in finding petitioner administratively liable of one count of unlawful
deduction/withholding of salary.
To summarize, petitioner should be absolved from the three (3) counts of illegal exaction as
POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 could not be the basis of administrative
sanctions against petitioner for lack of publication. However, we affirm the ruling of the
POEA and the Secretary of Labor and Employment that petitioner should be held
administratively liable for two (2) counts of contract substitution and one (1) count of
withholding or unlawful deduction of salary.
G.R. No. 151303. April 15, 2005 Note that the fraction of nine months and twenty-eight days is considered as one whole year
ATHENNA INTERNATIONAL vs. VILLANOS following the Labor Code. Thus, respondent’s lump-sum salary should be computed as
follows:
Facts: 3 months x 2 (years) = 6 months worth of salary
 Respondent Nonito Villanos is a contract worker recruited by petitioner Athenna 6 months x (NT$) 15,840 = NT$95,040, subject to proper conversion to Philippine currency
International Manpower Services, Inc. to work as a caretaker in Taiwan; by Labor Arbiter Cresencio Iniego.
 He alleged that he was assessed P100,000 placement fee by petitioner but due to
lack of enough money, he begged petitioner to let him pay a reduced fee at Under the aforequoted provision, an illegally dismissed overseas worker is also entitled to the
P30,000. Petitioner agreed and the fee was reduced to P94,000, on the condition full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum.
that the remaining P64,000 be paid through salary deductions upon employment;
 In October 1998, respondent’s Contract of Employment with Wei Yu Hsein We note that while respondent was assessed ₱94,000 in placement fee, he paid only ₱30,000
arrived. According to the contract, he was to work as a caretaker for a year, ten on the agreement that the balance of ₱64,000 would be paid on a monthly salary deduction
months and twenty-eight days. However, upon arrival in Taiwan, he was assigned upon his deployment. Hence, we cannot grant respondent reimbursement of the entire
to a mechanical shop, owned by Hsien, as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car assessed amount of ₱94,000. He is only entitled to the reimbursement of the amount of
lifters, instead of caretaker. He did not complain due to the debts he needed to pay; placement fee he actually paid, which is the ₱30,000 he gave as downpayment plus interest at
 Barely a month after his placement, he was terminated by Hsien and was made to twelve percent (12%) per annum.
sign a document stating that he was not qualified for the position, which he did not
sign;
 Upon his arrival in the PH, he immediately went to petitioner’s office and
confronted its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the assignment given to him
and demanded that he be reimbursed the ₱30,000 he paid as downpayment. Instead
of returning the said amount, petitioner gave him a summary of expenses
amounting to ₱30,493, which it allegedly incurred for his deployment abroad;
 Aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the Adjudication Office of POEA. However,
due to financial constraints, he had to go home to Zamboanga del Norte, hence he
filed a complaint before NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration, Dipolog City.
 Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien are solidarily liable for wages
representing unserved portion of employment contract. NLRC, however, reversed
the decision for lack of merit. CA reinstated the decision of Labor Arbiter.

Issue: W/N Villanos is entitled to the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract and
remittance of placement fee

Ruling: YES. Pertinent to this issue is Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8042
SEC. 10. Money Claims. - . . .
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at 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.
...
Thus, for the computation of the lump-sum salary due an illegally dismissed overseas
employee, there are two clauses as points of reckoning: first is the cumulative salary for the
unexpired portion of his employment; and the other is the grant of three months salary for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is lesser.

Since respondent was dismissed after only one month of service, the unexpired portion of his
contract is admittedly one year, nine months and twenty-eight days. But the applicable clause
is not the first but the second: three months salary for every year of the unexpired term, as the
lesser amount, hence it is what is due the respondent.
G.R. No. 116629 January 16, 1998
NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS vs. NLRC
Petitioner NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., a domestic manning corporation,
engaged the services of Misada and Envidiado to work for petitioner Barber International A/S
(Barber), a Norwegian shipping company. Misada and Envidiado were hired as second and
third officers, respectively, and were to travel from Sweden to South Korea from January
1991 to November 1991.
Before the contract ended, both workers died on board the vessel.
As heirs of the deceased seamen, private respondents, filed for death compensation benefits
under the POEA Standard Contract of Employment and the Norwegian National Insurance
Scheme (NIS) for Filipino Officers. Their claims were denied by petitioners.
Private respondents prayed for U.S. $13,000.00 each as death compensation under the POEA
Standard Contract of Employment and U.S. $30,000.00 for each wife and U.S. $8,000.00 for
each child under eighteen years under the Norwegian NIS. 1
Petitioners claimed that private respondents are not entitled to death benefits on the ground
that the seamen's deaths were due to their own willful act. They alleged that the deceased
were among three (3) Filipino seamen who implanted fragments of reindeer horn in their
respective sexual organs; that due to the lack of sanitary conditions at the time and place of
implantation, all three seamen suffered "severe tetanus" and "massive viral infections;" which
caused their death
POEA Administrator dismissed the case for lack of merit. On appeal the heirs submitted new
evidence to support their claim and NLRC reversed the decision and awarded prayed
compensation to the heirs.
Hence this petition.
Petitioners claim NLRC gravely abused its discretion in admitting private respondent's
additional evidence on appeal, they claimed that such were in violation of petitioner's right to
due process.
The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and
procedure all in the interest of substantial justice. The NLRC may consider evidence, such as
documents and affidavits, submitted by the parties for the first time on appeal and such does
not prejudice the other party for the latter could submit counter-evidence. 8
In the case at bar, Petitioners had ample opportunity to object and refute the documents. They
had the chance to submit counter-evidence during this period but they did not do so. They
questioned the admission of these evidence only when they moved for reconsideration. It is
not the denial of the right to be heard but denial of the opportunity to be heard that constitutes
violation of due process of law.11
The substantive issue in this case is whether respondent Commission gravely erred in finding
that the deaths did not come as a result of their willful and deliberate act.
The death of a seaman during the term of his employment makes the employer liable to the
former's heirs for death compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute. The
employer may be exempt from liability if he can successfully prove that the seaman's death
was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. 15
In the instant case, petitioners claim that the deaths of the two seamen came as a result of
their self-inflicted injuries. As proof, petitioners presented medical reports of Misada,
Envidiado and Arturo Fajardo - the seaman who survived the infection - and the written
statements of 3 officers of the vessel taken during a special inquiry conducted after their
deaths.
However, the testimonies of the officers are insufficient to prove the fact that Misada's and
Envidiado's deaths were caused by self-inflicted injuries. The testimonies were given by
people who merely observed and narrated the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the
two seamen and the illness of Fajardo. The testimonies of the officers are, at best, hearsay. No
autopsy report was presented to corroborate their testimonies. On the contrary, Eduardo
Misada was medically diagnosed to have died of "acute laryngo-trachea bronchitis with
pneumonia probably due to viral cause."21 
Enrico Envidiado while still alive was examined by Consultant Physician who found a wound
in his penis and diagnosed his illness as "severe tetanus." 22 His "Certificate for Removal of A
Dead Body" and "Certificate of Embalming" stated that Envidiado died of "viral myocarditis
— natural causes." These certificates are not proofs of the real cause of death. Their probative
value is confined only to the fact of death.25 
As correctly found by respondent Commission, petitioners' evidence insufficiently proves the
fact that the deaths of the two seamen were caused by their own willful and deliberate act.
And even if the seamen implanted fragments of reindeer horn in their sex organs, the
evidence does not substantially prove that they contracted tetanus as a result of the unsanitary
surgical procedures they performed on their bodies. Neither does the evidence show that the
tetanus was the direct cause of their deaths.
The petition is dismissed. – xxx -
G.R. No. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983
VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC., petitioner, 
vs.
NLRC, ROGELIO BISULA RUBEN ARROZA JUAN GACUTNO LEONILO ATOK, NILO
CRUZ, ALVARO ANDRADA, NEMESIO ADUG SIMPLICIO BAUTISTA, ROMEO
ACOSTA, and JOSE ENCABO respondents.
The master of the vessel complainant Rogelio H. Bisula, received a cable from the Company
advising him of the possibility that the vessel might be directed to call at ITF-controlled ports said
at the same time informing him of the procedure to be followed in the computation of the special or
additional compensation of crew members while in said ports.
ITF is the acronym for the International Transport Workers Federation, a militant international
labor organization with affiliates in different ports of the world, which reputedly can tie down a
vessel in a port by preventing its loading or unloading, This is a sanction resorted to by ITF to
enforce the payment of its wages rates for seafarers the so-called ITF rates, if the wages of the crew
members of a vessel who have affiliated with it are below its prescribed rates.
Thereafter the Company sent another cable to complainant Bisula, regarding the special
compensation that will be received by the crew, and yet another cable informing him that the
officers and crew members had been enrolled as members of the ITF in Sidney, Australia, and that
the membership fee for the 28 personnel complement of the vessel had already been paid.
In answer to the Company's cable, complainant Bisula, in representation of the other officers and
crew members, informed the Company that the officers and crew members were not contented with
their present salaries 'based on the volume of works, type of ship with hazardous cargo and
registered in a world wide trade': that the 'officers and crew were not interested in ITF membership
if not actually paid with ITF rate that their 'demand is only 50% increase based on present basic
salary and that the proposed wage increase is the 'best and only solution to solve ITF problem.
the Company proposed a 25% increase in the basic pay of the complainant crew members, with
conditions agreed upon by both parties effected through the cables abovementioned, the Seamen
were paid their new salary rates.
Subsequently, the Company sought authority from the NSB to cancel the contracts of employment
of the Seamen, claiming that its principals had terminated their manning agreement because of the
actuations of the Seamen. The request was granted. Soon thereafter, the Company cabled the
Seamen informing them that their contracts would be terminated upon the vessel's arrival in Japan.
There is no showing that the Seamen were given the opportunity to at least comment on the
Company's request for the cancellation of their contracts, although they had served only three (3)
out of the twelve (12) months' duration of their contracts.
The private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of earned wages
with the National Seamen Board. The Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services Inc. in turn filed a
complaint for breach of contract and recovery of excess salaries and overtime pay against the
private respondents. On July 2, 1980, the NSB rendered a decision declaring that the seamen
breached their employment contracts when they demanded and received from Vir-jen Shipping
wages over and above their contracted rates. The dismissal of the seamen was declared legal and
the seamen were ordered suspended.
NLRC reversed the decision of the NSB on the ground that the termination of the contract by the
petitioner was without valid cause.
At the outset, we are faced with the question whether or not the Court en banc should give due
course to the motion for reconsideration in spite of its having been denied twice by the Court's
Second Division. The case was referred to and accepted by the Court en banc because of the
movants' contention that the decision in this case by the Second Division deviated from Wallem
Phil. Shipping Inc. v. Minister of Labor, a First Division case with the same facts and issues. We
are constrained to answer the initial question in the affirmative.
The Court en banc is constrained to grant the motions. To grant the motion is to keep faith with the
constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor and to assure the rights of workers to self-
organization and to just and humane conditions of work. We sustain the decision of the respondent
NLRC.
There are various arguments raised by the petitioners but the common thread running through all of
them is the contention, if not the dismal prophecy, that if the respondent seamen are sustained by
this Court, we would in effect "kill the hen that lays the golden egg." In other words, Filipino
seamen, admittedly among the best in the world, should remain satisfied with relatively lower if
not the lowest, international rates of compensation, should not agitate for higher wages while their
contracts of employment are subsisting, should accept as sacred, iron clad, and immutable the side
contracts which require them to falsely pretend to be members of international labor federations,
pretend to receive higher salaries at certain foreign ports only to return the increased pay once the
ship leaves that port, should stifle not only their right to ask for improved terms of employment but
their freedom of speech and expression, and should suffer instant termination of employment at the
slightest sign of dissatisfaction with no protection from their Government and their courts.
Otherwise, the petitioners contend that Filipinos would no longer be accepted as seamen, those
employed would lose their jobs, and the still unemployed would be left hopeless.
Unionism, employers' liability acts, minimum wages, workmen's compensation, social security and
collective bargaining to name a few were all initially opposed by employers and even well meaning
leaders of government and society as "killing the hen or goose which lays the golden eggs." The
claims of workingmen were described as outrageously injurious not only to the employer but more
so to the employees themselves before these claims or demands were established by law and
jurisprudence as "rights" and before these were proved beneficial to management, labor, and the
nation as a whole beyond reasonable doubt.
The wages of seamen engaged in international shipping are shouldered by the foreign principal.
The local manning office is an agent whose primary function is recruitment and who usually gets a
lump sum from the ship owner to defray the salaries of the crew. The hiring of seamen and the
determination of their compensation is subject to the interplay of various market factors and one
key factor is how much in terms of profits the local manning office and the foreign shipowner may
realize after the costs of the voyage are met. And costs include salaries of officers and crew
members.
Filipino seamen are admittedly as competent and reliable as seamen from any other country in the
world. It is competence and reliability, not cheap labor that makes our seamen so greatly in
demand. Filipino seamen have never demanded the same high salaries as seamen from other
developed nations. But certainly they are entitled to government protection when they ask for fair
and decent treatment by their employer.-, and when they exercise the right to petition for improved
terms of employment, especially when they feel that these are sub-standard or are capable of
improvement according to internationally accepted rules.
WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are hereby GRANTED. The petition is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is
AFFIRMED. No costs.

In the domestic scene, there are marginal employers who prepare two sets of payrolls for their
employees — one in keeping with minimum wages and the other recording the sub-standard wages
that the employees really receive. There is no reason why this Court and the Ministry of Labor and
Employment or its agencies and commissions should come out with pronouncements based on the
standards and practices of unscrupulous or inefficient shipowners, who claim they cannot survive
without resorting to tricky and deceptive schemes, instead of Government maintaining labor law
and jurisprudence according to the practices of honorable, competent, and law-abiding employers,
domestic or foreign.

We now hold that neither the National Seamen Board nor the National Labor Relations
Commission should, as a matter of official policy, legitimize and enforce cubious arrangements
where shipowners and seamen enter into fictitious contracts similar to the addendum agreements or
side contracts in this case whose purpose is to deceive. The Republic of the Philippines and its
ministries and agencies should present a more honorable and proper posture in official acts to the
whole world, notwithstanding our desire to have as many job openings both here and abroad for
our workers. At the very least, such as sensitive matter involving no less than our dignity as a
people and the welfare of our workingmen must proceed from the Batasang Pambansa in the form
of policy legislation, not from administrative rule making or adjudication

Another issue raised by the movants is whether or not the seamen violated their contracts of
employment.

The form contracts approved by the National Seamen Board are designed to protect Filipino
seamen not foreign shipowners who can take care of themselves. The standard forms embody' the
basic minimums which must be incorporated as parts of the employment contract. They are not
collective bargaining agreements or immutable contracts which the parties cannot improve upon or
modify in the course of the agreed period of time. To state, therefore, that the affected seamen
cannot petition their employer for higher salaries during the 12 months duration of the contract
runs counter to established principles of labor legislation. The seamen did not violate their
contracts to warrant their dismissal.

The facts show that Virjen Initiated the discussions which led to the demand for increased . The
seamen made a proposal and the petitioner organized with a counter-proposal. The ship had not yet
gone to Australia or any ITF controlled port. There was absolutely no mention of any strike much
less a threat to strike. The seamen had done in act which under Philippine law or any other
civilized law would be termed illegal, oppressive, or malicious. Whatever pressure existed, it was
mild compared to accepted valid modes of labor activity.

We agree with the movants that there is no showing of any cause, which under the Labor Code or
any current applicable law, would warrant the termination of the respondents' services before the
expiration of their contracts. The Constitution guarantees State assurance of the rights of workers
to security of tenure. (Sec. 9, Article II, Constitution). Presumptions and provisions of law, the
evidence on record, and fundamental State policy all dictate that the motions for reconsideration
should be granted.
G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989
NORBERTO SORIANO, petitioner,  were also written above the word "inclusive". It was a mere breakdown of the total amount into
vs.
OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.S., and
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), respondents.
Petitioner Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine Engineer, sought employment and was
hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized shipping agent in the
Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation. Petitioner was hired to work as Third
Marine Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a conduction
basis for a period of fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six
(6) months by mutual agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that he will be
promoted to Second Engineer. Thus, while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on
July 23, 1985 he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to the alleged failure of private respondent-
employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner to the position of Second Engineer and for the
unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was
made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila.
In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the POEA, a complaint against private respondent for
payment of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary for November, 1985 and refund of his
return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20,000.00 contending therein that private
respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his salary of US$800.00 per
month to US$560.00, causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines.
The Officer-in-Charge of the POEA found that petitioner-complainant's total monthly emolument
is US$800.00 inclusive of fixed overtime as shown and proved in the Wage Scale submitted to the
Accreditation Department of its Office which would therefore not entitle petitioner to any salary
differential; that the version of complainant that there was in effect contract substitution has no
grain of truth because although the Employment Contract seems to have corrections on it, said
corrections or alterations are in conformity with the Wage Scale duly approved by the POEA; that
the withholding of a certain amount due petitioner was justified to answer for his repatriation
expenses which repatriation was found to have been requested by petitioner himself as shown in
the entry in his Seaman's Book; and that petitioner deposited a total amount of P15,000.00 only
instead of P20,000.00 cash bond.2
POEA ordered the respondents (1) to pay complainant, the amount of P15, 000.00 representing the
reimbursement of the cash bond deposited by complainant less US$285.83 (to be converted to its
peso equivalent at the time of actual payment). (2) Attorney's fees equivalent to 10 % of the
aforesaid award is assessed against respondents. And all other claims are hereby dismissed for lack
of merit.
Both parties appealed the aforementioned decision of the POEA to the NLRC, which dismissed
both actions.
Petitioner claims that the alteration by private respondent of his salary and overtime rate which is
evidenced by the Crew Agreement and the exit pass constitutes a violation of Article 34 of the
Labor Code of the Philippines. 6
A careful examination of the records shows that there is in fact no alteration made in the Crew
Agreement 8 or in the Exit Pass. 9 The figures US$800.00 fall under the column salary, while the
word "inclusive" is indicated under the column overtime rate. With the supposed alterations, the
figures US$560.00 were handwritten above the figures US$800.00 while the figures US$240.00
US$560.00 as basic wage and US$240.00 as overtime pay. Otherwise stated, with or without the
amendments the total emolument that petitioner would receive under the agreement as approved by
the POEA is US$800.00 monthly with wage differentials or overtime pay included. 10
Moreover, the presence of petitioner's signature after said items renders improbable the possibility
that petitioner could have misunderstood the amount of compensation he will be receiving under
the contract. Thus, he claimed: [a] that private respondent extended the duration of the employment
contract indefinitely – but admitted in his Reply that his employment contract was extended for
another six months by agreement between private respondent and himself 12 [b] that when
petitioner demanded for his overtime pay, respondents repatriated him – which again was discarded
in his reply stating that he himself requested for his voluntary repatriation because of the bad faith
and insincerity of private respondent; 14 [c] that he was required to post a cash bond in the amount
of P20,000.00 – but it was found that he deposited only the total amount of P15,000.00; [d] that his
salary for November 1985 was not paid – when in fact it was petitioner who owes private
respondent US$285.83 for cash advances 15 and on November 27, 1985 the final pay slip was
executed and signed; 16 and [e] that he finished his contract when on the contrary, despite prodding
that he continue working until the renewed contract has expired – he adamantly insisted on his
termination.
Verily, it is quite apparent that the whole conflict centers on the failure of respondent company to
give the petitioner the desired promotion which appears to be improbable at the moment because
the M/V Knut Provider continues to be laid off at Limassol for lack of charterers. 17
There is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the approval of the
Department of Labor is a serious violation of law – Article 34, Labor Code. However, both the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an
alteration but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered
a violation of the above-quoted law.
Under similar circumstances, this Court ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the
coverage of a statute are strictly construed. But such construction nevertheless must be at all times
reasonable, sensible and fair. Hence, to rule out from the exemption amendments set forth,
although they did not materially change the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit, was
held to be unreasonable and unjust, and not in accord with the declared purpose of the Margin
Law. 19
The purpose of Article 34, paragraph 1 of the Labor Code is clearly the protection of both parties.
In the instant case, the alleged amendment served to clarify what was agreed upon by the parties
and approved by the Department of Labor. To rule otherwise would go beyond the bounds of
reason and justice.
Petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is
AFFIRMED in toto.
G.R. No. 143726             February 23, 2004
PEOPLE vs. SAGAYAGA

Facts:
 Appellant Leticia Sagayaga who allegedly works as corporate treasurer and
assistant general manager at Alvis Placement Service Corporation (APSC) was
charged with large-scale illegal recruitment by Elmer Janer, Eric Farol and Elmer
Ramos;
 As testified by Elmer Janer, he was allegedly offered to work overseas as factory
worker in Taiwan, thereafter was asked to pay P75,000 placement fee and was also
required to have his medical examination to determine if he is fit to work. However,
after 7 months, no employer arrived. He demanded money but no refund was paid.
He went to POEA and filed a sworn complaint against appellant;
 As for Eric Farol, he also applied as a factory worker in Taiwan. He was required
to submit passport, NBI clearance, medical clearance and P75,000 placement fee by
the appellant and co-accused Vicente So Yan Han. Appellant promised that he will
be leaving before Christmas 1997 but appellant failed to comply until January
1998. Farol then demanded the refund however, appellant issued a bouncing check.
Vicente gave him cash amounts on different dates but still no refund of the full
amount of money. He then filed a complaint against the two at the POEA;
 And as for Elmer Ramos, he likewise applied as factory worker in Taiwan,
through Vicente So Yan Han who required him to submit passport, NBI and med
clearances and P70,000 placement fee. The deployment did not materialize. He
withdrew his application and asked the refund but he received a bouncing check.
He went to POEA and filed a sworn complaint.
 After trial, RTC convicted the appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Issue: W/N appellant is liable of illegal recruitment in large scale

Ruling: YES. Under Section 6 (m) of Rep. Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment may be
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder of authority, licensee or holder
of authority, thus:
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault....

Under the last paragraph of the said section, those criminally liable are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of a juridical person, the officers having control,
management or direction of the business shall be criminally liable.

In this case, the appellant, as shown by the records of the POEA, was both the APSC Vice-
President-Treasurer and the Assistant General Manager. She was a high corporate officer who
had direct participation in the management, administration, direction and control of the
business of the corporation.

Furthermore, Section 6 of Rep. Act No. 8042 provides that illegal recruitment shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in large scale,  viz,
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, there are
three private complainants, namely, Elmer Janer, Eric Farol and Elmer Ramos. Hence, RTC
is correct in convicting appellant of large-scale illegal recruitment.
G.R. No. 123146               June 17, 2003 Ruling
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, 
vs. Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing,
ALONA BULI-E and JOSEFINA (JOSIE) ALOLINO, Appellants. enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and include referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or
Buli-e represented herself as an agent of a licensed recruiter to the Complainants, and between the not; provided that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
stipulated dates, “assisted” in the recruitment of contract workers for Taiwan and that, although she employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment or placement.
did not have a license of her own to recruit, her boss in Manila who was a licensed recruiter, was in
the process of getting her one which would soon be issued. 10 Buli-e identified her superiors in The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) The accused
Manila to be the spouses Jose 11 and Josefina Alolino – herein other named respondents. Buli-e engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any
required complainants to pay an advanced payment for the placement fee, collected the documents prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) The accused has no license or an
which were required of the Complainants, accompanied complainants for their medical check-up, authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and
Buli-e also introduced Complainants to the spouses respondents, in the latter’s residence who in (3) The accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a
turn gave more directions to said complainants re their employment and were assured that they group.56 
were licensed to recruit overseas contract workers and that they can deploy workers within two to
three months. When illegal recruitment is committed in large scale or when it is committed by a syndicate, (three
or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another, it is considered as an offense
involving economic sabotage)
After months of waiting, complainants went to the POEA and found out that appellants had no
license to recruit. Complainants filed their complaints with the POEA-CAR and the Prosecutor’s
The factual backdrop shows that appellants engaged in recruitment activities involving eight
Office of Baguio City.
persons. The recruitment activities were made by appellants without having the license or authority
to do so as evidenced by the certification issued by POEA, CAR.
During trial, Buli-e testified that she was in good faith following the instructions given by
Josephina as she was appointed as her agent and that she was on the belief that she was a licensed
The denial of the respondents of their willful participation in such illegal acts were not
recruiter. That all said requirements including payments were submitted either to either of the
substantiated and hence there is no reason to disturb the court’s factual finding. Josefina’s acts
spouses. And averred that she and several members of her family also tried to apply for overseas
clearly show that she and Buli-e acted in concert towards the accomplishment of a common
work with Josefina and paid the latter ₱100,000 and so she was also a victim of said illegal
felonious purpose which was to recruit workers for overseas employment even though they had no
recruitment.
license to do so.
Josefina, on the other hand, testified that she was one Overseas Marketing Director of RSI, tasked
Moreover, POEA confirmed that the license of RSI had already been suspended and expired on
to represent the agency in negotiating with employers in Taiwan, Malaysia, United States and
July 14, 1992. Even if Josefina was licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, her
Singapore45 for said employers to avail of the services of RSI in recruiting, hiring, processing and
authority to do so ceased when the license of her agency expired. Hence, the complainants gave
deploying Filipino contract workers. She denied having appointed Buli-e as her agent. She further
payments for the placement fee after the license of RSI had already expired.
denied all allegations of her having given instructions to Buli-e and receiving payments and said
requirements. Moreover, she claims that the delay of deployment was due to the change in the
Furthermore, Josefina’s alleged authority to recruit applicants for overseas employment as
policy of employment in Taiwan and that complainants were informed of the delay, but they could
Marketing Director of RSI was only confined to Metro Manila. Article 29 of the Labor Code
not wait to be deployed and, instead, demanded the refund of their payments. 50
provides:
Art. 29. Non-transferability of license or authority – No license or authority shall be used directly
The RTC rendered a decision, finding respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt, by direct
or indirectly by any person other than the one in whose favor it was issued or at any place other
participation and in conspiracy with each other, of the crime of illegal recruitment in a large scale
than that stated in the license or authority, nor may such license or authority be transferred,
and Estafa, and were also ordered to pay the fine of 100,000php each plus damages to
conveyed or assigned to any other person or entity. Any transfer of business address, appointment
Complainants.
or designation of any agent or representative including the establishment of additional offices
anywhere shall be subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of Labor.
Buli-e contends that (1) she was in good faith and believed the spouses to be licensed recruiters, (2)
that there was no conspiracy between her and the spouses, and (3) that she did not benefit from the
Josefina claims that no recruitment activity was being done outside of the territorial permit of RSI
misrepresentation and thus not guilty of Estafa. Josefina, on the other hand, contends that she was
and it was only incidental that complainants were residents of Baguio City, however it is untenable.
not guilty of illegal recruitment and Estafa.
As earlier discussed, there is no indication that complainants ever set foot in the RSI office. They
were always brought to said residence. Pursuant to the POEA rules and regulations, Josefina could
recruit applicants for overseas employment and process their applications only at the RSI office in
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila since there was no showing that RSI had an acknowledged branch or
extension office in Baguio City or that the prior approval of the POEA for provincial recruitment or
recruitment activities outside the RSI office was obtained.

Finally, the trial court did not err in finding appellants guilty of eight (8) counts of estafa.  It is
settled that a person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can also be convicted of
violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa provided that the elements of the crime
are present. (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit,
and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.

Appellants deceived complainants into believing that they had the authority and capability to send
them to Taiwan for employment. By reason or on the strength of such assurance, complainants
parted with their money in payment of the placement fees. Since the representations of appellants
proved to be false, paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable.

WHEREFORE, Decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the actual
damages.
G.R. No. 144786   April 15, 2004
PHIL. EMPLOY SERVICES vs. PARAMIO
Facts:
 On different dates from April 1996 to October 1996, respondents Joseph Paramio,
Ronald Navarra, Romel Sarmiento, Recto Guillermo, Ferdinand Bautista and
Apolinario Curameng, Jr. applied for employment in Taiwan with petitioner, Phil.
Employ Services and Resources, Inc. (PSRI);
 Their applications were processed and paid P19,000 each as placement fee.
Thereafter, they executed in the Philippines separate one-year contracts of
employment with their employer in Taiwan, Kuan Yuan Fiber Co., Ltd. Hsei-
Chang. The respondents were deployed in Taiwan as operators on different dates
and each of them had a monthly salary with free food and accommodation.
 After the orientation, the respondents were told that their schedule of work was up
to 9:00 p.m., except for respondent Navarra who was made to work up to 12:00
midnight. The respondents were downhearted when they discovered that, upon their
arrival in their quarters, they had no beddings, pillows and blankets. They
addressed the complaint to the management, but was told not to air their
complaints. They contacted OWWA, but to no avail;
 Thereafter, their overtime rate increased because of increase volume of orders but
their working conditions did not improve. Respondent Navarra and another
employee were repatriated without specifying ground or cause. Upon arrival in
Manila, the petitioner agreed to pay P49,000 but in consideration thereof, the latter
executed a quitclaim releasing the petitioner from any or all liabilities for his
repatriation;
 Disheartened by their fate due to Navarra and another employees repatriation,
respondents also decided to go home but were required to pay NT$30,000
otherwise they would not be allowed to go. They were unable to pay, hence failed
to return to PH.
 The management and broker gave the respondents two (2) options: (a)
imprisonment for their refusal to pay NT$30,000.00; or (b) sign separate
agreements with their employer. The respondents had no other recourse but to sign
agreements authorizing their employer to (a) deduct the amount of NT$30,000 from
their salaries; (b) remit their salaries to the Philippines; and, (c) deduct NT$10,000
from their salaries as "bond." However, the respondents were still not repatriated.
The next day, their employer issued a regulation that overtime of ten hours or more
would be implemented. Thus, the conditions in the respondents’ workplace
worsened;
 Thereafter, Paramio got ill as a result of the employer’s failure to give food. He was
not allowed to rest, instead was made to carry a container weighing 30 kg. Due to
his condition, he injured his thumb. Instead of giving financial assistance, petitioner
suggested that it be better if he go home in the PH. Upon receiving paycheck, he
learned that amount was deducted from his salary representing his plane ticket back
to PH, his sick leave was not included. But still, he was not repatriated. He was
transferred to another department with heavier workload, but could not function
well due to injury. PSRI representative, Chua gave a paycheck with deductions due
to neglect of work; he was later repatriated to the PH;
 Chua thereafter, renewed his warning to remaining respondents not to complain to
the worsening working conditions. But respondents could no longer bear such
hence they decided to go home and were required to return their bonds, write
resignation letters and to pay their own tickets;
 Respondents Sarmiento, Guillermo, Curameng, Jr. and Bautista, together with
respondents Paramio and Navarra, filed separate complaints before the NLRC
Arbitration Branch against Bayani Fontanilla for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
overtime pay, refund of placement fee, tax refund, refund of plane fares, attorney’s
fees and litigation expenses.
 Labor Arbited rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal of respondents was
illegal, awarded the salaries due them for the unexpired portion of their contracts,
as well as the refund of their plane fare. However, NLRC reversed the decision. CA
reinstated Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Issue: W/N respondents were illegally dismissed when they were repatriated to the PH
Ruling: YES. In order to effect a valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there
be just and valid cause as provided in Article 282 56 and that the employee was afforded an
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. 57 Dismissal may also be based on any of the
authorized causes provided for in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. 58
As to Paramio’s concerns, Applying the law and the rule, the employer is burdened to prove
that the employee was suffering from a disease which prevented his continued employment,
or that the employee’s wound prevented his continued employment. Section 8, Rule 1, Book
VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code requires a certification from
competent public authority59 that the employee was heavily wounded and had lost the ability
to work. In the case at bar, the petitioner did not adduce in evidence a certification from a
public authority to the effect that respondent Paramio had been heavily wounded. It also
failed to show that by reason of his thumb injury, he lost the ability to work.
Based on the foregoing facts, SC ruled the respondents were constructively dismissed from
their employment. There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee
that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. 82 It
exists where there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a
diminution in pay."83
According to Section 10, paragraph 2 of Rep. Act No. 8042, 84 the agency which deployed the
employees whose employment contract were adjudged illegally terminated, shall be jointly
and solidarily liable with the principal for the money claims awarded to the aforesaid
employees. Consequently, the petitioner, as the agency of the respondents, is solidarily liable
with its principal Kuan Yuan for the payment of the salaries due to the respondents
corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contract, as well as the reimbursement of their
placement fees.
Under Section 15 of the same Act, the repatriation of the worker and the transport of his
personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or
deployed the overseas contract worker. All the costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the
agency concerned and/or its principal. 85 Consequently, the petitioner is obliged to refund
P4,300 to each of the respondents, representing their airfare.
 Moreover, we find that there was no proper dismissal of respondent by SAAD; the termination of
respondent was clearly a ploy to pressure him to agree to a lower wage rate for continued
PLACEWELL VS CAMOTE employment. Thus, the original POEA-approved employment contract of respondent subsists
  despite the so-called new agreement with SAAD. Consequently, the solidary liability of petitioner
Petitioner Placewell International Services Corporation (PISC) deployed respondent Ireneo B. with SAAD for respondent’s money claims continues in accordance with Section 10 of R.A. 8042.
[12]
Camote to work as building carpenter for SAAD Trading and Contracting Co. (SAAD) at the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) for contract duration of two years, with a corresponding salary of  
US$370.00 per month. Petitioners contention that respondent is guilty of laches is without basis. The doctrine of laches
  presumes that the party guilty of negligence had the opportunity to do what should have been done,
At the job site, respondent was allegedly found incompetent by his foreign employer; thus the latter but failed to do so.   Laches  is not concerned with the mere lapse of time, rather, the party must
decided to terminate his services. However, respondent pleaded for his retention and consented to have been afforded an opportunity to pursue his claim in order that the delay may sufficiently
accept a lower salary of SR 800.00 per month. Thus, SAAD retained respondent until his return to constitute laches. The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since
the Philippines two years after. it is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. Thus,
respondent filed his claim within the three-year prescriptive period for the filing of money claims
On November 27, 2001, respondent filed a sworn Complaint [4] for monetary claims against set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code from the time the cause of action accrued.  The doctrine
petitioner alleging that when he arrived at the job site, he and his fellow Filipino workers were of laches finds no application in this case.
required to sign another employment contract written in Arabic under the constraints of losing their  
jobs if they refused; that for the entire duration of the new contract, he received only SR 590.00 per The labor arbiter and the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to respondent; in
month; that he was not given his overtime pay despite rendering nine hours of work every day; that actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to
he and his co-workers sought assistance from the Philippine Embassy but they did not succeed in protect his rights and interests, he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.[15] However, with
pursuing their cause of action because of difficulties in communication. regard to Unauthorized Deductions amounting to P171, 780.00; [16] we note that the appellate court
  did not state any basis for its award, thus, the same is deleted for lack of factual and legal basis.
Labor arbiter rendered a decision holding that the modification of respondents employment  
contract is not allowed under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042; [5] thus, he should have received WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
the original contracted salary of US$370.00 per month instead of the new rate given by SAAD.  It Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION  P171,780 representing Unauthorized
was also noted that respondent did not refute petitioner’s allegation regarding the non-payment of Deductions is DELETED for lack of basis. – xxx -
placement and other processing fees prior to deployment. The labor arbiter also found that there is
no differential as far as respondents overtime pay is concerned considering that he was given
overtime pay based on the new rate of SR 800.00. Since respondent rendered one hour of overtime
work per day for only 18 months, and not the entire 24 months as claimed, the total overtime pay
he received is more or less equivalent to the amount he ought to have received if the original
contracted rate of US$370.00 was used. Finally, the labor arbiter awarded respondent attorney’s
fees for being compelled to hire a counsel to protect his rights and interests. 
 
On appeal, the NLRC set aside the Decision of the Labor Arbiter for lack of cause of action. The
Court of Appeals set aside the Resolution of the NLRC, and reinstated with modifications the
Decision of the labor arbiter.
 
Petitioner avers that (1) respondent failed to substantiate the allegation that he was forced to enter
into the new employment contract with SAAD which proves that the new contract was actually
voluntarily entered and agreed upon between said parties; (2) that if respondent was indeed forced
to sign the new contract, his claims are now barred by laches because respondent never informed
petitioner of any problem at the job site until two years after his deployment; (3) that the appellate
courts award for unauthorized deductions in the amount of P171,780.00 should be deleted for lack
of legal or factual basis; (4) that respondent is not entitled to attorneys fees.
 
R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the substitution or alteration to the prejudice of the worker, of
employment contracts already approved and verified by DOLE from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the DOLE. The unauthorized alteration in the employment contract of respondent,
particularly the diminution in his salary from US$370.00 to SR 800.00 per month, is void for
violating the POEA-approved contract which set the minimum standards, terms, and conditions of
his employment.