Migrant Workers Act Ra 10022 - An Act Amending Ra 8042

MIGRANT WORKERS ACT RA 10022 — AN ACT AMENDING RA 8042
SEC 3. DEFINITIONS
1. (a) Migrant worker — person engaged in a renumerated activity in a state which he or
she is not a legal resident
2. (c) OFW — dependents of migrant workers and other Filipino nationals abroad who are
in distress as mentioned in Secs 24 and 26 of this Act
[SEC 5. TERMINATION OR BAN ON DEPLOYMENT]
- Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec 4 (deployment of migrant workers), the
government, in pursuit of national interest or when public welfare so requires, may
terminate or impose a ban on the deployment of migrant workers
SEC 6. DEFINITIONS (ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT)
- Any act of Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring
workers and includes Contract services, Referrals, Advertising, or Promising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or
non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442,
as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any
such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall
likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-
licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority
a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that
specified…
b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to
recruitment or employment
c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act
of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the
Labor Code, or for the purpose of documenting hired workers with the POEA…
d) To include or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment
e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any
worker who has not applied for employment through his agency or who has
formed, joined or supported, or has contacted or is supported by any union or
workers' organization
Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Contract services, Referrals, Advertising, or Promising
Licensed
- 6 years and 1 day – 12 years & P500,000 – P1M
Illegal Recruitment
- 12 years and 1 day – 20 years & P1M to P2M
Economic Sabotage/Qualified Illegal Recruitment (Syndicate/Large Scale)
- Life imprisonment & P2M – P5M
f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public
health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines
g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or by his duly authorized representative
h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies,
remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and
such other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment
i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts
approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment 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 Department of Labor and
Employment
j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an
officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to
be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of travel agency
k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure
for monetary or financial considerations, or for any other reasons, other than
those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations
l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment
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. Illegal
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage
n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a licensed
recruitment/manning agency
- Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by [at least 3
persons] conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against [at least 3 persons]
- PROHIBITED ACTS:
a) (1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino worker with interest exceeding 8% per
annum…
b) (2 & 5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement…
c) (4) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by an OFW after the latter’s
employment contract has been prematurely terminated [without his/her fault]
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
d) (6) Suspended recruitment agency engage in any kind of recruitment activity…
e) (7) For a recruitment agency or a foreign principal/employer to pass on the OFW
or deduct from his/her salary the payment of insurance fees…
- The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices
and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having ownership, control,
management or direction of their business who are responsible for the commission of
the offense and the responsible employees/agents thereof shall be liable
SEC 7. PENALTIES
a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty
b) of imprisonment of [12 years and 1 day to 20 years] and a fine of [P1 million to
P2 million]
c) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of [P2 million to P5 million] shall be
imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage
- Maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than 18 years
or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
c) Any person guilty of any of the prohibited acts shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of [6 years and 1 day to 12 years] and a fine of [P500,000 to P1
million]
SEC 9. VENUE
- A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment shall be filed with the RTC where the
offense was committed or where the offended party resides
[SEC 10. MONEY CLAIMS]
- LA of the NLRC have the jurisdiction to hear and decide within 90 days after filing of
complaint
- Liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment agency shall be joint and several
a) If the recruitment agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers, directors,
and partners may be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or
partnership for the claims and damages
- In case of illegal dismissal  full reimbursement of placement fee and the deductions
made with interest at 12% per annum, plus salaries for the unexpired portion of the
employment contract or for 3 months for every year of unexpired term, whichever is
less
SEC 11. MANDATORY PERIODS FOR RESOLUTION OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT CASES

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- Preliminary investigation shall be terminated within a period of 30 days from the date of
filing
- If conducted by a prosecutor, the information shall be filed within 24 hours from the
termination of investigation
- If conducted by a judge  48 hours from the date of receipt of the records of the case
SEC 12. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS
a) Illegal recruitment — 5 years
b) Illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage — 20 years
DISCUSSIONS ON MIGRANT WORKER
DISTRESSED MIGRANT WORKER

- OFW who has medical, psychosocial, or legal assistance problem, requiring treatment,
hospitalization, counseling, legal representation…
2 KINDS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITER
1. Non-Licensee or Non-Holder of Authority — the offender performs:
a. Acts defined in Art 13(b) of the LC as recruitment and placement
i. Any act of Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring,
Utilizing, or Procuring workers and includes Contract services, Referrals,
Advertising, or Promising 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 [at least 2 persons] shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement
b. Illegal recruitment as defined in Par 1, Sec 6 of this Act
i. Note: identical with Art 13(b) of LC
c. Any of the 14 acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of this Act
2. Licensed Recruiter of Holder of Authority — offender who violated prohibited acts in
Sec.6 of this Act (Rule IV, Sec. 3 of IRR)
a. Penalty
i. 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
ii. P500,000 to P1 million
2 KINDS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (same acts with non-licensee or non-holder of authority)

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
1. Simple Illegal Recruitment — committed by any person who is neither a licensee nor a
holder of authority
a. Penalty
i. 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
ii. P1 million to P2 million
2. Economic Sabotage/Qualified Illegal Recruitment (Rule IV, Sec. 2 of IRR)
a. Classification
i. Syndicate — committed by at least 3 persons conspiring or confederating
with one another (P vs Gallo)
ii. Large Scale — committed against at least 3 persons (P vs Chua)
b. Penalty
i. Life imprisonment
ii. P2 million to P5 million
OTHER PRINCIPLE ON ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
- Employees of a licensed recruitment agency may be held liable for illegal recruitment as
PDP, together with the employer, if they actively and consciously participated
a) Good faith and merely following orders of superiors are not valid defenses
ESTAFA (Art. 315 of RPC)
- Accused represented themselves to complainants to have the capacity to send workers
abroad, although they did not have the authority or license  fraud
- ELEMENTS
a) The accused defrauded another by (a) abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of
deceit
b) Damage or prejudice cable of pecuniary estimation is cause to the offended
party or third person
- CONSEQUENCES OF CONVICTION
a) Revocation of license of authority
b) Forfeiture of the cash
c) Conviction for the crime of estafa
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT VS ESTAFA
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT ESTAFA

Mala prohibita Mala in se
Criminal intent of the accused is not Criminal intent is imperative
necessary
Penalized under the LC Penalized under the RPC
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
Limited in scope Wider in scope and covers deceits whether
or not related to recruitment activities
- Conviction under the LC for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the
RPC for the crime of estafa (double jeopardy rule does not apply)
- Same evidence to prove illegal recruitment may be used to prove estafa
OTHER RULE ON PENALTIES
- Maximum penalty is imposed when:
a) The person illegally recruited is less than 18 years old
b) If committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
RULE ON PREMATURE TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
1. If terminated on grounds other than those that are lawful and valid before the agreed
termination date, the employer will pay the workers their salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of the employment contract
2. Under Section 10, a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized caused or there are any unauthorized deductions from his salary, he is
entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at 12% per annum plus
salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract
IRR OF RA 10022 — MIGRANT WORKERS ACT

RULE VI — ANTI-ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT PROGRAMS
SEC 1. POE ANTI-ILLEGAL PROGRAMS
- The POEA (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration) adopts policies and
procedures, prepares and implements intensified programs and strategies towards the
eradication of illegal recruitment activities, such as, but not limited to the following:
a) Providing legal assistance to victims of illegal recruitment… which are
administrative or criminal in nature…
b) Prosecution of illegal recruiters during preliminary investigation and during trial
in collaboration with the DOJ prosecutors
c) Special operations such as surveillance and closure of establishment or entities
suspected to be engaged in illegal recruitment
d) Information and education campaign

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- Whenever necessary the POEA shall coordinate with other appropriate entities in the
implementation of said programs
RULE VIII — ROLE OF DFA
SEC 1. ASSISTANCE TO NATIONALS AS THE THIRD PILLAR OF PHILIPPINE FOREIGN POLICY
- …DFA is mandated to formulate and implement policies and programs to promote and
protect the rights and welfare of Filipino migrants, and provide consular and legal
assistance to OFW in distress
RULE X — ROLE OF DOLE
SEC 1. ON-SITE PROTECTION
- The DOLE shall see to it that labor and social welfare laws in the foreign countries are
applied to migrant workers…
SEC 2. POLO (Philippine Overseas Labor Office) FUNCTIONS
- The DOLE overseas operating arm shall be the POLO with the functions and
responsibilities to
a) Ensure the promotion and protection of the welfare and interests of OFWS…
b) Coordinate the DOLE’s employment mandate, consistent with [this Act]
c) Verify employment contracts and other employment-related documents
d) Monitor and report to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on situations and
policy developments in the receiving country that may affect OFWs… and
Philippine labor policies, in general
e) Supervise and coordinate the operations of the Migrant Workers and other
Overseas Filipino Resource Center
f) Such other functions and responsibilities… assigned by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment
DISCUSSIONS ON MIGRANT WORKER (IRR)
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND ITS FUNCTIONS
Philippine Overseas has the power to suspend or cancel license and order the refund or
Employment reimbursement of such fees.
Administration

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
(POEA)
DFA
DOLE
Overseas Workers provides social and welfare services including insurance coverage.
Welfare legal assistance, placement assistance, and remittance services to
Administration Filipino overseas workers. Under R.A. No. 8042, it shall provide the
(OWWA) Filipino migrant worker and his family assistance in the enforcement
of contractual obligations by agencies, entities and/or their principal
Re-Placement and develops livelihood programs for the returning migrant workers to
Monitoring Center reintegrate the returning migrant workers to the Philippine society
(RPM)
NLRC tasked with the settlement or adjudication of labor disputes
NRCO (National provides a mechanism for the reintegration of the OFWs into the
Reintegration Center Philippine society, serves as a promotion house for their local
for OFWs) employment, and tap their skills and potentials for national develop
DOH regulates the activities and operations of all clinics which conduct
medical, physical, optical, dental, psychological, and other similar
examinations, hereinafter referred to as health examinations, on
Filipino migrant workers and requirement for their overseas
employment
RTC a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment shall be filed here
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LC

(Important Book One, Title I — Recruitment and Placement of Workers, Chapter 2 (Arts 25-39))
ART 13(b)

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- "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.
ART 16 — Private recruitment
- Except as provided in Chapter II of this Title, no person or entity other than the public
employment offices, shall engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
ART 17 — Overseas Employment Development Board
- An Overseas Employment Development Board is hereby created to undertake, in
cooperation with relevant entities and agencies, a systematic program for overseas
employment of Filipino workers in excess of domestic needs and to protect their rights
to fair and equitable employment practices. It shall have the power and duty:
a) To promote the overseas employment of Filipino workers through a
comprehensive market promotion and development program
b) To secure the best possible terms and conditions of employment of Filipino
contract workers on a government-to-government basis and to ensure
compliance therewith
c) To recruit and place workers for overseas employment on a government-to-
government arrangement and in such other sectors as policy may dictate; and
d) To act as secretariat for the Board of Trustees of the Welfare and Training Fund
for Overseas Workers
ART 25 — Private sector participation in the recruitment and placement of workers
- Pursuant to national development objectives and in order to harness and maximize the
use of private sector resources and initiative in the development and implementation of
a comprehensive employment program, the private employment sector shall participate
in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally and overseas, under such
guidelines, rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of Labor.
ART 27 — Citizenship Requirement (DO 141-14 Sec. 4 Qualification)
- Only Filipino citizens or corporations, partnerships or entities at least [75%] of the
authorized and voting capital stock of which is owned and controlled by Filipino citizens
shall be permitted to participate in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally or
overseas
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
ART 28 — Capitalization
- All applicants for authority to hire or renewal of license to recruit are required to have
such substantial capitalization as determined by the Secretary of Labor
ART 29 — Non-transferability of license or authority
- No license or authority shall be used directly or indirectly by any person other than the
one in whose favor it was issued or at any place other than that stated in the license or
authority be transferred, conveyed or assigned to any other person or entity. Any
transfer of business address, appointment or designation of any agent or representative
including the establishment of additional offices anywhere shall be subject to the prior
approval of the Department of Labor
ART 30 — Registration fees
- The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a schedule of fees for the registration of all
applicants for license or authority
ART 31 — Bonds
- All applicants for license or authority shall post such cash and surety bonds as
determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed
recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of employment
as may be appropriate.
ART 32 — Fees to be paid by workers
- Any person applying with a private fee-charging employment agency for employment
assistance shall not be charged any fee until he has obtained employment through its
efforts or has actually commenced employment. Such fee shall be always covered with
the appropriate receipt clearly showing the amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall
promulgate a schedule of allowable fees.
ART 33 — Reports on employment status
- Whenever the public interest requires, the Secretary of Labor may direct all persons or
entities within the coverage of this Title to submit a report on the status of employment,
including job vacancies, details of job requisitions, separation from jobs, wages, other
terms and conditions and other employment data.
ART 34 — Prohibited practices. It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder
of authority

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor,
or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him
as a loan or advance
b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to
recruitment or employment
of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under this
Code
d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
employment in order to offer him to another unless the transfer is designed to
liberate the worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment
e) To influence or to attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any
worker who has not applied for employment through his agency
g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor or by his
duly authorized representatives
h) To fail to file reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies,
remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and
such other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor
i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the
Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to
and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the
Secretary of Labor
j) To become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in
travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of a
travel agency
k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure
for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under this
Code and its implementing rules and regulations
ART 35 — Suspension and/or cancellation of license or authority
- The Minister of Labor shall have the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority
to recruit employees for overseas employment for violation of rules and regulations
issued by the Ministry of Labor, the Overseas Employment Development Board, or for
violation of the provisions of this and other applicable laws, General Orders and Letters
of Instructions
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
ART 36 — Regulatory power
- The Secretary of Labor shall have the power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and
placement activities of all agencies within the coverage of this Title and is hereby
authorized to issue orders and promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the
objectives and implement the provisions of this Title
ART 38 — Illegal recruitment
a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
The Department of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may
initiate complaints under this Article
b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
accordance with Article 39 hereof
 Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of 3 or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or
scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof.
 Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against 3 or more persons individually or as a group
c) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives
shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or
non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities
constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further
exploitation of job-seekers. The Secretary shall order the search of the office or
premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other
implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies,
establishments and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers
for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so
ART 39 — Penalties
a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P1000,000.00 shall be imposed if
illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein
b) Any licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing another to violate
any provision of this Title or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon
conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than two years

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
nor more than five years or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than
P50,000, or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court
c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title
found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations
shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less
than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor
more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the
court
d) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the officer or officers of the corporation, partnership,
association or entity responsible for violation; and if such officer is an alien, he
shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further
proceedings
e) In every case, conviction shall cause and carry the automatic revocation of the
license or authority and all the permits and privileges granted to such person or
entity under this Title, and the forfeiture of the cash and surety bonds in favor of
the Overseas Employment Development Board or the National Seamen Board, as
the case may be, both of which are authorized to use the same exclusively to
promote their objectives
RA 10691 — ACT DEFINING THE ROLE OF DOLE, LGUs, & NGOs IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICE (PESO), AND THE OPERATION OF JOB
PLACEMENT OFFICES IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION (EIs), AMENDING RA 8759
SEC 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY
- …promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all, and for
this purpose, to strengthen and expand the existing employment facilitation service
machinery of the government particularly at the local levels
SEC 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PESO
- To carry out the above declared policy, there shall be established in all provinces, cities,
and municipalities a [PESO], which shall be operated and maintained by [LGUs]. The
PESOs shall be linked to the regional offices of [DOLE] for coordination and technical
supervision, and to the DOLE central office, to constitute the national public
employment service network

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- The PESO shall be under the office of the governor, city or municipal mayor. The PESO
shall be initially organized by and composed of a PESO manager and may be assisted by
a labor and employment officer (LEO) as may be determined by the LGU
- Upon the request of accredited [NGOs] or educational institutions (Els), the DOLE may
enter into a memorandum of agreement for the NGO and EI to establish, operate and
maintain a PESO and a job placement office, respectively
- To harmonize the provision of employment services in a given territorial jurisdiction, the
PESO at the NGOs and the job placement office in Els shall coordinate their activities
with the appropriate LGU PESO
SEC 4. OBJECTIVES OF THE PESO — in general, the PESO shall ensure the prompt, timely and
efficient delivery of employment service and provision of information on the other DOLE
programs
a) Provide a venue where people could explore simultaneously various
employment options and actually seek assistance they prefer
b) Serve as referral and information center for the various services and programs of
DOLE and other government agencies present in the area
c) Provide clients with adequate information on employment and labor market
situation in the area
d) Network with other PESOs within the region on employment for job exchange
purposes
SEC 5. FUNCTIONS OF THE PESO
a) Encourage employers to submit to the PESO on a regular basis a list of job
vacancies in their respective establishments in order to facilitate the exchange of
labor market information between job seekers and employers by providing
employment information services to job seekers, both for local and overseas
employment, and recruitment assistance to employers
b) Develop and administer testing and evaluation instruments for effective job
selection, training and counselling
c) Provide persons with entrepreneurship qualities, access to the various livelihood
and self-employment programs offered by both government and
nongovernment organizations at the provincial, city, municipal and barangay
levels by undertaking referrals for such program
d) Undertake employability enhancement trainings or seminars for job seekers, as
well as those who would like to change career or enhance their employability
e) Provide employment or occupational counselling, career guidance, mass
motivation and values development activities
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
f) Conduct pre-employment counselling and orientation to prospective local and,
most especially, overseas workers
g) Provide reintegration assistance services to returning Filipino migrant workers
h) Prepare and submit to the local sanggunian an annual employment plan and
budget including other regular funding sources and budgetary support of the
PESO
i) Perform such functions as to fully carry out the objectives of this Act
SEC 6. OTHER SERVICES OF THE PESO
- In addition to the functions enumerated in the preceding section, every PESO shall
undertake holistic strategies, programs and activities to transform the PESO into a
modern public employment service intermediary that provides multi-dimensional
employment facilitation services
SEC 7. ROLE OF DOLE AND THE LGUs — LGU’s in coordination with DOLE, shall establish the
PESO
1. DOLE
a. Provide technical supervision, coordination and capacity-building to the PESO
b. Establish and maintain a computerized human resource and job registries to
facilitate the provision and packaging of employment assistance to PESO clients
and the setting-up of intra- and interregional job clearance systems as part of the
overall employment network
c. Provide technical assistance and allied support services to the PESO including,
but not limited to, the training of PESO personnel in the various aspects of
employment facilitation functions
d. Set standards for the establishment and operation of the PESO office, and
qualification standards for the PESO personnel
e. Extend other packages of employment services to the LGU, NGO or EI concerned,
including the conduct of job lairs, career development seminars, and other
activities
f. Monitor, assess, and evaluate the performance of the PESOs, including the job
placement offices in Els
- For their part, persons who are seeking employment, particularly the unemployed, shall
register at the PESO for employment facilitation assistance. The establishments, on the
other hand, shall submit their job vacancies as well as applicants hired to the PESO to
ensure the availability of accurate information on supply and demand for skills in the
labor market

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
2. LGU shall establish a monitoring system wherein establishments operating in the locality
shall report the following relevant labor market information
a. Present number and nature of jobs
b. Projection of jobs that the establishment will provide or offer in the next 5 years
- The information shall be submitted to the PESO for job matching and to Els for career
guidance of the students
- Tt shall be the responsibility of the concerned LGU to:
a) Operate and maintain the PESO
b) Ensure compliance with the operational standards set by the DOLE
c) Extend such assistance and services as may be necessary in the promotion of
employment within the area of jurisdiction
d) Submit to the DOLE periodic: performance and accomplishment reports
SEC 9. FUNDING
- The funding for the operation and maintenance of the PESO shall be provided by the
LGU from its internal revenue allotment and other internally generated income of the
LGU concerned. Likewise, the operation and maintenance of the NGO PESOs and job
placement offices of Els shall be charged against their internally generated income
- Funds for the provision of technical assistance, training and supervision of the PESO
shall be included in the budget of the DOLE in the annual General Appropriations Act
- he amount necessary to implement the provisions of this Act shall be included by the
Department of Budget and Management in the annual General Appropriations Act
DO 141-14 RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT

(Pursuant to Arts 5, 13, 25 and 39 of LC)
SEC 1. DECLARATION OF POLICY — it is the policy of DOLE:
a) To recognize the participation of the private sector in the recruitment and
placement of workers for local employment, to promote equality of employment
opportunity and treatment in access to employment and particular occupations
as part of the over-all thrust for national development
b) To promote employment creation as one of the principles under the decent work
agenda
c) To ensure compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code, as
amended, Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, Anti-Child Labor Laws, and
other related laws, rules and regulations

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
d) To protect every citizen desiring to avail of the services of private employment
agencies by ensuring the best possible terms and conditions of employment
e) To cooperate with government agencies and duly registered non-government
organizations in protecting and promoting the welfare of Filipino jobseekers.
SEC 2. COVERAGE
- These rules shall apply to every person, partnership or corporation intending to engage
or engaged in the recruitment and placement for local employment through an agency
- Persons, partnerships or corporations in the Philippines intending to engage or engaged
in the recruitment and placement through the electronic medium shall be covered by
the applicable provisions of these rules
- The relevant provisions of RA. 10361 entitled “An Act Instituting Policies for the
Protection and Welfare of Domestic Workers” shall govern the recruitment and
placement of domestic workers within local employment
SEC 3. DEFINITION OF TERMS
- (g) Private employment agency or agency — any person, partnership or corporation
engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers for local employment
- (h) License — document issued by the Secretary through the Regional Director
authorizing a person, partnership or corporation to operate a private employment
agency
- (i) Authority to operate branch office — document issued by the Secretary through the
Regional Director authorizing a private employment agency to establish and operate a
branch office
- (j) Authority to recruit — document issued by the Secretary through the Regional
Director authorizing a person to conduct recruitment activities for local employment on
behalf of a private employment agency
- (k) Representative — person acting as an agent of a private employment agency
registered with the Regional Office and granted Authority to Recruit
- (n) PESO — person acting as an agent of a private employment agency registered with
the Regional Office and granted Authority to Recruit.
- (o) Recruit — Filipino individual promised, contracted, or enlisted for employment
- (p) Domestic Worker or Kasambahay — person engaged in domestic work within an
employment relationship, whether on a live in or live out arrangement, such as, but not
limited to general househelp, yaya, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude
service providers, family drivers, children who are under foster family arrangement, or
any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on
occupational basis
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- (q) Recruitment contract — agreement entered into between a private employment
agency or its representative and a recruit stating the terms and conditions of the
recruitment in a language known and understood by the recruit
- (r) Employment contract — individual written agreement between the employer and
the worker stating clearly the terms and conditions of employment in a language known
and understood by the worker
- (s) Service contract — agreement entered into between the employer and the private
employment agency stating clearly the terms and conditions of the service
- (t) Service fee — amount charged by a private employment agency to a local employer
as payment for actual services rendered in relation to the recruitment and placement of
workers
- (u) Deployment expenses — expenses that are directly used for the transfer of the
Kasambahay from the place of origin to the place of work covering the cost of
transportation, meals, communication expense, and other incidental expenses.
Advances or loans by the Kasambahay are not included in the definition of deployment
expenses
SEC 4. QUALIFICATIONS (Art. 27 LC — Citizen Requirement)

- The applicant for a license to operate a private employment agency must possess the
following:
a) Filipino citizens for single proprietorship and 75% of the authorized capital stock
is owned and controlled by Filipino citizens for partnership and corporation
b) Minimum net worth of P1,000,000.00 in case of single proprietorship and a
minimum paid up capital of P1,000,000.00 in case of partnership and corporation
c) Not otherwise disqualified by law or other government rules and regulations to
engage in the business of recruitment and placement of workers for local
employment
SEC 5. DISQUALIFICATION
- The following are not qualified to engage in the business of recruitment and placement
for local employment
a) Those who are convicted of illegal recruitment, trafficking in persons, anti-child
labor violation, or crimes involving moral turpitude
b) Those against whom probable cause or prima facie finding of guilt for illegal
recruitment or other related cases exist particularly to owners or directors of
agencies who have committed illegal recruitment or other related cases
c) Those agencies whose licenses have been previously revoked or cancelled by the
Department under Sec. 54 of these rules
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
d) Cooperatives whether registered or not under the Cooperative Act of the
Philippines
e) Law enforcers and any official and employee of [DOLE]
f) Sole proprietors of duly licensed agencies are prohibited from securing another
license to engage in recruitment and placement
g) Sole proprietors, partnerships or corporations licensed to engage in private
recruitment and placement for local employment are prohibited from engaging
in job contracting or sub-contracting activities
SEC 12. VALIDITY OF THE LICENSE

- The license shall be valid for period of 3 years from the date of issuance unless revoked
or cancelled
SEC 13. RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE
- …must be filed not earlier than 60 days but not later tan 30 days before its expiration…
SEC 19. AUTHORITY TO RECRUIT
- The authority to recruit may be issued together with the license by the concerned
Regional/Field Office. Such authority to recruit shall be valid nationwide.
SEC 20. REQUIREMENTS
- For the issuance of an authority to recruit, the applicant/ agency must submit the
following requirements:
a) Letter request by agency
b) Certification under oath by the agency or an agreement between the agency and
the representative or a special power of attorney stipulating details of the
proposed recruitment activities
c) NBI clearance and bi-data of the representative with one recent passport-size
picture
d) Certificate of no pending recruitment case
e) Certificate of attendance to pre-application seminar
- No application shall be accepted unless all the requirements have been complied with
SEC 35. FEES AND CHARGES
- No fees whatsoever shall be collected neither deducted from the salaries or wages of
the workers.
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- An agency may charge the following:
a) Service fee — An agency may charge the employers a service fee as may be
agreed upon by the agency and the employer. In no care shall the service fee be
deducted from the worker’s salary
b) Transportation expenses — The transportation expenses for the transfer of the
worker from the place of residence to the place of work shall be charged to the
employer, and shall in no case be deducted from the worker’s salary
SEC 42. ACTS CONSTITUTING ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
- Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting,
Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring workers and includes Contract services, Referrals,
Advertising, or Promising for local employment (CETCHUP and CRAP), whether for profit
or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority; provided, that
any such non-licensee or non-holder of authority; provided, that any such non-licensee
or non-holder of authority who, in any manner, offer or promises for a free employment
to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged
- The following acts shall be unlawful when committed by any person whether or not a
holder of a license or authority
a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount or to make a worker pay
the agency or its representatives any amount greater than that actually loaned
or advanced to him
b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information in relation to recruitment or
employment
of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority
d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment
e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any
worker who has not applied for employment through his agency
g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary or by his/her duly
authorized representatives
h) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contract
prescribed by the Department 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 Department
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
SEC 43. ANTI-ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT PROGRAM
- The Department shall adopt and implement programs, policies, rules and procedure
toward the eradication of illegal recruitment activities such as, but not limited to the
following:
a) Providing legal assistance to victims of illegal recruitment and related cases
b) Assistance in the prosecution of suspected illegal recruiters
c) Special operations such as surveillance of persons and entities allegedly engaged
in illegal recruitment activities
d) Information and education campaign
- Whenever necessary, the Department shall coordinate with other appropriate
agencies/entities in the implementation of said programs
CASES
P VS CHUA
On Illegal Recruitment — Economic Sabotage (Large Scale)
FACTS (PROPER)
- Chua was indicted for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and was convicted by RTC of
Manila. She was also convicted 3 counts of Estafa. CA affirmed appellant — Chua’s
conviction
- Campos and Chua violated Art 38(a) PD 1413, amending certain provisions of Book I, PD
442 — LC, in relation to Art 13(b) and (c) of the same Code, further amended by Sec.
6(a), (1) and (m) of RA 8042 committed in a large scale
- In September 2002, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each other in representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist,
and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad
a) There, they were made to pay greater than that specified in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by POEA
- Accused claimed that they had the power and capacity to recruit factory workers to
work in Taiwan, and could facilitate the processing of papers necessary to meet the
requirements thereof. Appellant pleaded not guilty, and her co-accused Josie remained
at large
- Three testified in the case:
a) Macaranas
b) Tan
c) King
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- Apellant denied charges, claiming having worked as a temporary cashier from January to
October 2002 at the office of Golden Gate, owned by Calueng, she maintained that it
was a licensed recruitment agency to which Josie — her grandmother, was an agent
FACTS (RULING)
- In the decision of Manila RTC on 5 April 2006, she was convicted of Illegal Recruitment
(Large Scale) and 3 counts of Estafa
a) Penalty:
 Illegal Recruitment: life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000
 Estafa: ISL: prision correctional (min) — prision mayor (max)
- CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. It was ruled that an employee of a company engaged in
illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal together with his employer. CA noted
that a person convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition be convicted of Estafa.
ISSUE
- W/N the appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment
RULING
- In this case, the recruitment activities is undertaken by an agency with an expired
license, therefore, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Art 39 of the LC.
a) Appellant admitted being a cashier from January to October 2002, there, she was
authorized to recruit workers for deployment abroad. However, Golden Stat’s
license expired on 23 February 2002
- Furthermore, it is deemed committed in a large scale since it is committed against 3
persons individually.
- Assuming that appellant was unaware of the illegal nature of the illegal nature of the
recruitment business of Golden State, that does not free her of liability either. Illegal
Recruitment penalized under Migrant Workers Act — a special law, a violation which is
mala prohibita  intent is immaterial
Illegal Recruitment Estafa

Mala prohibita  intent is not Mala in se  intent is imperative
necessary
- WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied

P VS PANIS (Judge of the Court of 1st Instance of Zambales & Olongapo)
On Interpretation of Art 13(b)  number of persons is not essential only CETCHUP

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
FACTS (PROPER)
- 4 informations were filed on 9 January 1981, in the Court of 1st Instance of Zambales
and Olongapo, alleging that Abug (private respondent) without a license, willfully and
unlawfully operate a private fee charging employment agency, promising employment
in Saudi Arabia to 4 separate individuals, in violation of Art 16 in relation to Art 39 of the
LC
- Private respondent filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not
charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruit only 1 person in each of 4
informations. And under Art 13(b), he claimed that there would be illegal recruitment
only whenever 2 or more persons were offered an employment with fee
- RTC reconsidered and granted the motion
FACTS (CONTENTION)
- The posture of the petitioner is that the private responded is being prosecuted under
Art 39 in relation to Art 16 of the LC, hence Art 13(b) is inapplicable. Furthermore, the
petitioner argued that the requirement of 2 or more persons is imposed only where the
recruitment consists of a promise of employment and in consideration of a fee
ISSUE
- What is the correct interpretation of Art 13(b) of LC
RULING
- Neither interpretation is acceptable
- Proviso is intended neither to impose condition on the basic rule nor to provide an
exemption, but merely to create a presumption
a) Presumption that individual or entity engaged in recruitment whenever he or it
is dealing with 2 or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee is made in
the course of “canvassing, enlisting, transporting, contracting, hiring, utilizing, or
procuring” of workers
- Therefore, the number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of
recruitment and placement of workers
- The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in
consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers,
the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of
recruitment and placement.

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- WHEREFORE, the Order of the RTC is set aside, and the 4 informations against the
private respondent reinstated
YAP VS THENAMARIS SHIP’S MANAGEMENT AND INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES, INC
On RA 8042 (Sec 10 is unconstitutional)
FACTS (PROPER)
- Petitioner Yap was employed as electrician of the vessel on 14 August 2001 by
Intermare Maritime Agencies on behalf of its principal Vulture Shipping Limited. The
contract of employment entered into by Yap and Capt. Adviento — General Manager of
Intermare, was for a duration of 12 months.
- On 23 August 2001, petitioner boarded and commenced his job as electrician. However,
in November 2001, the vessel was sold. POEA was informed about the sale on 6
December 2001. On the other hand. Yap along with crewmembers was informed about
the Advisory sent by Capt. Constatinou, asking them if they wish to be transferred to
other vessels, and in case they do not, they were asked to declare their prospected time
for re-embarkation.
- Petitioner received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus, extra bonus along with the
scrapping bonus. However, he refused to accept the payment of one-month basic wage,
since, according to him, he was entitled to the payment of the unexpired portion of his
contract because of his illegal dismissal.
- Respondents contentded that he was not illegally dismissed because he signed off from
the vessel on 10 November 2001 when the vessel was sold.
FACTS (RULING)
- LA decided in favor of the petitioner, finding him to have been constructively and
illegally dismissed by respondents. Furthermore, since the unexpired portion of
petitioner’s contract was less than 1 year, he is entitled to his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his contract for a period of 9 months + damages
a) Respondents acted in bad faith when they assured petitioner of re-embarkation
since he was not able to board
- NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision. However the petition was only made entitle to salaries
for 3 months, instead of 9, provided under Sec 10 of RA 8042 + damages
- CA affirmed the findings of LA and the ruling of NLRC
ISSUES
1. W/N Sec 10 of RA 8042 is constitutional

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
a. (salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract for 3 months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less)
2. W/N CA gravely erred in granting petitioner only 3 months backwages when his
unexpired term of 9 months is far short of the “every year of the unexpired term”
RULING
1. While the case was pending, Sec 10 of RA 8042 is unconstitutional
a. It violates the equal protection clause under the Constitution
i. Illegally dismissed local workers are guaranteed under LC of
reinstatement with full backwages; while,
ii. OFWs are made to waive 9 months for every year of collectible
backwages every time they have a year of unexpired term of contract
b. As well as substantive due process, because it does not state or imply any
definitive governmental purpose (Serrano case)
c. Doctrine of Operative Fact (when a statute is declared unconstitutional it
imposes undue burden to the one who relied on the invalid law) will not apply,
because it is not the fault of the petitioner that he lost his job due to an act of
illegal dismissal
2. Petitioner is entitled to full unexpired term for 9 months
- WHEREFORE, petition is granted, the decision of CA is modified to the effect that

petitioner is awarded his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his contract
P VS GALLO
On proof and denial in illegal recruitment and estafa
FACTS (PROPER)
- Accused-appellant Gallo, and accused Pacardo, Manta, together with Martir and 9
others, were charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and 18 counts of estafa
committed against 18 complainants.
- Pacardo and Manta were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
- Accused-appellant was found guilty on the case filed by Dela Caza for syndicated illegal
recruitment, and estafa.
a) Illegal recruitment
 In a period between November 2000 and December 2001, in Manila, the
accused conspired and confederated with in representing themselves to
have the capacity to contract, enlist, and transport Filipino workers for

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
employment abroad, where they willfully and unlawfully, for a fee,
recruited and promised employment to the victims.
 Moreover, there is an excessive amount of payment greater than those
specified by the POEA
b) Estafa
 They defraud Dela Caza by means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representations  that they had the power and capacity to recruit and
employ the victim in Korea as a factory worker
FACTS (CONTENTION)
- Version of the Prosecution
a) On 22 May 2001, Dela Caza was introduced by Panuncio to accused-appellant
Gallo and others together with a Korean national at the office of MPM Agency, in
Manila
b) Accused-appellant introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn — the
President of the agency, and informed Dela Caza that the agency was able to
send many workers abroad. There was a placement fee of P150,000 and a down
payment of P45,000, and the balance to be paid through salary deduction
c) With accused-appellant’s promise, as well as the presence of 2 Korean nationals,
victim was convinced to part with his money
d) 2 weeks after payment, victim went back to the agency’s office in Manila, but
they had moved to a new location in Makati with a new name of New Filipino.
There, he talked with the accused-appellant, and was informed that the transfer
was done for easy accessibility to clients and for the purpose of changing the
name of the Agency
e) Victim decided to withdraw his application and recover the amount he paid, but
accused-appellant denied any knowledge about the money
- Version of the Defense
a) Accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of the victim.
Moreover, he testified that he also applied in the Agency for deployment to
Korea as a factory worker.
b) He gave his application directly with Mardeolyn — townmate, and made him pay
only P10,000. In order to facilitate the processing of his papers, he agreed to
perform some tasks of the agency, such as taking photographs of the documents
of applicants, and other tasks, without salary except for some allowance.
c) Lastly, he was also promised deployment abroad but it never materialized
FACTS (RULING)

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- RTC convicted the accused of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa
- CA affirmed the decision of RTC
ISSUES
1. W/N the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate despite the
lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt
2. W/N the accused is guilty of estafa despite the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt
RULING
1. Evidence supports conviction of the crime of syndicated illegal recruitment
a. 3 elements
i. Offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
“recruitment and placement” defined under Art 13(b) or any prohibited
practices enumerated in Art 34
ii. No valid license or authority
1. MPM Agency was never licensed by POEA to recruit
iii. Illegal recruitment is committed by at least 3 persons
b. (Even with a license) Illegal recruitment could still be committed under Sec 3 of
RA 8042 — Migrant Workers Act
i. CETCHUP and CRAP
ii. Charged directly or indirectly any amount greater than specified by
Secretary of Labor and Employment
c. Conspired to defraud
i. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary
as it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
2. Accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of estafa as defined under Art 315 2(a) of RPC
a. Elements
i. The accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by
means of deceit
ii. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to
the offended party or 3rd person
b. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact… or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to deceive
another…

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
i. All of these elements are present in this case, since the accused deceived
the complainants into believing that the Agency had the power and
capability to send them abroad for employment
c. Defense of Denial Cannot Prevail over Positive Identification
i. Positive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended
by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the
matter prevails over alibi and denial.
- WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the
assailed decision. Decision of CA is affirmed
REPUBLIC VS PRINCIPALIA MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS, INC
On Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction
FACTS (PROPER)
- 2 separate complaints was filed before the POEA against Principalia for violation of the
2002 POEA Rules and Regulations
a) Complainant Concha alleged that in August 2002, she applied with Principalia for
placement and employment as caregiver or physical therapist in the USA or
Canada. Despite paying P20,000 out of the P150,000 fee required by the Agency,
it still failed to deploy the complainant abroad
 Violation: collecting fee before employment and non-issuance of official
receipt  Principalia is suspended for 12 months + fine of P120,000 and
refund
b) Complainant Baldoza filed the complaint on 14 October 2003, alleging that
Principalia assured him of employment in Qatar as machine employer. After
paying P20,000 as placement fee, he departed from Qatar on 31 May 2003, but
when he arrived at the jobsite, he was made to work as welder
 On 12 November 2003, the parties entered into a compromise
agreement with quitclaim and release whereby the Principalia areed to
deploy the complainant for employment abroad. However, it failed to
deploy as agreed because POEA suspended Principalia’s documentary
processing
 Principalia moved for reconsideration which POEA granted on 25 June
2004, lifting the suspension
 However, before the promulgation of POEA’s order lifting the suspension,
the Agency filed a Complaint against the Administrator and Conciliator of
the POEA, before the RTC of Mandaluyong for the same issue

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
FACTS (RULING)
 RTC held that the issue on the application for preliminary mandatory
injunction has become moot because POEA had already released the
renewal of license of Principalia
 CA dismissed the appeal of POEA for failure to attach copies of its
Memorandum as well as transcripts of hearings, and decided in favor of
Principalia — issuing the Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction,
enjoying and restraining the defendants and other officers
ISSUES
1. W/N the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari based on purely technical
grounds
2. W/N the trial court erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction
RULING
1. NO. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall
be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Moreover, the petition shall be
accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
2. NO. RTC observed that the Order of Suspension was pending appeal in DOLE. Thus, until
such time that the appeal is resolved with finality by DOLE, Principalia has a clear and
convincing right to operate as recruitment agency
a. On Injunctive Writ
i. If injunctive writ was not granted, Principalia would have been labeled as
an untrustworthy recruitment agency before there could be any final
adjudication of its case by DOLE
b. POEA would have no authority to exercise its regulatory functions over
Principalia because the matter had already been brought to the jurisdiction of
DOLE
- WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit

STOLT-NIELSEN TRANSPORTATION GROUP AND CHUNG GAI SHIP MANAGEMENT VS
MEDEQUILLO
FACTS (PROPER)

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
- On 6 March 1995, Respondent Madequillo filed a complaint before the Adjudication
Office of POEA against the petitioners for illegal dismissal under a 1st contract and for
failure to deploy under a 2nd contract
- 1st Contract
a) November 6, 1991 – Sulpecio was hired by Slot-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc on
behalf of its principal Chung-Gai Ship Management of Panama as Third Assistant
Engineer on board the vessel “Stold Aspiratioon” for 9 months and He would be
paid a monthly basic salary of $808.00 and a fixed overtime pay of $404.00 or a
total of $1,212.00 per month during the employment period.
b) Sulpecio joined the vessel MV “Stolt Aspiration” and for nearly 3 months of
rendering service while the vessel was at Batangas, he was ordered by the ship’s
master to disembark the vessel and repatriated back to Manila for no reason or
explanation. Upon his return to Manila, he immediately proceeded to the
petitioner’s office where he was transferred employment
nd
- 2 Contract
a) April 23 1992 – Second Contract was noted and approved by the POEA. MV
“Stolt Pride under the same terms and conditions of the First Contract.
Petitioners failed to deploy him with the vessel MV “Stolt Pride”. Sulpecio made
a follow-up with the petitioner but the same refused o comply with the Second
Employment Contact.
b) Sulpecio demanded for his passport, seaman’s book and other employment
documents. However, he was only allowed to claim the said documents in
exchange of his signing a document. He was constrained to sign the document
involuntarily because without these documents, he could not seek employment
from other agencies.
c) He prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees for
his illegal dismissal and in view of the Petitioners’ bad faith in not complying with
the Second Contract.
d) The case was transferred to the Labor Arbiter of the DOLE upon the effectivity of
the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
FACTS (RULING)
- LA ruled that the respondent was constructively dismissed by the petitioners.
Respondents cannot be held liable for the first contract but are clearly and definitely
liable for the breach of the second contract. However, that there was no substantial
evidence to grant the prayer for moral and exemplary damages.
- NLRC affirmed the ruling of the L.A. with modification deleing the award of Overtime
Pay. The NLRC upheld the finding of unjustified termination of contract for failure on the
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
part of the petitioners to present evidence that would justify their non-deployment of
the respondent.
ISSUE
- W/N Medequillo's non-deployment under the second employment contract constituted
an actionable wrong
RULING
- YES. Despite Stolt-Nielsen's contention that under the POEA Contract, actual
deployment of the seafarer is a suspensive condition for the commencement of the
employment, the Court held that even without actual deployment, the perfected
contract gives rise to obligations on the part of the petitioners
a) Even if by the standard contract, employment commences only "upon actual
departure of the seafarer", this does not mean that the seafarer has no remedy
in case of non-deployment without any valid reason. Parenthetically, the
contention of the petitioners of the alleged poor performance of respondent
while on board the first ship MV "Stolt Aspiration" cannot be sustained to justify
the non-deployment, for no evidence to prove the same was presented
b) Distinction must be made between the perfection of the employment contract
and the commencement of the employer-employee relationship. The perfection
of the contract, which in this case coincided with the date of execution thereof,
occurred when petitioner and respondent agreed on the object and the cause, as
well as the rest of the terms and conditions therein. The commencement of the
employer-employee relationship would have taken place had petitioner been
actually deployed from the point of hire. Thus, even before the start of any
employer-employee relationship, contemporaneous with the perfection of the
employment contract was the birth of certain rights and obligations, the breach
of which may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party. Thus, if the
reverse had happened, that is the seafarer failed or refused to be deployed as
agreed upon, he would be liable for damages
- The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment provides for the
consequence and penalty against in case of non-deployment of the seafarer without any
valid reason. It states that:
a) “Failure of the agency to deploy a worker within the prescribed period without
valid reasons shall be a cause for suspension or cancellation of license or fine. In
addition, the agency shall return all documents at no cost to the worker.”
DULAY VS ABOTIZ

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
FACTS (PROPER)
- Nelson R. Dulay was employed by respondent General Charterers Inc. (GCI), a subsidiary
of co-respondent Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime Inc. since 1986. Nelson initially worked as an
ordinary seaman and later as bosun on a contractual basis. Septembr 3, 1998-July 19,
2000 – Nelson was detailed in petitioners’ vessel, the MV Kicakpoo Belle August 13,
2000 or 25 days after the completion of his employment contract – Nelsosn died due to
acute renal failure secondary to septicemia.
- Nelson was a bona fide member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seaman’s Union
of the Philippines (AMOSUP), GCI’s collective bargaining agent. Merridy Jane, Nelson’s
widow, claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure of the CBA,
however, it was “declared deadlocked” as they refused to grant the benefits sought by
the widow.
- March 5, 2001 – Merridy filed a complaint with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Board
in GenSan City against GCI for death and medical benefits and damages. March 8, 2001
– Joven Mar, Nelson’s brother, received P20,000 from AMOSUP and GCI pursuant to Art.
20(A)2 of the CBA and signed a “Certification” acknowledging receipt of the amount and
releasing AMOSUP from further liability. Merridy contended that she is entitled to the
aggregate sum of $90,000 pursuant to Article 20(A)1 of the CBA. Merridy Jane averred
that the P20,000.00 already received by Joven Mar should be considered advance
payment of the total claim of US$90,000.
- AMOSUP and GCI asserted that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the action on account
of the absence of employer-employee relationship between GCI and Nelson at the time
of the latter’s death. They further alleged that private respondent is not entitled to
death benefits because petitioners are only liable for such "in case of death of the
seafarer during the term of his contract pursuant to the POEA contract" and the cause
of his death is not work-related.
FACTS (RULING)
- LA Ruling: Favor of Merridy pursuant to Art. 217 (a) parag 6 of the Labor Code and the
existence of a reasonable causal connection between the employer-employee
relationship and the claim asserted. also ruled that the proximate cause of Nelson’s
death was not work-related.
- NLRC: Affirmed LA’s decisions as to the grant of death benefits under the CBA but
reversed the latter’s ruling as to the proximate cause of Nelson’s death.
- CA Ruling: while the suit filed by Merridy Jane is a money claim, the same basically
involves the interpretation and application of the provisions in the subject CBA. As such,
jurisdiction belongs to the voluntary arbitrator and not the labor arbiter.

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
ISSUE
- W/N the CA committed error in ruling that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the
case.
RULING:
- NO. The Court agrees with the CA in holding that this issue clearly involves the
interpretation or implementation of the said CBA. Thus, the specific or special provisions
of the Labor Code govern.
- While Article 261 of the Labor Code states the Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrations or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes,
grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the
same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
- It is true that R.A. 8042 is a special law governing overseas Filipino workers. However,
simply speaks, in general, of "claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or
by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages." On the
other hand, Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor Code are very specific in stating that
voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of collective bargaining agreements.
- Article 13.1 of the CBA entered into by and between respondent GCI and AMOSUP, the
union to which petitioner belongs provides clear stipulation that the parties, in the first
place, really intended to bring to conciliation or voluntary arbitration any dispute or
conflict in the interpretation or application of the provisions of their CBA.
- It may not be amiss to point out that the abovequoted provisions of the CBA are in
consonance with Rule VII, Section 7 of the present Omnibus Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by
Republic Act No. 10022, which states that "[f]or OFWs with collective bargaining
agreements, the case shall be submitted for voluntary arbitration in accordance with
Articles 261 and 262 of the Labor Code.".
- It is clear from the above that the interpretation of the DOLE, in consultation with their
counterparts in the respective committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that with respect to disputes
involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein the parties are covered by a collective

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
bargaining agreement, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the jurisdiction of a
voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators.
- On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that the
voluntary arbitrator has jurisdiction over the instant case.
SAMEES OVERSEAS PLACEMENT VS CABILLES
FACTS
Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. is a recruitment and placement agency.
Respondent Joy C. Cabiles submitted her application for quality control job in Taiwan, which
was accepted, she was later asked to sign a 1-year employment contract for a monthly salary of
NT$15,360.00. She alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency required her to pay a placement fee
of P70,000 when she signed the employment contract.
June 26, 1997 – Joy was deployed to work for TaiwanWacoal, Co. Ltd (Wacoal). She alleged that
she agreed to work as Quality Control for 1-year in her employment contract, but she was
asked to work as a cutter in Taiwan.
July 14, 1997 – Sameer claims that a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy without
prior notice that she was terminated and that “she should immediately report to their office to
get her salary and passport.” She was asked to “prepare for immediate repatriation”
(repatriation - the return of someone to their own country.)
Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to July 14, 1997, she only earned a total of
NT$9,000. According to her, Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.
October 15, 1997 – Joy filed a complaint with the NLRC against Sameer and Wacoal. She
claimed that she was illegally dismissed. She asked for the return of her placement fee, the
withheld amount for repatriation costs, payment of her salary for 23 months as well as moral
and exemplary damages. She identified Wacoal as Sameer Overseas Placement Agency’s
foreign principal.
Sameer alleged that Joy’s termination was due to her inefficiency, negligence in her duties, and
her “failure to comply with the work requirement of her foreign employer. Sameer claimed that
they did not ask for a placement fee.
Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint, LA Ramos ruled that Joy’s complaint was bases on
mere allegations (No excess payment of placement fees based on the official receipt
presented).
Joy appealed to the NLRC. NLRC ruled that Joy was illegally dismissed (No sufficient proof to
show that Joy was inefficient in her work and that she failed to comply with company
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
requirements, No procedural due process) . No ruling on the issue of reimbursement of
placement fees for lack of jurisdiction. NLRC awarded Joy only 3-months worth of salary.
Sameer filed a petition to CA. CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC. Hence, this petition:
ISSUE:
1. W/N Joy Cabiles was illegally dismissed
2. W/N Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of the employment
contract
3. W/N Wacoal as principal and Petitioner as the employment agency are jointly and severaly
liable
RULING
1. YES. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for
causing Joy’s dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.
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.
Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when they move to work in a different
jurisdiction. With respect to the rights of overseas Filipino workers, we follow the principle of
lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made). The provisions of the
Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to labor apply to Filipino
employees whether working within the Philippines or abroad. (PCL Shipping PH Inc., v NLRC)
Petitioner failed to comply with the twin notices and hearing requirements.
2. YES. Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for
the unexpired portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorney’s
fees and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.
Sec. 10 oof RA 8042 or Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 states that overseas
workers who were terminated without just, valid, or authorized cause “shall be entitled to the
full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve (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.”
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims under this section shall be joint and several.

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
Sec. 15 of RA 8042 states that “repatriation of the worker and the transport of his [or her]
personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or
deployed the worker overseas.” The exception is when “termination of employment is due
solely to the fault of the worker,”80 which as we have established, is not the case.
The court uphold the finding that respondent is entitled to all of these awards (10% of the
amount of withheld wages as attorney’s fees when the withholding is unlawful, NT$46,080.00
or the three-month equivalent of her salary, attorney’s fees of NT$300.00, and the
reimbursement of the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary, which answered for her repatriation.) . The
award of the three-month equivalent of respondent’s salary should, however, be increased to
the amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment contract.
The court ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less” is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive
due process. *Seerano v Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.)
Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, in
accordance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of the three-month
equivalence of respondent’s salary must be modified accordingly. “To rule otherwise would be
iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that
principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFW’s security of
tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based
on an unconstitutional provision of law.”
3. YES. The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for
any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several.
Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the foreign
employer and the local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims
including claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship and/or damages.
The provision on joint and several liability in the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995 assures overseas workers that their rights will not be frustrated with these complications.
in the case of overseas employment, either the local agency or the foreign employer may be
sued for all claims arising from the foreign employer’s labor law violations. This way, the
overseas workers are assured that someone — the foreign employer’s local agent — may be
made to answer for violations that the foreign employer may have committed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay respondent Joy
C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. Petitioner is also
ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent
attorney’s fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment.
The clause, “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” in
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
SUNNACE INTERNATIONAL
FACTS
Petioner Sunace International Management Services Inc (Sunace), a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the PH, deployed Divina A. Montehermozo (Divina) to Taiwan as
a domestic helper under a 12-month contract effective Feb. 1, 1997. The deployment was with
the assistance of a Taiwanese broker, Edmund Wang, President of Jet Crown International Co.,
Ltd.
Dvina continued working for her Taiwanese employer, Hang Rui Xiong for 2 more years after
her 12-month contract expired. Afterwards, she returned to the Philippine on Feb. 4, 2000.
On February 14, 2000, Divina filed a complaint before the NLRC alleging that she was jailed for
three months and the she was underpaid against Sunace, , one Adelaide Perez, the Taiwanese
broker, and the employer-foreign principal.
Divina’s Position Paper – She is claiming that under her original one-year contract and the 2-
year extended contract which was with the knowledge and consent of Sunace, income tax and
savings were deducted and while the amounts deducted in 1997 were refunded to her, those
deducted in 1998 and 1999 were not.
Sunace;s Position Paper - Complainant could not anymore claim nor entitled for the refund of
her 24 months savings as she already took back her saving already last year and the employer
did not deduct any money from her salary, in accordance with a Fascimile Message from the
respondent SUNACE’s employer, Jet Crown International Co. Ltd.
COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REFUND OF HER 14 MONTHS TAX AND PAYMENT OF
ATTORNEY’S FEES because there is no basis for the grant of tax refund to the complainant as
the she finished her one year contract and hence, was not illegally dismissed by her employer
LA RULING: Rejected Suna ce’s claim that the extension of Divina’s contract for two more years
was without its knowledge and consent because Sunace and Edmund Wang have not stopped
communicating with each other and yet the matter of the contract’s extension and Sunace’s

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
alleged non-consent thereto has not been categorically established. LA Ruled that Sunace and
its owner Adelaide and Edmund Wang as jointly and severally liable.
NLRC: Affirmed LA’s decision.
CA: affirmed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC’s finding that Sunace knew of and impliedly consented
to the extension of Divina’s 2-year contract. It thus concluded that "[a]s agent of the foreign
principal, ‘petitioner cannot profess ignorance of such extension as obviously, the act of the
principal extending complainant (sic) employment contract necessarily bound it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 2-year extension of Divina’s employment was made with the knowledge
and consent of Sunace
RULING
No.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals finding, the alleged continuous communication was with the
Taiwanese broker Wang, not with the foreign employer Xiong.
The message does not provide evidence that Sunace was privy to the new contract executed
after the expiration on February 1, 1998 of the original contract. That Sunace and the
Taiwanese broker communicated regarding Divina’s allegedly withheld savings does not
necessarily mean that Sunace ratified the extension of the contract.
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its agency
relationship with its foreign principal when, after the termination of the original employment
contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and
separate employment contract in Taiwan. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code reading
The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent,
dealing directly with third persons.
PRINCESS TALENT CENTER VS MASAGCA
FACTS:
November 2002 – Desiree T. Masagca auditioned for a singing contest at ABC-Channel 5 in
Novaliches, Quezon City when a talent manager approached her to discuss her show business
potential. Desiree went to the office of Princess Talent Center Production. Inc., a domestic
corporation engaged in the business of training and development of actors, singers, dancers,

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
and musicians in the movie and entertainment industry. Desiree met the President of PTCPI
which is Moldes and persuaded her to apply for a job as a singer/entertainer in South Korea.
Feb 3, 2003 – Model Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas Performing Artists (OPAS) To
Korea6 (Employment Contract) was executed between Desiree and PTCPI as the PH Agent of
SAENCO, the Korean principal/promoter. Employment Contract includes the Duration, Name of
Performance Venue, Compensation, Hours of Work, Restday and Overtime Pay as well as the
Termination
Respondent left for South Korea on September 6, 2003 and worked there as a singer for nine
months, until her repatriation to the Philippines sometime in June 2004. Believing that the
termination of her contract was unlawful and premature, respondent filed a complaint against
petitioners and SAENCO with the NLRC.
Desiree’s Allegations – She alleged that she was made to sign 2 employment contracts, but she
was not given the chance to read any of them despite her requests. She had to remit half of her
commission to petitioner Moldes for the payment of the fictitious loan. Respondent filed the
complaint against petitioners and SAENCO praying that a decision be rendered declaring them
guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay her unpaid salaries for one year, inclusive of
her salaries for the unexpired portion of her Employment Contract, backwages, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
PTPI and Moldes’s Allegations - Petitioners countered that respondent signed only one
Employment Contract, and that respondent read its contents before affixing her signature on
the same. Petitioners additionally contended that respondent, on her own, extended her
Employment Contract with SAENCO, and so petitioners' liability should not extend beyond the
original six-month term of the Employment Contract because the extension was made without
their participation or consent. Respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on account of her
illegal or immoral activities. Petitioner Moldes, for her part, disavowed personal liability, stating
that she merely acted in her capacity as a corporate officer of petitioner PTCPI.
Petitioners thus prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed and that respondent be
ordered to pay them moral and exemplary damages for their besmirched reputation, and
attorney's fees for they were compelled to litigate and defend their interests against
respondent's baseless suit.
LA Ruling – Dismissed Desiree’s complaint for lack of merit since Desiree failed to present
evidence to prove that she had been illegally dismissed

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
NLRC Ruling – Denied the decision of LA, stating that there is sufficient evidence to establish
that (petitioners and SAENCO) misrepresented to respondent) the details of her employment
and that she was not paid her salaries. However, on a motion for reconsideration NRLC
reinstated the LA decision
CA Ruling - held that respondent was dismissed from employment without just cause and
without procedural due process, and that petitioners and SAENCO were solidarily liable to pay
respondent her unpaid salaries for one year and attorney's fees. Burden of proof lies to the
employer, and they failed to discharge the burden of proving that Desiree was terminated from
employment for a just and valid cause.
ISSUE
W/N Desiree was illegally dismissed
W/N Petitioner is liable for the money claims of respondent
RULING
1. YES. The court does not agree with the Petitioner’s contention that the twin
requirement of notice and hearing applies strictly only when the employment is within the
Philippines and that these need not be strictly observed in cases of international maritime or
overseas employment. The principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the
contract is made) governs in this jurisdiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that the
Contract of Employment entered into by and between petitioners and private respondent was
executed here in the Philippines with the approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA). Hence, the Labor Code together with its implementing rules and
regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.
Although respondent's employment with SAENCO was good for six months as stated in the
Employment Contract, the Court is convinced that it was extended under the same terms and
conditions for another six months. Respondent and petitioners submitted evidence establishing
that respondent continued to work for SAENCO in Ulsan, South Korea even after the original
six-month period under respondent's Employment Contract expired on March 5, 2004. Even in
the absence of a written contract evidencing the six-month extension of respondent's
employment, the same is practically admitted by petitioners, subject only to the defense that
there is no proof of their knowledge of or participation in said extension and so they cannot be
held liable for the events that transpired between respondent and SAENCO during the
extension period. Petitioners presented nine vouchers to prove that respondent received her
salaries from SAENCO for nine months. Petitioners also did not deny that petitioner Moldes,
President of petitioner PTCPI, went to confront respondent about the latter's outstanding loan
Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
at the Seaman's Seven Club in Ulsan, South Korea in June 2004, thus, revealing that petitioners
were aware that respondent was still working for SAENCO up to that time.
Hence, respondent had been working for SAENCO in Ulsan, South Korea, pursuant to her
Employment Contract, extended for another six-month period or until September 5, 2004,
when she was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines by SAENCO in June 2004. With this
finding, it is unnecessary for the Court to still consider and address respondent's allegations
that she had been misled into believing that her Employment Contract and visa was good for
one year.
the Court stresses that the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of notice and
hearing prior to respondent's dismissal from employment falls on petitioners and SAENCO, but
there had been no attempt at all by petitioners and/or SAENCO to submit such proof.
The Court finds that respondent was illegally dismissed.
2. Yes. Respondent's monetary claims against petitioners and SAENCO is governed by
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as The Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995. respondent is entitled to an award of her salaries for the unexpired three
months of her extended Employment Contract. Respondent also has the right to the
reimbursement of her placement fee with interest of 12% per annum from her illegal dismissal
in June 2004 to the date this Decision becomes final and executory
Sec. 10 of RA 8042 is plain and clear, the joint and several liability of the principal/employer,
recruitment/placement agency, and the corporate officers of the latter, for the money claims
and damages of an overseas Filipino worker is absolute and without qualification. It is intended
to give utmost protection to the overseas Filipino worker, who may not have the resources to
pursue her money claims and damages against the foreign principal/employer in another
country. As a result, the liability of SAENCO, as principal/employer, and petitioner PTCPI, as
recruitment/placement agency, for the monetary awards in favor of respondent, an illegally
dismissed employee, is joint and several. In turn, since petitioner PTCPI is a juridical entity,
petitioner Moldes, as its corporate officer, is herself jointly and solidarily liable with petitioner
PTCPI for respondent’s monetary awards, regardless of whether she acted with malice or bad
faith in dealing with respondent.

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
On Serrano, the Court held that the
subject clause does not state or
imply any
3. definitive governmental
purpose; hence, the same
violates not just therein
4. petitioner’s right to equal
protection, but also his right
to substantive due
5. process under the
Constitution.
6. On Serrano, the Court held
that the subject clause does not
state or imply any

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment
7. definitive governmental
purpose; hence, the same
violates not just therein
8. petitioner’s right to equal
protection, but also his right
to substantive due
process under the Constituti
9.

Licensed
Illegal Recruitment

Migrant Workers Act Ra 10022 - An Act Amending Ra 8042

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Migrant Workers Act Ra 10022 - An Act Amending Ra 8042

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Migrant Workers Act Ra 10022 - An Act Amending Ra 8042

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIGRANT WORKERS ACT RA 10022 — AN ACT AMENDING RA 8042

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

DISCUSSIONS ON MIGRANT WORKER

DISTRESSED MIGRANT WORKER

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT ESTAFA

IRR OF RA 10022 — MIGRANT WORKERS ACT

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

DISCUSSIONS ON MIGRANT WORKER (IRR)

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND ITS FUNCTIONS

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

NLRC tasked with the settlement or adjudication of labor disputes

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LC

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

DO 141-14 RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

SEC 4. QUALIFICATIONS (Art. 27 LC — Citizen Requirement)

SEC 12. VALIDITY OF THE LICENSE

Illegal Recruitment Estafa

- WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

- WHEREFORE, petition is granted, the decision of CA is modified to the effect that

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

- WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

Canvassing, Enlisting, Transporting, Contracting, Hiring, Utilizing, or Procuring

You might also like