PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and SERVICES CORPORATION Vv. THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOUMENT, VIVENCIO DE MESA, RODRIGO MIKIN and CEDRIC LEUSON “Philsa is not liable for illegal exaction since POEA Memorandum Circular 2 and 11 were not published as required by law. In Tafiada uv. Tuvera, the Court held that xxx Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Applying this doctrine, as POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11 was not published, it must be struck down”CASE BRIEF, FACTS: Private respondents Mikin, de Mesa, and Leyson were recruited by Philsa for employment in Saudi Arabia and were required to pay the corresponding placement fees. After the execution of contracts, the three left for Saudi and began to work for Al-Hejailan Consultants A/E, foreign employer. While in Saudi, the three were allegedly, made to sign a second) contacts which changed some of the provisions of their original contract. After almost two months, their foreign employer forced them to signed a third contract which increased their work hours. When they refused to sign the third) contract, their services were terminated and they were repatriated to the Philippines. Upon arrival in the Philippines, the three demanded) from Philsa the return of their placement fees and payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract, but Philsa refused. This prompted the three to file a case before the POEA’ with 1) illegal dismissal; 2) payment \of salary differentials; 3) illegal deduction/withholding (of salaries; 4) illegal) ex. /refunds (of placement fees; and 5) contract substitution auses Of, action= POEA found Philsa guilty of illegal exaction, which was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, as it) was supported) by substantial evidence. However, Philsa insist that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 19837 which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from applicants, are void for lack of publication.ISSUE: Whether or not Philsa may be held liable for illegal exaction by virtue of POEA Memorandum Circular No! 11. RULING: NO. Philsa is not liable. In Tanada\v- Tuvera, the Court held that xxx Administrative rules _and| regulations must also be pu hed if their. to enforce or a valid delegation._ Applying this doctrine, as POEA Memorandum Gircular No. 11 was not published, it must be struck down. Moreover, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983) must I ise_be declared ineffective as the same _wasi never published or filed with the National Ad trative Register. It provides for the applicable ‘schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment agencies or authority holders. Under the said Order, the maximum amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00-. The said circular was apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Labor Code. It is (thus clear that ‘the consideration is one of those y, since its purpose is to enforce and ing law pursuant to a valid delegation: Considering inistrative Circular No. 2, Series of 7983 has notlas yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced. Furthermore, the fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group, namely private employment agencies (or authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of ‘our ruling in) Ta ada vs. Tuvera.In the case of Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres, the administrative circulars questioned) therein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely, Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still the Court) ruled therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said circulars may not be enforced or implemented: Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only exceptions are. iterpretative regulations, those merely internal_in) nature, or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their, subordinates in the performance of their duties. Administrative Circular No: 2, Series of 1983) has not been shown to fall under, any of these exceptions.