ANTONIO M. SERRANO VS. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC. GR No.

167614 March 24, 2009 E !a c FACTS: Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow avi!ation Co., Inc., "nder a P#$A%approved contract o& employment &or '( months, as Chie& #&&icer, with the basic monthly salary o& )S*',+,,, pl"s *-,,.month overtime pay, and - days paid vacation leave per month. #n March '/, '//0, the date o& his depart"re, Serrano was constrained to accept a down!raded employment contract &or the position o& Second #&&icer with a monthly salary o& )S*',,,, "pon the ass"rance and representation o& respondents that he wo"ld be Chie& #&&icer by the end o& April '//0. 1espondents did not deliver on their promise to ma2e Serrano Chie& #&&icer. 3ence, Serrano re&"sed to stay on as second #&&icer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May (4, '//0, servin! only two 5(6 months and seven 5-6 days o& his contract, leavin! an "ne7pired portion o& nine 5/6 months and twenty%three 5(86 days. Serrano &iled with the 9abor Arbiter 59A6 a Complaint a!ainst respondents &or constr"ctive dismissal and &or payment o& his money claims in the total amo"nt o& )S*(4,++(.-8 5based on the comp"tation o& *(:/,.month &rom ;"ne '//0 to Febr"ary '//, *+'8./, &or March '//0, and *'4+, &or March '///6 as well as moral and e7emplary dama!es. The 9A declared the petitioner<s dismissal ille!al and awarded him )S*0,--,, representin! his salaray &or three 586 months o& the "ne7pired portion o& the a&oresaid contract o& employment, pl"s *+: &or salary di&&erential and &or attorney<s &ees e="ivalent to ',> o& the total amo"nt? however, no compensation &or dama!es as prayed was awarded. #n appeal, the 91C modi&ied the 9A decision and awarded Serrano *+44/.:,, representin! three 586 months salary at *'+,,.month, pl"s ++: salary di&&erential and ',> &or attorney<s &ees. This decision was based on the provision o& 1A 0,+(, which was made into law on ;"ly ':, '//:. Serrano &iled a Motion &or Partial 1econsideration, b"t this time he ="estioned the constit"tionality o& the last cla"se in the :th para!raph o& Section ', o& 1A 0,+(, which reads:

Sec. ',. Money Claims. @ 7 7 7 In case o& termination o& overseas employment witho"t A"st, valid or a"thoriBed ca"se as de&ined by law or contract, the wor2ers shall be entitled to the &"ll reimb"rsement o& his placement &ee with interest o& twelve percent 5'(>6 per ann"m, pl"s his salaries &or the "ne7pired portion o& his employment contract or &or three 586 months &or every year o& the "ne7pired term, whichever is less. The 91C denied the Motion? hence, Serrano &iled a Petition &or Certiorari with the Co"rt o& Appeals 5CA6, reiteratin! the constit"tional challen!e a!ainst the s"bAect cla"se. The CA a&&irmed the 91C r"lin! on the red"ction o& the applicable salary rate, b"t s2irted the constit"tional iss"e raised by herein petitioner Serrano. ISS)$S: '. Chether or not the s"bAect cla"se violates Section ',, Article III o& the Constit"tion on non%impairment o& contracts? (. Chether or not the s"bAect cla"se violate Section ', Article III o& the Constit"tion, and Section '0, Article II and Section 8, Article DIII on labor as a protected sector. 3$9E: #n the &irst iss"e. The answer is in the ne!ative. Petitioner<s claim that the s"bAect cla"se "nd"ly inter&eres with the stip"lations in his contract on the term o& his employment and the &i7ed salary pac2a!e he will receive is not tenable. Section ',, Article III o& the Constit"tion provides: obli!ation o& contracts shall be passed. o law impairin! the

The prohibition is ali!ned with the !eneral principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot a&&ect acts or contracts already per&ected? however, as to laws already in e7istence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereo&. Th"s, the non% impairment cla"se "nder Section ',, Article II is limited in application to laws abo"t to be enacted that wo"ld in any way dero!ate &rom e7istin! acts or contracts by enlar!in!, abrid!in! or in any manner chan!in! the intention o& the parties thereto. As aptly observed by the #SG, the enactment o& 1.A. o. 0,+( in '//: preceded the e7ec"tion o& the employment contract between petitioner and

respondents in '//0. 3ence, it cannot be ar!"ed that 1.A. o. 0,+(, partic"larly the s"bAect cla"se, impaired the employment contract o& the parties. 1ather, when the parties e7ec"ted their '//0 employment contract, they were deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions o& 1.A. o. 0,+(. F"t even i& the Co"rt were to disre!ard the timeline, the s"bAect cla"se may not be declared "nconstit"tional on the !ro"nd that it impin!es on the impairment cla"se, &or the law was enacted in the e7ercise o& the police power o& the State to re!"late a b"siness, pro&ession or callin!, partic"larly the recr"itment and deployment o& #FCs, with the noble end in view o& ens"rin! respect &or the di!nity and well%bein! o& #FCs wherever they may be employed. Police power le!islations adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, ed"cation, !ood order, sa&ety, and !eneral wel&are o& the people are !enerally applicable not only to &"t"re contracts b"t even to those already in e7istence, &or all private contracts m"st yield to the s"perior and le!itimate meas"res ta2en by the State to promote p"blic wel&are. #n the second iss"e. The answer is in the a&&irmative. Section ', Article III o& the Constit"tion !"arantees: o person shall be deprived o& li&e, liberty, or property witho"t d"e process o& law nor shall any person be denied the e="al protection o& the law. Section '0, Article II and Section 8, Article DIII accord all members o& the labor sector, witho"t distinction as to place o& deployment, &"ll protection o& their ri!hts and wel&are. To Filipino wor2ers, the ri!hts !"aranteed "nder the &ore!oin! constit"tional provisions translate to economic sec"rity and parity: all monetary bene&its sho"ld be e="ally enAoyed by wor2ers o& similar cate!ory, while all monetary obli!ations sho"ld be borne by them in e="al de!ree? none sho"ld be denied the protection o& the laws which is enAoyed by, or spared the b"rden imposed on, others in li2e circ"mstances. S"ch ri!hts are not absol"te b"t s"bAect to the inherent power o& Con!ress to incorporate, when it sees &it, a system o& classi&ication into its le!islation? however, to be valid, the classi&ication m"st comply with these re="irements: '6 it is based on s"bstantial distinctions? (6 it is !ermane to the p"rposes o& the law? 86 it is not limited to e7istin! conditions only? and +6 it applies e="ally to all members o& the class.

There are three levels o& scr"tiny at which the Co"rt reviews the constit"tionality o& a classi&ication embodied in a law: a6 the de&erential or rational basis scr"tiny in which the challen!ed classi&ication needs only be shown to be rationally related to servin! a le!itimate state interest? b6 the middle%tier or intermediate scr"tiny in which the !overnment m"st show that the challen!ed classi&ication serves an important state interest and that the classi&ication is at least s"bstantially related to servin! that interest? and c6 strict A"dicial scr"tiny in which a le!islative classi&ication which impermissibly inter&eres with the e7ercise o& a &"ndamental ri!ht or operates to the pec"liar disadvanta!e o& a s"spect class is pres"med "nconstit"tional, and the b"rden is "pon the !overnment to prove that the classi&ication is necessary to achieve a compellin! state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect s"ch interest. )pon c"rsory readin!, the s"bAect cla"se appears &acially ne"tral, &or it applies to all #FCs. 3owever, a closer e7amination reveals that the s"bAect cla"se has a discriminatory intent a!ainst, and an invidio"s impact on, #FCs at two levels: First, #FCs with employment contracts o& less than one year vis%G%vis #FCs with employment contracts o& one year or more? Second, amon! #FCs with employment contracts o& more than one year? and Third, #FCs vis%G%vis local wor2ers with &i7ed%period employment? In s"m, prior to 1.A. o. 0,+(, #FCs and local wor2ers with &i7ed%term employment who were ille!ally dischar!ed were treated ali2e in terms o& the comp"tation o& their money claims: they were "ni&ormly entitled to their salaries &or the entire "ne7pired portions o& their contracts. F"t with the enactment o& 1.A. o. 0,+(, speci&ically the adoption o& the s"bAect cla"se, ille!ally dismissed #FCs with an "ne7pired portion o& one year or more in their employment contract have since been di&&erently treated in that their money claims are s"bAect to a 8%month cap, whereas no s"ch limitation is imposed on local wor2ers with &i7ed%term employment. The Co"rt concl"des that the s"bAect cla"se contains a s"spect classi&ication in that, in the comp"tation o& the monetary bene&its o& &i7ed%term employees who are ille!ally dischar!ed, it imposes a 8%month cap on the claim o& #FCs with an "ne7pired portion o& one year or more in their contracts, b"t none on the claims o& other #FCs or local wor2ers with &i7ed%term employment. The s"bAect cla"se sin!les o"t one classi&ication o& #FCs and b"rdens it with a pec"liar disadvanta!e.

There bein! a s"spect classi&ication involvin! a v"lnerable sector protected by the Constit"tion, the Co"rt now s"bAects the classi&ication to a strict A"dicial scr"tiny, and determines whether it serves a compellin! state interest thro"!h the least restrictive means. Chat constit"tes compellin! state interest is meas"red by the scale o& ri!hts and powers arrayed in the Constit"tion and calibrated by history. It is a2in to the paramo"nt interest o& the state &or which some individ"al liberties m"st !ive way, s"ch as the p"blic interest in sa&e!"ardin! health or maintainin! medical standards, or in maintainin! access to in&ormation on matters o& p"blic concern. In the present case, the Co"rt d"! deep into the records b"t &o"nd no compellin! state interest that the s"bAect cla"se may possibly serve. In &ine, the Government has &ailed to dischar!e its b"rden o& provin! the e7istence o& a compellin! state interest that wo"ld A"sti&y the perpet"ation o& the discrimination a!ainst #FCs "nder the s"bAect cla"se. Ass"min! that, as advanced by the #SG, the p"rpose o& the s"bAect cla"se is to protect the employment o& #FCs by miti!atin! the solidary liability o& placement a!encies, s"ch callo"s and cavalier rationale will have to be reAected. There can never be a A"sti&ication &or any &orm o& !overnment action that alleviates the b"rden o& one sector, b"t imposes the same b"rden on another sector, especially when the &avored sector is composed o& private b"sinesses s"ch as placement a!encies, while the disadvanta!ed sector is composed o& #FCs whose protection no less than the Constit"tion commands. The idea that private b"siness interest can be elevated to the level o& a compellin! state interest is odio"s. Moreover, even i& the p"rpose o& the s"bAect cla"se is to lessen the solidary liability o& placement a!encies vis%a%vis their &orei!n principals, there are mechanisms already in place that can be employed to achieve that p"rpose witho"t in&rin!in! on the constit"tional ri!hts o& #FCs. The P#$A 1"les and 1e!"lations Governin! the 1ecr"itment and $mployment o& 9and%Fased #verseas Cor2ers, dated Febr"ary +, (,,(, imposes administrative disciplinary meas"res on errin! &orei!n employers who de&a"lt on their contract"al obli!ations to mi!rant wor2ers and.or their Philippine a!ents. These disciplinary meas"res ran!e &rom temporary dis="ali&ication to preventive s"spension. The P#$A 1"les and 1e!"lations Governin! the 1ecr"itment and $mployment o& Sea&arers, dated May (8, (,,8, contains similar administrative disciplinary meas"res a!ainst errin! &orei!n employers.

1esort to these administrative meas"res is "ndo"btedly the less restrictive means o& aidin! local placement a!encies in en&orcin! the solidary liability o& their &orei!n principals. Th"s, the s"bAect cla"se in the :th para!raph o& Section ', o& 1.A. o. 0,+( is violative o& the ri!ht o& petitioner and other #FCs to e="al protection. The s"bAect cla"se Hor &or three months &or every year o& the "ne7pired term, whichever is lessI in the :th para!raph o& Section ', o& 1ep"blic Act o. 0,+( is E$C9A1$E ) C# STIT)TI# A9.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitio er, !s. "a##a t MARITIME SER$I%ES, IN%. a d MAR&O' NA$I"ATION %O., IN%., Res(o de ts
EN BANC G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009 ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner, vs. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MAR O! NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents. DECISION A"STRIA#MARTINE$, J.: For decades, the toil of solitary i!rants has helped lift entire fa ilies and co "nities o"t of poverty. #heir earnin!s have $"ilt ho"ses, provided health care, e%"ipped schools and planted the seeds of $"sinesses. #hey have &oven to!ether the &orld $y trans ittin! ideas and 'no&led!e fro co"ntry to co"ntry. #hey have provided the dyna ic h" an lin' $et&een c"lt"res, societies and econo ies. (et, only recently have &e $e!"n to "nderstand not only ho& "ch international i!ration i pacts develop ent, $"t ho& s art p"$lic policies can a!nify this effect. )nited Nations Secretary*+eneral Ban ,i*-oon +lo$al For" on -i!ration and Develop ent Br"ssels, ."ly /0, 1002/ For Antonio Serrano 3petitioner4, a Filipino seafarer, the last cla"se in the 5th para!raph of Section /0, Rep"$lic Act 3R.A.4 No. 6071,1 to &it8 Sec. /0. Money Claims. * 9 9 9 In case of ter ination of overseas e ploy ent &itho"t :"st, valid or a"thori;ed ca"se as defined $y la& or contract, the &or'ers shall $e entitled to the f"ll rei $"rse ent of his place ent fee &ith interest of t&elve percent 3/1<4 per ann" , pl"s his salaries for the "ne9pired portion of his e ploy ent contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. 9 9 9 9 3E phasis and "nderscorin! s"pplied4 does not a!nify the contri$"tions of overseas Filipino &or'ers 3OF=s4 to national develop ent, $"t e9acer$ates the hardships $orne $y the $y "nd"ly li itin! their entitle ent in case of ille!al dis issal to their l" p*s" salary either for the "ne9pired portion of their e ploy ent contract >or for three onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter , &hichever is less> 3s"$:ect cla"se4. Petitioner clai s that the last cla"se violates the OF=s? constit"tional ri!hts in that it i pairs the ter s of their contract, deprives the of e%"al protection and denies the d"e process. By &ay of Petition for Revie& "nder R"le 75 of the R"les of Co"rt, petitioner assails the Dece $er 6, 1007 Decision@ and April /, 1005 Resol"tion7 of the Co"rt of Appeals 3CA4, &hich applied the s"$:ect cla"se, entreatin! this Co"rt to declare the s"$:ect cla"se "nconstit"tional. Petitioner &as hired $y +allant -ariti e Services, Inc. and -arlo& Navi!ation Co., Atd. 3respondents4 "nder a Philippine Overseas E ploy ent Ad inistration 3POEA4*approved Contract of E ploy ent &ith the follo&in! ter s and conditions8
D"ration of contract Position Basic onthly salary /1 onths

Chief Officer )SB/,700.00 76.0 ho"rs per &ee' )SB200.00 per 2.00 days per onth onth5

Co"rs of &or' Overti e Dacation leave &ith pay

On -arch /E, /EE6, the date of his depart"re, petitioner &as constrained to accept a do&n!raded e ploy ent contract for the position of Second Officer &ith a onthly salary of )SB/,000.00, "pon the ass"rance and representation of respondents that he &o"ld $e ade Chief Officer $y the end of April /EE6.F

Respondents did not deliver on their pro ise to a'e petitioner Chief Officer. 2 Cence, petitioner ref"sed to stay on as Second Officer and &as repatriated to the Philippines on -ay 1F, /EE6. 6 Petitioner?s e ploy ent contract &as for a period of /1 onths or fro -arch /E, /EE6 "p to -arch /E, /EEE, $"t at the ti e of his repatriation on -ay 1F, /EE6, he had served only t&o 314 onths and seven 324 days of his contract, leavin! an "ne9pired portion of nine 3E4 onths and t&enty*three 31@4 days. Petitioner filed &ith the Aa$or Ar$iter 3AA4 a Co plaintE a!ainst respondents for constr"ctive dis issal and for pay ent of his oney clai s in the total a o"nt of )SB1F,771.2@, $ro'en do&n as follo&s8
-ay 12G@/, /EE6 35 days4 incl. Aeave pay ."ne 0/G@0, /EE6 ."ly 0/G@/, /EE6 A"!"st 0/G@/, /EE6 Sept. 0/G@0, /EE6 Oct. 0/G@/, /EE6 Nov. 0/G@0, /EE6 Dec. 0/G@/, /EE6 .an. 0/G@/, /EEE Fe$. 0/G16, /EEE )SB 7/@.E0

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

1,5E0.00

-ar. /,F70.00 /G/E, /EEE 3/E days4 incl. leave pay ******************************************************************************** 15,@61.1@ A o"nt

ad:"sted to chief ate?s salary 3-arch /EG@/, /EE6 to April /G@0, /EE64 H /,0F0.50/0

********************************************************************************************* * #O#AA CAAI)SB 1F,771.2@//

as &ell as oral and e9e plary da a!es and attorney?s fees. #he AA rendered a Decision dated ."ly /5, /EEE, declarin! the dis issal of petitioner ille!al and a&ardin! hi onetary $enefits, to &it8 =CEREFORE, pre ises considered, :"d! ent is here$y rendered declarin! that the dis issal of the co plainant 3petitioner4 $y the respondents in the a$ove*entitled case &as ille!al and the respondents are here$y ordered to pay the co plainant IpetitionerJ, :ointly and severally, in Philippine C"rrency, $ased on the rate of e9chan!e prevailin! at the ti e of pay ent, the a o"nt of EIG ! ! "#$%&' $E(E& #&')E' $E(E&!* #.$. '"++%)$ (#$ ,-,.././/), representin0 the complainant1s salary for three (3) months of the unexpired portion of the aforesaid contract of employment.1avvphi1 #he respondents are li'e&ise ordered to pay the co plainant IpetitionerJ, :ointly and severally, in Philippine C"rrency, $ased on the rate of e9chan!e prevailin! at the ti e of pay ent, the a o"nt of FOR#( FIDE ).S. DOAAARS 3)SB 75.004,/1 representin! the co plainantKs clai for a salary differential. In addition, the respondents are here$y ordered to pay the co plainant, :ointly and severally, in Philippine C"rrency, at the e9chan!e rate prevailin! at the ti e of pay ent, the co plainantKs 3petitioner?s4 clai for attorneyKs fees e%"ivalent to ten percent 3/0<4 of the total a o"nt a&arded to the aforesaid e ployee "nder this Decision. #he clai s of the co plainant for oral and e9e plary da a!es are here$y DIS-ISSED for lac' of erit. All other clai s are here$y DIS-ISSED. SO ORDERED./@ 3E phasis s"pplied4 In a&ardin! petitioner a l" p*s" salary of )SB6,220.00, the AA $ased his co p"tation on the salary period of three onths only ** rather than the entire "ne9pired portion of nine onths and 1@ days of petitioner?s e ploy ent contract * applyin! the s"$:ect cla"se. Co&ever, the AA applied the salary rate of )SB1,5E0.00, consistin! of petitioner?s >I$Jasic salary, )SB/,700.00G onth H )SB200.00G onth, fi9ed overti e pay, H )SB7E0.00G onth, vacation leave pay L )SB1,5E0.00Gco pensation per onth.>/7 Respondents appealed/5 to the National Aa$or Relations Co ission 3NARC4 to %"estion the findin! of the AA that petitioner &as ille!ally dis issed. Petitioner also appealed/F to the NARC on the sole iss"e that the AA erred in not applyin! the r"lin! of the Co"rt in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission /2 that in case of ille!al dis issal, OF=s are entitled to their salaries for the "ne9pired portion of their contracts./6 In a Decision dated ."ne /5, 1000, the NARC odified the AA Decision, to &it8 =CEREFORE, the Decision dated /5 ."ly /EEE is -ODIFIED. Respondents are here$y ordered to pay co plainant, :ointly and severally, in Philippine c"rrency, at the prevailin! rate of e9chan!e at the ti e of pay ent the follo&in!8
/. #hree 3@4 B/,700 9 @ onths salary )SB7,100.00

1. Salary differential )SB7,175.00 @. /0< AttorneyKs fees #O#AA

75.00

717.50 )SB7,FFE.50

#he other findin!s are affir ed. SO ORDERED./E #he NARC corrected the AA?s co p"tation of the l" p*s" salary a&arded to petitioner $y red"cin! the applica$le salary rate fro )SB1,5E0.00 to )SB/,700.00 $eca"se R.A. No. 6071 >does not provide for the a&ard of overti e pay, &hich sho"ld $e proven to have $een act"ally perfor ed, and for vacation leave pay.>10 Petitioner filed a -otion for Partial Reconsideration, $"t this ti e he %"estioned the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se.1/ #he NARC denied the otion.11 Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari1@ &ith the CA, reiteratin! the constit"tional challen!e a!ainst the s"$:ect cla"se.17 After initially dis issin! the petition on a technicality, the CA event"ally !ave d"e co"rse to it, as directed $y this Co"rt in its Resol"tion dated A"!"st 2, 100@ &hich !ranted the petition for certiorari, doc'eted as +.R. No. /5/6@@, filed $y petitioner. In a Decision dated Dece $er 6, 1007, the CA affir ed the NARC r"lin! on the red"ction of the applica$le salary rateM ho&ever, the CA s'irted the constit"tional iss"e raised $y petitioner. 15 Cis -otion for Reconsideration1F havin! $een denied $y the CA,12 petitioner $rin!s his ca"se to this Co"rt on the follo&in! !ro"nds8 I #he Co"rt of Appeals and the la$or tri$"nals have decided the case in a &ay not in accord &ith applica$le decision of the S"pre e Co"rt involvin! si ilar iss"e of !rantin! "nto the i!rant &or'er $ac' &a!es e%"al to the "ne9pired portion of his contract of e ploy ent instead of li itin! it to three 3@4 onths II In the alternative that the Co"rt of Appeals and the Aa$or #ri$"nals &ere erely applyin! their interpretation of Section /0 of Rep"$lic Act No. 6071, it is s"$ itted that the Co"rt of Appeals !ravely erred in la& &hen it failed to dischar!e its :"dicial d"ty to decide %"estions of s"$stance not theretofore deter ined $y the Conora$le S"pre e Co"rt, partic"larly, the constit"tional iss"es raised $y the petitioner on the constit"tionality of said la&, &hich "nreasona$ly, "nfairly and ar$itrarily li its pay ent of the a&ard for $ac' &a!es of overseas &or'ers to three 3@4 onths. III Even &itho"t considerin! the constit"tional li itations IofJ Sec. /0 of Rep"$lic Act No. 6071, the Co"rt of Appeals !ravely erred in la& in e9cl"din! fro petitionerKs a&ard the overti e pay and vacation pay provided in his contract since "nder the contract they for part of his salary. 16 On Fe$r"ary 1F, 1006, petitioner &rote the Co"rt to &ithdra& his petition as he is already old and sic'ly, and he intends to a'e "se of the onetary a&ard for his edical treat ent and edication. 1E Re%"ired to co ent, co"nsel for petitioner filed a otion, "r!in! the co"rt to allo& partial e9ec"tion of the "ndisp"ted onetary a&ard and, at the sa e ti e, prayin! that the constit"tional %"estion $e resolved. @0 Considerin! that the parties have filed their respective e oranda, the Co"rt no& ta'es "p the f"ll erit of the petition indf"l of the e9tre e i portance of the constit"tional %"estion raised therein. "n the first and second issues #he "nani o"s findin! of the AA, NARC and CA that the dis issal of petitioner &as ille!al is not disp"ted. Ai'e&ise not disp"ted is the salary differential of )SB75.00 a&arded to petitioner in all three fora. =hat re ains disp"ted is only the co p"tation of the l" p*s" salary to $e a&arded to petitioner $y reason of his ille!al dis issal. Applyin! the s"$:ect cla"se, the NARC and the CA co p"ted the l" p*s" salary of petitioner at the onthly rate of )SB/,700.00 coverin! the period of three onths o"t of the "ne9pired portion of nine onths and 1@ days of his e ploy ent contract or a total of )SB7,100.00. I p"!nin! the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se, petitioner contends that, in addition to the )SB7,100.00 a&arded $y the NARC and the CA, he is entitled to )SB1/,/61.1@ ore or a total of )SB15,@61.1@, e%"ivalent to his salaries for the entire nine onths and 1@ days left of his e ploy ent contract, co p"ted at the onthly rate of )SB1,5E0.00. @/ Th% Ar&'(%nt) o* +%t,t,on%r

Petitioner contends that the s"$:ect cla"se is "nconstit"tional $eca"se it "nd"ly i pairs the freedo of OF=s to ne!otiate for and stip"late in their overseas e ploy ent contracts a deter inate e ploy ent period and a fi9ed salary pac'a!e.@1 It also i pin!es on the e%"al protection cla"se, for it treats OF=s differently fro local Filipino &or'ers 3local &or'ers4 $y p"ttin! a cap on the a o"nt of l" p*s" salary to &hich OF=s are entitled in case of ille!al dis issal, &hile settin! no li it to the sa e onetary a&ard for local &or'ers &hen their dis issal is declared ille!alM that the disparate treat ent is not reasona$le as there is no s"$stantial distinction $et&een the t&o !ro"psM@@ and that it defeats Section /6,@7 Article II of the Constit"tion &hich !"arantees the protection of the ri!hts and &elfare of all Filipino &or'ers, &hether deployed locally or overseas. @5 -oreover, petitioner ar!"es that the decisions of the CA and the la$or tri$"nals are not in line &ith e9istin! :"rispr"dence on the iss"e of oney clai s of ille!ally dis issed OF=s. #ho"!h there are conflictin! r"lin!s on this, petitioner "r!es the Co"rt to sort the o"t for the !"idance of affected OF=s. @F Petitioner f"rther "nderscores that the insertion of the s"$:ect cla"se into R.A. No. 6071 serves no other p"rpose $"t to $enefit local place ent a!encies. Ce ar's the state ent ade $y the Solicitor +eneral in his -e orand" , viz.8 Often, place ent a!encies, their lia$ility $ein! solidary, sho"lder the pay ent of oney clai s in the event that :"risdiction over the forei!n e ployer is not ac%"ired $y the co"rt or if the forei!n e ployer rene!es on its o$li!ation. Cence, place ent a!encies that are in !ood faith and &hich f"lfill their o$li!ations are "nnecessarily penali;ed for the acts of the forei!n e ployer. To protect them and to promote their contin ed help! l contrib tion in deploying "ilipino migrant #or$ers, liability !or money claims #as red ced nder Section 1% o! R.&. No. '%(). @2 3E phasis s"pplied4 Petitioner ar!"es that in iti!atin! the solidary lia$ility of place ent a!encies, the s"$:ect cla"se sacrifices the &ell*$ein! of OF=s. Not only that, the provision a'es forei!n e ployers $etter off than local e ployers $eca"se in cases involvin! the ille!al dis issal of e ployees, forei!n e ployers are lia$le for salaries coverin! a a9i " of only three onths of the "ne9pired e ploy ent contract &hile local e ployers are lia$le for the f"ll l" p*s" salaries of their e ployees. As petitioner p"ts it8 In ter s of practical application, the local e ployers are not li ited to the a o"nt of $ac'&a!es they have to !ive their e ployees they have ille!ally dis issed, follo&in! &ell*entrenched and "ne%"ivocal :"rispr"dence on the atter. On the other hand, forei!n e ployers &ill only $e li ited to !ivin! the ille!ally dis issed i!rant &or'ers the a9i " of three 3@4 onths "npaid salaries not&ithstandin! the "ne9pired ter of the contract that can $e ore than three 3@4 onths.@6 Aastly, petitioner clai s that the s"$:ect cla"se violates the d"e process cla"se, for it deprives hi of the salaries and other e ol" ents he is entitled to "nder his fi9ed*period e ploy ent contract. @E Th% Ar&'(%nt) o* R%)-ond%nt) In their Co ent and -e orand" , respondents contend that the constit"tional iss"e sho"ld not $e entertained, for this &as $elatedly interposed $y petitioner in his appeal $efore the CA, and not at the earliest opport"nity, &hich &as &hen he filed an appeal $efore the NARC. 70 Th% Ar&'(%nt) o* th% Sol,c,tor G%n%ral #he Solicitor +eneral 3OS+47/ points o"t that as R.A. No. 6071 too' effect on ."ly /5, /EE5, its provisions co"ld not have i paired petitioner?s /EE6 e ploy ent contract. Rather, R.A. No. 6071 havin! preceded petitioner?s contract, the provisions thereof are dee ed part of the ini " ter s of petitioner?s e ploy ent, especially on the atter of oney clai s, as this &as not stip"lated "pon $y the parties. 71 -oreover, the OS+ e phasi;es that OF=s and local &or'ers differ in ter s of the nat"re of their e ploy ent, s"ch that their ri!hts to onetary $enefits "st necessarily $e treated differently. #he OS+ en" erates the essential ele ents that distin!"ish OF=s fro local &or'ers8 first, &hile local &or'ers perfor their :o$s &ithin Philippine territory, OF=s perfor their :o$s for forei!n e ployers, over &ho it is diffic"lt for o"r co"rts to ac%"ire :"risdiction, or a!ainst &ho it is al ost i possi$le to enforce :"d! entM and second, as held in Coyoca v. National Aa$or Relations Co ission 7@ and -illares v. 77 National Aa$or Relations Co ission, OF=s are contract"al e ployees &ho can never ac%"ire re!"lar e ploy ent stat"s, "nli'e local &or'ers &ho are or can $eco e re!"lar e ployees. Cence, the OS+ posits that there are ri!hts and privile!es e9cl"sive to local &or'ers, $"t not availa$le to OF=sM that these pec"liarities a'e for a reasona$le and valid $asis for the differentiated treat ent "nder the s"$:ect cla"se of the oney clai s of OF=s &ho are ille!ally dis issed. #h"s, the provision does not violate the e%"al protection cla"se nor Section /6, Article II of the Constit"tion. 75 Aastly, the OS+ defends the rationale $ehind the s"$:ect cla"se as a police po&er eas"re adopted to iti!ate the solidary lia$ility of place ent a!encies for this >redo"nds to the $enefit of the i!rant &or'ers &hose &elfare the !overn ent see's to pro ote. #he s"rvival of le!iti ate place ent a!encies

helps Iass"reJ the !overn ent that i!rant &or'ers are properly deployed and are e ployed "nder decent and h" ane conditions.>7F Th% Co'rt.) R'l,n& #he Co"rt s"stains petitioner on the first and second iss"es. =hen the Co"rt is called "pon to e9ercise its po&er of :"dicial revie& of the acts of its co*e%"als, s"ch as the Con!ress, it does so only &hen these conditions o$tain8 3/4 that there is an act"al case or controversy involvin! a conflict of ri!hts s"scepti$le of :"dicial deter inationM 72 314 that the constit"tional %"estion is raised $y a proper party76 and at the earliest opport"nityM7E and 3@4 that the constit"tional %"estion is the very lis ota of the case,50 other&ise the Co"rt &ill dis iss the case or decide the sa e on so e other !ro"nd.5/ =itho"t a do"$t, there e9ists in this case an act"al controversy directly involvin! petitioner &ho is personally a!!rieved that the la$or tri$"nals and the CA co p"ted his onetary a&ard $ased on the salary period of three onths only as provided "nder the s"$:ect cla"se. #he constit"tional challen!e is also ti ely. It sho"ld $e $orne in ind that the re%"ire ent that a constit"tional iss"e $e raised at the earliest opport"nity entails the interposition of the iss"e in the pleadin!s $efore a competent court, s"ch that, if the iss"e is not raised in the pleadin!s $efore that co petent co"rt, it cannot $e considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot $e considered on appeal.51 Records disclose that the iss"e on the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se &as first raised, not in petitioner?s appeal &ith the NARC, $"t in his -otion for Partial Reconsideration &ith said la$or tri$"nal,5@ and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari $efore the CA.57 Nonetheless, the iss"e is dee ed seasona$ly raised $eca"se it is not the NARC $"t the CA &hich has the co petence to resolve the constit"tional iss"e. #he NARC is a la$or tri$"nal that erely perfor s a %"asi*:"dicial f"nction N its f"nction in the present case is li ited to deter inin! %"estions of fact to &hich the le!islative policy of R.A. No. 6071 is to $e applied and to resolvin! s"ch %"estions in accordance &ith the standards laid do&n $y the la& itselfM55 th"s, its fore ost f"nction is to ad inister and enforce R.A. No. 6071, and not to in%"ire into the validity of its provisions. #he CA, on the other hand, is vested &ith the po&er of :"dicial revie& or the po&er to declare "nconstit"tional a la& or a provision thereof, s"ch as the s"$:ect cla"se. 5F Petitioner?s interposition of the constit"tional iss"e $efore the CA &as "ndo"$tedly seasona$le. #he CA &as therefore re iss in failin! to ta'e "p the iss"e in its decision. #he third condition that the constit"tional iss"e $e critical to the resol"tion of the case li'e&ise o$tains $eca"se the onetary clai of petitioner to his l" p*s" salary for the entire "ne9pired portion of his /1* onth e ploy ent contract, and not :"st for a period of three onths, stri'es at the very core of the s"$:ect cla"se. #h"s, the sta!e is all set for the deter ination of the constit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se. *oes the s b+ect cla se violate Section 1%, &rticle III o! the Constit tion on non,impairment o! contracts#he ans&er is in the ne!ative. Petitioner?s clai that the s"$:ect cla"se "nd"ly interferes &ith the stip"lations in his contract on the ter of his e ploy ent and the fi9ed salary pac'a!e he &ill receive52 is not tena$le. Section /0, Article III of the Constit"tion provides8 No la& i pairin! the o$li!ation of contracts shall $e passed. #he prohi$ition is ali!ned &ith the !eneral principle that la&s ne&ly enacted have only a prospective operation,56 and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfectedM 5E ho&ever, as to la&s already in e9istence, their provisions are read into contracts and dee ed a part thereof. F0 #h"s, the non*i pair ent cla"se "nder Section /0, Article II is li ited in application to la&s a$o"t to $e enacted that &o"ld in any &ay dero!ate fro e9istin! acts or contracts $y enlar!in!, a$rid!in! or in any anner chan!in! the intention of the parties thereto. As aptly o$served $y the OS+, the enact ent of R.A. No. 6071 in /EE5 preceded the e9ec"tion of the e ploy ent contract $et&een petitioner and respondents in /EE6. Cence, it cannot $e ar!"ed that R.A. No. 6071, partic"larly the s"$:ect cla"se, i paired the e ploy ent contract of the parties. Rather, &hen the parties e9ec"ted their /EE6 e ploy ent contract, they &ere dee ed to have incorporated into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 6071. B"t even if the Co"rt &ere to disre!ard the ti eline, the s"$:ect cla"se ay not $e declared "nconstit"tional on the !ro"nd that it i pin!es on the i pair ent cla"se, for the la& &as enacted in the e9ercise of the police po&er of the State to re!"late a $"siness, profession or callin!, partic"larly the recr"it ent and deploy ent of OF=s, &ith the no$le end in vie& of ens"rin! respect for the di!nity and

&ell*$ein! of OF=s &herever they ay $e e ployed.F/ Police po&er le!islations adopted $y the State to pro ote the health, orals, peace, ed"cation, !ood order, safety, and !eneral &elfare of the people are !enerally applica$le not only to f"t"re contracts $"t even to those already in e9istence, for all private contracts "st yield to the s"perior and le!iti ate eas"res ta'en $y the State to pro ote p"$lic &elfare.F1 *oes the s b+ect cla se violate Section 1, &rticle III o! the Constit tion, and Section 1', &rticle II and Section ., &rticle /III on labor as a protected sector#he ans&er is in the affir ative. Section /, Article III of the Constit"tion !"arantees8 No person shall $e deprived of life, li$erty, or property &itho"t d"e process of la& nor shall any person $e denied the e%"al protection of the la&. Section /6,F@ Article II and Section @,F7 Article OIII accord all e $ers of the la$or sector, &itho"t distinction as to place of deploy ent, f"ll protection of their ri!hts and &elfare. #o Filipino &or'ers, the ri!hts !"aranteed "nder the fore!oin! constit"tional provisions translate to econo ic sec"rity and parity8 all onetary $enefits sho"ld $e e%"ally en:oyed $y &or'ers of si ilar cate!ory, &hile all onetary o$li!ations sho"ld $e $orne $y the in e%"al de!reeM none sho"ld $e denied the protection of the la&s &hich is en:oyed $y, or spared the $"rden i posed on, others in li'e circ" stances.F5 S"ch ri!hts are not a$sol"te $"t s"$:ect to the inherent po&er of Con!ress to incorporate, &hen it sees fit, a syste of classification into its le!islationM ho&ever, to $e valid, the classification "st co ply &ith these re%"ire ents8 /4 it is $ased on s"$stantial distinctionsM 14 it is !er ane to the p"rposes of the la&M @4 it is not li ited to e9istin! conditions onlyM and 74 it applies e%"ally to all e $ers of the class. FF #here are three levels of scr"tiny at &hich the Co"rt revie&s the constit"tionality of a classification e $odied in a la&8 a4 the deferential or rational $asis scr"tiny in &hich the challen!ed classification needs only $e sho&n to $e rationally related to servin! a le!iti ate state interestMF2 $4 the iddle*tier or inter ediate scr"tiny in &hich the !overn ent "st sho& that the challen!ed classification serves an i portant state interest and that the classification is at least s"$stantially related to servin! that interestM F6 and c4 strict :"dicial scr"tinyFE in &hich a le!islative classification &hich i per issi$ly interferes &ith the e9ercise of a f"nda ental ri!ht20 or operates to the pec"liar disadvanta!e of a s"spect class2/ is pres" ed "nconstit"tional, and the $"rden is "pon the !overn ent to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compellin0 state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect s"ch interest.21 )nder A erican :"rispr"dence, strict :"dicial scr"tiny is tri!!ered $y s"spect classifications 2@ $ased on race27 or !ender25 $"t not &hen the classification is dra&n alon! inco e cate!ories. 2F It is different in the Philippine settin!. In Central Ban' 3no& Ban!'o Sentral n! Pilipinas4 E ployee Association, Inc. v. Ban!'o Sentral n! Pilipinas,22 the constit"tionality of a provision in the charter of the 0ang$o Sentral ng 1ilipinas 3BSP4, a !overn ent financial instit"tion 3+FI4, &as challen!ed for aintainin! its ran'*and*file e ployees "nder the Salary Standardi;ation Aa& 3SSA4, even &hen the ran'*and*file e ployees of other +FIs had $een e9e pted fro the SSA $y their respective charters. Findin! that the disp"ted provision contained a s"spect classification $ased on salary !rade, the Co"rt deli$erately e ployed the standard of strict :"dicial scr"tiny in its revie& of the constit"tionality of said provision. -ore si!nificantly, it &as in this case that the Co"rt revealed the $road o"tlines of its :"dicial philosophy, to &it8 Con!ress retains its &ide discretion in providin! for a valid classification, and its policies sho"ld $e accorded reco!nition and respect $y the co"rts of :"stice e9cept &hen they r"n afo"l of the Constit"tion. #he deference stops &here the classification violates a f"nda ental ri!ht, or -r%/'d,c%) -%r)on) accord%d )-%c,al -rot%ct,on 01 th% Con)t,t't,on. =hen these violations arise, this Co"rt "st dischar!e its pri ary role as the van!"ard of constit"tional !"aranties, and re%"ire a stricter and ore e9actin! adherence to constit"tional li itations. Rational $asis sho"ld not s"ffice. Ad ittedly, the vie& that pre:"dice to persons accorded special protection $y the Constit"tion re%"ires a stricter :"dicial scr"tiny finds no s"pport in A erican or En!lish :"rispr"dence. Nevertheless, these forei!n decisions and a"thorities are not per se controllin! in this :"risdiction. At $est, they are pers"asive and have $een "sed to s"pport any of o"r decisions. =e sho"ld not place "nd"e and fa&nin! reliance "pon the and re!ard the as indispensa$le ental cr"tches &itho"t &hich &e cannot co e to o"r o&n decisions thro"!h the e ploy ent of o"r o&n endo& ents. =e live in a different a $ience and "st

decide o"r o&n pro$le s in the li!ht of o"r o&n interests and needs, and of o"r %"alities and even idiosyncrasies as a people, and al&ays &ith o"r o&n concept of la& and :"stice. O"r la&s "st $e constr"ed in accordance &ith the intention of o"r o&n la& a'ers and s"ch intent ay $e ded"ced fro the lan!"a!e of each la& and the conte9t of other local le!islation related thereto. -ore i portantly, they "st $e constr"ed to serve o"r o&n p"$lic interest &hich is the $e*all and the end*all of all o"r la&s. And it need not $e stressed that o"r p"$lic interest is distinct and different fro others. 9999 F"rther, the %"est for a $etter and ore >e%"al> &orld calls for the "se of e%"al protection as a tool of effective :"dicial intervention. E%"ality is one ideal &hich cries o"t for $old attention and action in the Constit"tion. #he Prea $le proclai s >e%"ality> as an ideal precisely in protest a!ainst cr"shin! ine%"ities in Philippine society. #he co and to pro ote social :"stice in Article II, Section /0, in >all phases of national develop ent,> f"rther e9plicitated in Article OIII, are clear co ands to the State to ta'e affir ative action in the direction of !reater e%"ality. 9 9 9 I#Jhere is th"s in the Philippine Constit"tion no lac' of doctrinal s"pport for a ore vi!oro"s state effort to&ards achievin! a reasona$le eas"re of e%"ality. O"r present Constit"tion has !one f"rther in !"aranteein! vital social and econo ic ri!hts to ar!inali;ed !ro"ps of society, incl"din! la$or. )nder the policy of social :"stice, the la& $ends over $ac'&ard to acco odate the interests of the &or'in! class on the h" ane :"stification that those &ith less privile!e in life sho"ld have ore in la&. And the o$li!ation to afford protection to la$or is inc" $ent not only on the le!islative and e9ec"tive $ranches $"t also on the :"diciary to translate this pled!e into a livin! reality. Social :"stice calls for the h" ani;ation of la&s and the e%"ali;ation of social and econo ic forces $y the State so that :"stice in its rational and o$:ectively sec"lar conception ay at least $e appro9i ated. 9999 )nder ost circ" stances, the Co"rt &ill e9ercise :"dicial restraint in decidin! %"estions of constit"tionality, reco!ni;in! the $road discretion !iven to Con!ress in e9ercisin! its le!islative po&er. ."dicial scr"tiny &o"ld $e $ased on the >rational $asis> test, and the le!islative discretion &o"ld $e !iven deferential treat ent. B"t if the challen!e to the stat"te is pre ised on the denial of a f"nda ental ri!ht, or th% -%r-%t'at,on o* -r%/'d,c% a&a,n)t -%r)on) *a2or%d 01 th% Con)t,t't,on 3,th )-%c,al -rot%ct,on, /'d,c,al )cr't,n1 o'&ht to 0% (or% )tr,ct. A &ea' and &atered do&n vie& &o"ld call for the a$dication of this Co"rtKs sole n d"ty to stri'e do&n any la& rep"!nant to the Constit"tion and the ri!hts it enshrines. #his is tr"e &hether the actor co ittin! the "nconstit"tional act is a private person or the !overn ent itself or one of its instr" entalities. Oppressive acts &ill $e str"c' do&n re!ardless of the character or nat"re of the actor. 9999 In the case at $ar, the challen!ed proviso operates on the $asis of the salary !rade or officer*e ployee stat"s. It is a'in to a distinction $ased on econo ic class and stat"s, &ith the hi!her !rades as recipients of a $enefit specifically &ithheld fro the lo&er !rades. Officers of the BSP no& receive hi!her co pensation pac'a!es that are co petitive &ith the ind"stry, &hile the poorer, lo&*salaried e ployees are li ited to the rates prescri$ed $y the SSA. #he i plications are %"ite dist"r$in!8 BSP ran'*and*file e ployees are paid the strictly re!i ented rates of the SSA &hile e ployees hi!her in ran' * possessin! hi!her and $etter ed"cation and opport"nities for career advance ent * are !iven hi!her co pensation pac'a!es to entice the to stay. Considerin! that a:ority, if not all, the ran'*and*file e ployees consist of people &hose stat"s and ran' in life are less and li ited, especially in ter s of :o$ ar'eta$ility, it is they * and not the officers * &ho have the real econo ic and financial need for the ad:"st ent . #his is in accord &ith the policy of the Constit"tion >to free the people fro poverty, provide ade%"ate social services, e9tend to the a decent standard of livin!, and i prove the %"ality of life for all.> Any act of Con!ress that r"ns co"nter to this constit"tional desiderat" deserves strict scr"tiny $y this Co"rt $efore it can pass "ster. 3E phasis s"pplied4 I $"ed &ith the sa e sense of >o$li!ation to afford protection to la$or,> the Co"rt in the present case also e ploys the standard of strict :"dicial scr"tiny, for it perceives in the s"$:ect cla"se a s"spect classification pre:"dicial to OF=s. )pon c"rsory readin!, the s"$:ect cla"se appears facially ne"tral, for it applies to all OF=s. Co&ever, a closer e9a ination reveals that the s"$:ect cla"se has a discri inatory intent a!ainst, and an invidio"s i pact on, OF=s at t&o levels8

First, OF=s &ith e ploy ent contracts of less than one year vis*P*vis OF=s &ith e ploy ent contracts of one year or oreM Second, a on! OF=s &ith e ploy ent contracts of ore than one yearM and #hird, OF=s vis*P*vis local &or'ers &ith fi9ed*period e ploy entM O4!) 3,th %(-lo1(%nt contract) o* l%)) than on% 1%ar vis232vis O4!) 3,th %(-lo1(%nt contract) o* on% 1%ar or (or% As pointed o"t $y petitioner,26 it &as in Marsaman Manning &gency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission2E 3Second Division, /EEE4 that the Co"rt laid do&n the follo&in! r"les on the application of the periods prescri$ed "nder Section /0354 of R.A. No. 607, to &it8 % plain readin0 of $ec. 4/ clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an ille0ally dismissed overseas contract wor5er, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3) months1 salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (4) year or more. !his is evident from the words 6for every year of the unexpired term6 which follows the words 6salaries x x x for three months.6 #o follo& petitionersK thin'in! that private respondent is entitled to three 3@4 onths salary only si ply $eca"se it is the lesser a o"nt is to co pletely disre!ard and overloo' so e &ords "sed in the stat"te &hile !ivin! effect to so e. #his is contrary to the &ell*esta$lished r"le in le!al her ene"tics that in interpretin! a stat"te, care sho"ld $e ta'en that every part or &ord thereof $e !iven effect since the la&* a'in! $ody is pres" ed to 'no& the eanin! of the &ords e ployed in the stat"e and to have "sed the advisedly. )t res a!is valeat %"a pereat.60 3E phasis s"pplied4 In -arsa an, the OF= involved &as ille!ally dis issed t&o onths into his /0* onth contract, $"t &as a&arded his salaries for the re ainin! 6 onths and F days of his contract. Prior to Marsaman, ho&ever, there &ere t&o cases in &hich the Co"rt ade conflictin! r"lin!s on Section /0354. One &as &sian Center !or Career and 2mployment System and Services v. National Labor Relations Commission 3Second Division, Octo$er /EE64,6/ &hich involved an OF= &ho &as a&arded a t&o*year e ploy ent contract, $"t &as dis issed after &or'in! for one year and t&o onths. #he AA declared his dis issal ille!al and a&arded hi SR/@,F00.00 as l" p*s" salary coverin! ei!ht onths, the "ne9pired portion of his contract. On appeal, the Co"rt red"ced the a&ard to SR@,F00.00 e%"ivalent to his three onthsK salary, this $ein! the lesser val"e, to &it8 )nder Section /0 of R.A. No. 6071, a &or'er dis issed fro overseas e ploy ent &itho"t :"st, valid or a"thori;ed ca"se is entitled to his salary for the "ne9pired portion of his e ploy ent contract or for three 3@4 onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter , &hichever is less. In the case at $ar, the "ne9pired portion of private respondentKs e ploy ent contract is ei!ht 364 onths. Private respondent sho"ld therefore $e paid his $asic salary correspondin! to three 3@4 onths or a total of SR@,F00.61 Another &as Triple,2ight Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission 3#hird Division, Dece $er /EE64,6@ &hich involved an OF= 3therein respondent Erlinda Osdana4 &ho &as ori!inally !ranted a /1* onth contract, &hich &as dee ed rene&ed for another /1 onths. After servin! for one year and seven*and*a*half onths, respondent Osdana &as ille!ally dis issed, and the Co"rt a&arded her salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion of fo"r and one*half onths of her contract. #he Marsaman interpretation of Section /0354 has since $een adopted in the follo&in! cases8
Ca)% T,tl% Contract +%r,od +%r,od o* S%r2,c% "n%5-,r%d +%r,od +%r,od A--l,%d ,n th% Co(-'tat,on o* th% Mon%tar1 A3ard 7 7 5 onths onths onths

S'ippers v. -a!"ad67 Bahia Shippin! v. Reynaldo Ch"a 65 Centennial #rans arine v. dela Cr"; l6F

F E E

onths onths onths

1 6 7

onths onths onths

7 7 5

onths onths onths

#alidano v. Falcon62 )nivan v. CA 66 Oriental v. CA 6E PCA v. NARCE0 Olarte v. NayonaE/ .SS v.FerrerE1 Penta!on v. AdelantarE@ Phil. E ploy v. Para io, et al.E7 Flo"rish -ariti e v. Al an;or E5 Athenna -anpo&er v. Dillanos EF

/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1

onths onths onths onths onths onths onths onths E

@ @

onths onths

E E /0

onths onths onths

@ @ @ @ @ @ 1

onths onths onths onths onths onths

ore than 1 onths ore than 1 onths 1/ days /F days onths and 2 days /0 onths 1@ // // 1

ore or less E onths onths and E days onths and 17 days onths and 1@ days 1 onths onths and 7 days F

onths and 1@ days )ne9pired portion onths or @ onths for each year of contract onths or @ onths for each year of contract

1 years

1F days

/ year, /0 onths and 16 days

onth

/ year, E onths and 16 days

As the fore!oin! atri9 readily sho&s, the s"$:ect cla"se classifies OF=s into t&o cate!ories. #he first cate!ory incl"des OF=s &ith fi9ed*period e ploy ent contracts of less than one yearM in case of ille!al dis issal, they are entitled to their salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion of their contract. #he second cate!ory consists of OF=s &ith fi9ed*period e ploy ent contracts of one year or oreM in case of ille!al dis issal, they are entitled to onetary a&ard e%"ivalent to only @ onths of the "ne9pired portion of their contracts. #he disparity in the treat ent of these t&o !ro"ps cannot $e disco"nted. In S$ippers, the respondent OF= &or'ed for only 1 onths o"t of his F* onth contract, $"t &as a&arded his salaries for the re ainin! 7 onths. In contrast, the respondent OF=s in 3riental and 1CL &ho had also &or'ed for a$o"t 1 onths o"t of their /1* onth contracts &ere a&arded their salaries for only @ onths of the "ne9pired portion of their contracts. Even the OF=s involved in Talidano and 4nivan &ho had &or'ed for a lon!er period of @ onths o"t of their /1* onth contracts $efore $ein! ille!ally dis issed &ere a&arded their salaries for only @ onths. #o ill"strate the disparity even ore vividly, the Co"rt ass" es a hypothetical OF=*A &ith an e ploy ent contract of /0 onths at a onthly salary rate of )SB/,000.00 and a hypothetical OF=*B &ith an e ploy ent contract of /5 onths &ith the sa e onthly salary rate of )SB/,000.00. Both co enced &or' on the sa e day and "nder the sa e e ployer, and &ere ille!ally dis issed after one onth of &or'. )nder the s"$:ect cla"se, OF=*A &ill $e entitled to )SBE,000.00, e%"ivalent to his salaries for the re ainin! E onths of his contract, &hereas OF=*B &ill $e entitled to only )SB@,000.00, e%"ivalent to his salaries for @ onths of the "ne9pired portion of his contract, instead of )SB/7,000.00 for the "ne9pired portion of /7 onths of his contract, as the )SB@,000.00 is the lesser a o"nt. #he disparity $eco es ore a!!ravatin! &hen the Co"rt ta'es into acco"nt :"rispr"dence that, prior to the effectivity of ).%. &o. -/78 on July 47, 499:, E2 ille!ally dis issed OF=s, no atter ho& lon! the period of their e ploy ent contracts, &ere entitled to their salaries for the entire "ne9pired portions of their contracts. #he atri9 $elo& spea's for itself8
Ca)% T,tl% Contract +%r,od o* "n%5-,r%d +%r,od A--l,%d ,n th%

+%r,od A#CI v. CA, et al.E6 Phil. Inte!rated v. NARCEE .+B v. NAC/00 A!oy v. NARC/0/ EDI v. NARC, et al./01 Barros v. NARC, et al./0@ Philippine #rans arine v. Carilla/07 1 years 1 years 1 years 1 years 1 years /1 /1 onths onths F

S%r2,c% 2 (onth) 2 days E 1 5 7 onths onths onths onths 5

+%r,od 11 1@ onths

Co(-'tat,on o* th% Mon%tar1 A3ard 11 1@ onths

onths and 1@ days onths onths onths onths

onths and 1@ days /5 11 /E 6 onths onths onths onths

/5 11 /E 6

onths and 11 days

onths and /6 days

onths and /6 days

It is plain that prior to R.&. No. '%(), all 3"5s, regardless o! contract periods or the ne6pired portions thereo!, #ere treated ali$e in terms o! the comp tation o! their monetary bene!its in case o! illegal dismissal. Their claims #ere s b+ected to a ni!orm r le o! comp tation7 their basic salaries m ltiplied by the entire ne6pired portion o! their employment contracts. #he enact ent of the s"$:ect cla"se in R.A. No. 6071 introd"ced a differentiated r"le of co p"tation of the oney clai s of ille!ally dis issed OF=s $ased on their e ploy ent periods, in the process sin0lin0 out one cate!ory &hose contracts have an "ne9pired portion of one year or ore and s"$:ectin! the to the pec"liar disadvanta!e of havin! their onetary a&ards li ited to their salaries for @ onths or for the "ne9pired portion thereof, &hichever is less, $"t all the &hile sparin! the other cate!ory fro s"ch pre:"dice, si ply $eca"se the latter?s "ne9pired contracts fall short of one year. A(on& O4!) !,th E(-lo1(%nt Contract) o* Mor% Than On% 6%ar )pon closer e9a ination of the ter inolo!y e ployed in the s"$:ect cla"se, the Co"rt no& has is!ivin!s on the acc"racy of the Marsaman interpretation. #he Co"rt notes that the s"$:ect cla"se >or for three 3@4 onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter , &hichever is less> contains the %"alifyin! phrases >every year> and >"ne9pired ter .> By its ordinary eanin!, the &ord >ter > eans a li ited or definite e9tent of ti e./05 Corollarily, that >every year> is $"t part of an >"ne9pired ter > is si!nificant in any &ays8 first, the "ne9pired ter "st $e at least one year, !or i! it #ere any shorter, there #o ld be no occasion !or s ch ne6pired term to be meas red by every yearM and second, the ori!inal ter "st $e ore than one year, for other&ise, &hatever &o"ld $e the "ne9pired ter thereof &ill not reach even a year. Conse%"ently, the ore decisive factor in the deter ination of &hen the s"$:ect cla"se >for three 3@4 onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter , &hichever is less> shall apply is not the len!th of the ori!inal contract period as held in Marsaman,/0F $"t the len!th of the "ne9pired portion of the contract period ** the s"$:ect cla"se applies in cases &hen the "ne9pired portion of the contract period is at least one year, &hich arith etically re%"ires that the ori!inal contract period $e ore than one year. Die&ed in that li!ht, the s"$:ect cla"se creates a s"$*layer of discri ination a on! OF=s &hose contract periods are for ore than one year8 those &ho are ille!ally dis issed &ith less than one year left in their contracts shall $e entitled to their salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion thereof, &hile those &ho are ille!ally dis issed &ith one year or ore re ainin! in their contracts shall $e covered $y the s"$:ect cla"se, and their onetary $enefits li ited to their salaries for three onths only. #o concretely ill"strate the application of the fore!oin! interpretation of the s"$:ect cla"se, the Co"rt ass" es hypothetical OF=*C and OF=*D, &ho each have a 17* onth contract at a salary rate of )SB/,000.00 per onth. OF=*C is ille!ally dis issed on the /1th onth, and OF=*D, on the /@th onth. Considerin! that there is at least /1 onths re ainin! in the contract period of OF=*C, the s"$:ect cla"se applies to the co p"tation of the latter?s onetary $enefits. #h"s, OF=*C &ill $e entitled, not to )SB/1,000,00 or the latter?s total salaries for the /1 onths "ne9pired portion of the contract, $"t

to the lesser a o"nt of )SB@,000.00 or the latter?s salaries for @ onths o"t of the /1* onth "ne9pired ter of the contract. On the other hand, OF=*D is spared fro the effects of the s"$:ect cla"se, for there are only // onths left in the latter?s contract period. #h"s, OF=*D &ill $e entitled to )SB//,000.00, &hich is e%"ivalent to hisGher total salaries for the entire //* onth "ne9pired portion. O4!) vis232vis ocal !or7%r) !,th 4,5%d#+%r,od E(-lo1(%nt As disc"ssed earlier, prior to R.A. No. 6071, a "nifor syste of co p"tation of the onetary a&ards of ille!ally dis issed OF=s &as in place. #his "nifor syste &as applica$le even to local &or'ers &ith fi9ed*ter e ploy ent./02 #he earliest r"le prescri$in! a "nifor syste of co p"tation &as act"ally Article 1EE of the Code of Co erce 3/6664,/06 to &it8 Article 1EE. If the contracts $et&een the erchants and their shop cler's and e ployees sho"ld have $een ade of a fi9ed period, none of the contractin! parties, &itho"t the consent of the other, ay &ithdra& fro the f"lfill ent of said contract "ntil the ter ination of the period a!reed "pon. Persons violatin! this cla"se shall $e s"$:ect to inde nify the loss and da a!e s"ffered, &ith the e9ception of the provisions contained in the follo&in! articles. In Reyes v. #he Co paQia -ariti a,/0E the Co"rt applied the fore!oin! provision to deter ine the lia$ility of a shippin! co pany for the ille!al dischar!e of its ana!ers prior to the e9piration of their fi9ed*ter e ploy ent. #he Co"rt therein held the shippin! co pany lia$le for the salaries of its ana!ers for the re ainder of their fi9ed*ter e ploy ent. #here is a ore specific r"le as far as seafarers are concerned8 Article F05 of the Code of Co erce &hich provides8 Article F05. If the contracts of the captain and e $ers of the cre& &ith the a!ent sho"ld $e for a definite period or voya!e, they cannot $e dischar!ed "ntil the f"lfill ent of their contracts, e9cept for reasons of ins"$ordination in serio"s atters, ro$$ery, theft, ha$it"al dr"n'enness, and da a!e ca"sed to the vessel or to its car!o $y alice or anifest or proven ne!li!ence. Article F05 &as applied to -adri!al Shippin! Co pany, Inc. v. O!ilvie,//0 in &hich the Co"rt held the shippin! co pany lia$le for the salaries and s"$sistence allo&ance of its ille!ally dis issed e ployees for the entire "ne9pired portion of their e ploy ent contracts. =hile Article F05 has re ained !ood la& "p to the present, /// Article 1EE of the Code of Co erce &as replaced $y Art. /56F of the Civil Code of /66E, to &it8 Article /56F. Field hands, echanics, artisans, and other la$orers hired for a certain ti e and for a certain &or' cannot leave or $e dis issed &itho"t s"fficient ca"se, $efore the f"lfill ent of the contract. 3E phasis s"pplied.4 Citin! Manresa, the Co"rt in Ae oine v. Al'an//1 read the dis:"nctive >or> in Article /56F as a con:"nctive >and> so as to apply the provision to local &or'ers &ho are e ployed for a ti e certain altho"!h for no partic"lar s'ill. #his interpretation of Article /56F &as reiterated in +arcia Palo ar v. Cotel de France Co pany.//@ And in $oth Ae oine and Palo ar, the Co"rt adopted the !eneral principle that in actions for &ron!f"l dischar!e fo"nded on Article /56F, local &or'ers are entitled to recover da a!es to the e9tent of the a o"nt stip"lated to $e paid to the $y the ter s of their contract. On the co p"tation of the a o"nt of s"ch da a!es, the Co"rt in Alda; v. +ay//7 held8 #he doctrine is &ell*esta$lished in A erican :"rispr"dence, and nothin! has $een $ro"!ht to o"r attention to the contrary "nder Spanish :"rispr"dence, that &hen an e ployee is &ron!f"lly dischar!ed it is his d"ty to see' other e ploy ent of the sa e 'ind in the sa e co "nity, for the p"rpose of red"cin! the da a!es res"ltin! fro s"ch &ron!f"l dischar!e. Co&ever, &hile this is the !eneral r"le, the $"rden of sho&in! that he failed to a'e an effort to sec"re other e ploy ent of a li'e nat"re, and that other e ploy ent of a li'e nat"re &as o$taina$le, is "pon the defendant. 5hen an employee is #rong! lly discharged nder a contract o! employment his prima !acie damage is the amo nt #hich he #o ld be entitled to had he contin ed in s ch employment ntil the termination o! the period . 3Co&ard vs. Daly, F/ N. (., @F1M Allen vs. =hitlar', EE -ich., 7E1M Farrell vs. School District No. 1, E6 -ich., 7@.4 //5 3E phasis s"pplied4 On A"!"st @0, /E50, the Ne& Civil Code too' effect &ith ne& provisions on fi9ed*ter e ploy ent8 Section 1 3O$li!ations &ith a Period4, Chapter @, #itle I, and Sections 1 3Contract of Aa$or4 and @ 3Contract for a Piece of =or'4, Chapter @, #itle DIII, Boo' ID. //F -"ch li'e Article /56F of the Civil Code of /66E, the ne& provisions of the Civil Code do not e9pressly provide for the re edies availa$le to a fi9ed* ter &or'er &ho is ille!ally dischar!ed. Co&ever, it is noted that in -ac'ay Radio R #ele!raph Co., Inc. v. Rich,//2 the Co"rt carried over the principles on the pay ent of da a!es "nderlyin! Article /56F of the

Civil Code of /66E and applied the sa e to a case involvin! the ille!al dischar!e of a local &or'er &hose fi9ed*period e ploy ent contract &as entered into in /E51, &hen the ne& Civil Code &as already in effect.//6 -ore si!nificantly, the sa e principles &ere applied to cases involvin! overseas Filipino &or'ers &hose fi9ed*ter e ploy ent contracts &ere ille!ally ter inated, s"ch as in First Asian #rans R Shippin! A!ency, Inc. v. Ople,//E involvin! seafarers &ho &ere ille!ally dischar!ed. In #e'ni'a S'ills and #rade Services, Inc. v. National Aa$or Relations Co ission, /10 an OF= &ho &as ille!ally dis issed prior to the e9piration of her fi9ed*period e ploy ent contract as a $a$y sitter, &as a&arded salaries correspondin! to the "ne9pired portion of her contract. #he Co"rt arrived at the sa e r"lin! in Anderson v. National Aa$or Relations Co ission,/1/ &hich involved a fore an hired in /E66 in Sa"di Ara$ia for a fi9ed ter of t&o years, $"t &ho &as ille!ally dis issed after only nine onths on the :o$ ** the Co"rt a&arded hi salaries correspondin! to /5 onths, the "ne9pired portion of his contract. In Asia =orld Recr"it ent, Inc. v. National Aa$or Relations Co ission,/11 a Filipino &or'in! as a sec"rity officer in /E6E in An!ola &as a&arded his salaries for the re ainin! period of his /1* onth contract after he &as &ron!f"lly dischar!ed. Finally, in 8inta Maritime Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, /1@ an OF= &hose /1* onth contract &as ille!ally c"t short in the second onth &as declared entitled to his salaries for the re ainin! /0 onths of his contract. In s m, prior to R.&. No. '%(), 3"5s and local #or$ers #ith !i6ed,term employment #ho #ere illegally discharged #ere treated ali$e in terms o! the comp tation o! their money claims7 they #ere ni!ormly entitled to their salaries !or the entire ne6pired portions o! their contracts. B"t &ith the enact ent of R.A. No. 6071, specifically the adoption of the s"$:ect cla"se, ille!ally dis issed OF=s &ith an "ne9pired portion of one year or ore in their e ploy ent contract have since $een differently treated in that their oney clai s are s"$:ect to a @* onth cap, &hereas no s"ch li itation is i posed on local &or'ers &ith fi9ed*ter e ploy ent. !he ;ourt concludes that the su<=ect clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary <enefits of fixed2term employees who are ille0ally dischar0ed, it imposes a 32month cap on the claim of ">?s with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, <ut none on the claims of other ">?s or local wor5ers with fixed2term employment. !he su<=ect clause sin0les out one classification of ">?s and <urdens it with a peculiar disadvanta0e. #here $ein! a s"spect classification involvin! a v"lnera$le sector protected $y the Constit"tion, the Co"rt no& s"$:ects the classification to a strict :"dicial scr"tiny, and deter ines &hether it serves a co pellin! state interest thro"!h the least restrictive eans. =hat constit"tes co pellin! state interest is eas"red $y the scale of ri!hts and po&ers arrayed in the Constit"tion and cali$rated $y history./17 It is a'in to the para o"nt interest of the state/15 for &hich so e individ"al li$erties "st !ive &ay, s"ch as the p"$lic interest in safe!"ardin! health or aintainin! edical standards,/1F or in aintainin! access to infor ation on atters of p"$lic concern. /12 In the present case, the Co"rt d"! deep into the records $"t fo"nd no co pellin! state interest that the s"$:ect cla"se ay possi$ly serve. #he OS+ defends the s"$:ect cla"se as a police po&er eas"re >desi!ned to protect the e ploy ent of Filipino seafarers overseas 9 9 9. By li itin! the lia$ility to three onths IsicJ, Filipino seafarers have $etter chance of !ettin! hired $y forei!n e ployers.> #he li itation also protects the interest of local place ent a!encies, &hich other&ise ay $e ade to sho"lder illions of pesos in >ter ination pay.> /16 #he OS+ e9plained f"rther8 Often, place ent a!encies, their lia$ility $ein! solidary, sho"lder the pay ent of oney clai s in the event that :"risdiction over the forei!n e ployer is not ac%"ired $y the co"rt or if the forei!n e ployer rene!es on its o$li!ation. Cence, place ent a!encies that are in !ood faith and &hich f"lfill their o$li!ations are "nnecessarily penali;ed for the acts of the forei!n e ployer. #o protect the and to pro ote their contin"ed helpf"l contri$"tion in deployin! Filipino i!rant &or'ers, lia$ility for oney are red"ced "nder Section /0 of RA 6071. #his eas"re redo"nds to the $enefit of the i!rant &or'ers &hose &elfare the !overn ent see's to pro ote. #he s"rvival of le!iti ate place ent a!encies helps Iass"reJ the !overn ent that i!rant &or'ers are properly deployed and are e ployed "nder decent and h" ane conditions. /1E 3E phasis s"pplied4 Co&ever, no&here in the Co ent or -e orand" does the OS+ cite the so"rce of its perception of the state interest so"!ht to $e served $y the s"$:ect cla"se.

#he OS+ locates the p"rpose of R.A. No. 6071 in the speech of Rep. Bonifacio +alle!o in sponsorship of Co"se Bill No. /7@/7 3CB /7@/74, fro &hich the la& ori!inatedM /@0 $"t the speech a'es no reference to the "nderlyin! reason for the adoption of the s"$:ect cla"se. #hat is only nat"ral for none of the 1E provisions in CB /7@/7 rese $les the s"$:ect cla"se. On the other hand, Senate Bill No. 1022 3SB 10224 contains a provision on oney clai s, to &it8 Sec. /0. Money Claims. * Not&ithstandin! any provision of la& to the contrary, the Aa$or Ar$iters of the National Aa$or Relations Co ission 3NARC4 shall have the ori!inal and e9cl"sive :"risdiction to hear and decide, &ithin ninety 3E04 calendar days after the filin! of the co plaint, the clai s arisin! o"t of an e ployer*e ployee relationship or $y virt"e of the co plaint, the clai arisin! o"t of an e ployer* e ployee relationship or $y virt"e of any la& or contract involvin! Filipino &or'ers for overseas e ploy ent incl"din! clai s for act"al, oral, e9e plary and other for s of da a!es. #he lia$ility of the principal and the recr"it entGplace ent a!ency or any and all clai s "nder this Section shall $e :oint and several. Any co pro iseGa ica$le settle ent or vol"ntary a!ree ent on any oney clai s e9cl"sive of da a!es "nder this Section shall not $e less than fifty percent 350<4 of s"ch oney clai s8 1rovided, #hat any install ent pay ents, if applica$le, to satisfy any s"ch co pro ise or vol"ntary settle ent shall not $e ore than t&o 314 onths. Any co pro iseGvol"ntary a!ree ent in violation of this para!raph shall $e n"ll and void. Non*co pliance &ith the andatory period for resol"tions of cases provided "nder this Section shall s"$:ect the responsi$le officials to any or all of the follo&in! penalties8 3/4 #he salary of any s"ch official &ho fails to render his decision or resol"tion &ithin the prescri$ed period shall $e, or ca"sed to $e, &ithheld "ntil the said official co plies there&ithM 314 S"spension for not ore than ninety 3E04 daysM or 3@4 Dis issal fro the service &ith dis%"alification to hold any appointive p"$lic office for five 354 years. Provided, ho&ever, #hat the penalties herein provided shall $e &itho"t pre:"dice to any lia$ility &hich any s"ch official ay have inc"rred "nder other e9istin! la&s or r"les and re!"lations as a conse%"ence of violatin! the provisions of this para!raph. B"t si!nificantly, Section /0 of SB 1022 does not provide for any r"le on the co p"tation of oney clai s. A r"le on the co p"tation of oney clai s containin! the s"$:ect cla"se &as inserted and event"ally adopted as the 5th para!raph of Section /0 of R.A. No. 6071. #he Co"rt e9a ined the rationale of the s"$:ect cla"se in the transcripts of the >Bica eral Conference Co ittee 3Conference Co ittee4 -eetin!s on the -a!na Carta on OC=s 3Disa!reein! Provisions of Senate Bill No. 1022 and Co"se Bill No. /7@/74.> Co&ever, the Co"rt finds no discerni$le state interest, let alone a co pellin! one, that is so"!ht to $e protected or advanced $y the adoption of the s"$:ect cla"se. In fine, the +overn ent has failed to dischar!e its $"rden of provin! the e9istence of a co pellin! state interest that &o"ld :"stify the perpet"ation of the discri ination a!ainst OF=s "nder the s"$:ect cla"se. Ass" in! that, as advanced $y the OS+, the p"rpose of the s"$:ect cla"se is to protect the e ploy ent of OF=s $y iti!atin! the solidary lia$ility of place ent a!encies, s"ch callo"s and cavalier rationale &ill have to $e re:ected. #here can never $e a :"stification for any for of !overn ent action that alleviates the $"rden of one sector, $"t i poses the sa e $"rden on another sector, especially &hen the favored sector is co posed of private $"sinesses s"ch as place ent a!encies, &hile the disadvanta!ed sector is co posed of OF=s &hose protection no less than the Constit"tion co ands. #he idea that private $"siness interest can $e elevated to the level of a co pellin! state interest is odio"s. -oreover, even if the p"rpose of the s"$:ect cla"se is to lessen the solidary lia$ility of place ent a!encies vis,a,vis their forei!n principals, there are echanis s already in place that can $e e ployed to achieve that p"rpose &itho"t infrin!in! on the constit"tional ri!hts of OF=s. #he POEA R"les and Re!"lations +overnin! the Recr"it ent and E ploy ent of Aand*Based Overseas =or'ers, dated Fe$r"ary 7, 1001, i poses ad inistrative disciplinary eas"res on errin! forei!n e ployers &ho defa"lt on their contract"al o$li!ations to i!rant &or'ers andGor their Philippine a!ents. #hese disciplinary eas"res ran!e fro te porary dis%"alification to preventive s"spension. #he POEA R"les and Re!"lations +overnin! the Recr"it ent and E ploy ent of Seafarers, dated -ay 1@, 100@, contains si ilar ad inistrative disciplinary eas"res a!ainst errin! forei!n e ployers. Resort to these ad inistrative eas"res is "ndo"$tedly the less restrictive eans of aidin! local place ent a!encies in enforcin! the solidary lia$ility of their forei!n principals. #h"s, the s"$:ect cla"se in the 5th para!raph of Section /0 of R.A. No. 6071 is violative of the ri!ht of petitioner and other OF=s to e%"al protection.1avvphi1

F"rther, there &o"ld $e certain is!ivin!s if one is to approach the declaration of the "nconstit"tionality of the s"$:ect cla"se fro the lone perspective that the cla"se directly violates state policy on la$or "nder Section @,/@/ Article OIII of the Constit"tion. =hile all the provisions of the /E62 Constit"tion are pres" ed self*e9ec"tin!, /@1 there are so e &hich this Co"rt has declared not =udicially enforcea<le, Article OIII $ein! one,/@@ partic"larly Section @ thereof, the nat"re of &hich, this Co"rt, in &gabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,/@7 has descri$ed to $e not self*act"atin!8 #h"s, the constit"tional andates of protection to la$or and sec"rity of ten"re ay $e dee ed as self* e9ec"tin! in the sense that these are a"to atically ac'no&led!ed and o$served &itho"t need for any ena$lin! le!islation. Co&ever, to declare that the constit"tional provisions are eno"!h to !"arantee the f"ll e9ercise of the ri!hts e $odied therein, and the reali;ation of ideals therein e9pressed, &o"ld $e i practical, if not "nrealistic. #he espo"sal of s"ch vie& presents the dan!ero"s tendency of $ein! over$road and e9a!!erated. #he !"arantees of >f"ll protection to la$or> and >sec"rity of ten"re>, &hen e9a ined in isolation, are facially "n%"alified, and the $roadest interpretation possi$le s"!!ests a $lan'et shield in favor of la$or a!ainst any for of re oval re!ardless of circ" stance. #his interpretation i plies an "ni peacha$le ri!ht to contin"ed e ploy ent*a "topian notion, do"$tless*$"t still hardly &ithin the conte plation of the fra ers. S"$se%"ent le!islation is still needed to define the para eters of these !"aranteed ri!hts to ens"re the protection and pro otion, not only the ri!hts of the la$or sector, $"t of the e ployers? as &ell. =itho"t specific and pertinent le!islation, :"dicial $odies &ill $e at a loss, for "latin! their o&n concl"sion to appro9i ate at least the ai s of the Constit"tion. #ltimately, therefore, $ection 3 of %rticle @III cannot, on its own, <e a source of a positive enforcea<le ri0ht to stave off the dis issal of an e ployee for :"st ca"se o&in! to the fail"re to serve proper notice or hearin!. As anifested $y several fra ers of the /E62 Constit"tion, the provisions on social :"stice re%"ire le!islative enact ents for their enforcea$ility. /@5 3E phasis added4 #h"s, Section @, Article OIII cannot $e treated as a principal so"rce of direct enforcea$le ri!hts, for the violation of &hich the %"estioned cla"se ay $e declared "nconstit"tional. It ay "n&ittin!ly ris' openin! the flood!ates of liti!ation to every &or'er or "nion over every conceiva$le violation of so $road a concept as social :"stice for la$or. It "st $e stressed that Section @, Article OIII does not directly $esto& on the &or'in! class any act"al enforcea$le ri!ht, $"t erely clothes it &ith the stat"s of a sector for &ho the Constit"tion "r!es protection thro"!h e9ec"tive or le!islative action and =udicial reco0nition. Its "tility is $est li ited to $ein! an i pet"s not :"st for the e9ec"tive and le!islative depart ents, $"t for the :"diciary as &ell, to protect the &elfare of the &or'in! class. And it &as in fact consistent &ith that constit"tional a!enda that the Co"rt in Central 0an$ 9no# 0ang$o Sentral ng 1ilipinas: 2mployee &ssociation, Inc. v. 0ang$o Sentral ng 1ilipinas, penned $y then Associate ."stice no& Chief ."stice Reynato S. P"no, for "lated the :"dicial precept that &hen the challen!e to a stat"te is pre ised on the perpet"ation of pre:"dice a!ainst persons favored $y the Constit"tion &ith special protection ** s"ch as the &or'in! class or a section thereof ** the Co"rt ay reco!ni;e the e9istence of a s"spect classification and s"$:ect the sa e to strict :"dicial scr"tiny. #he vie& that the concepts of s"spect classification and strict :"dicial scr"tiny for "lated in Central 0an$ 2mployee &ssociation e9a!!erate the si!nificance of Section @, Article OIII is a !ro"ndless apprehension. Central 0an$ applied Article OIII in con:"nction &ith the e%"al protection cla"se. Article OIII, $y itself, &itho"t the application of the e%"al protection cla"se, has no life or force of its o&n as el"cidated in &gabon. Alon! the sa e line of reasonin!, the Co"rt f"rther holds that the s"$:ect cla"se violates petitioner?s ri!ht to s"$stantive d"e process, for it deprives hi of property, consistin! of onetary $enefits, &itho"t any e9istin! valid !overn ental p"rpose./@F #he ar!" ent of the Solicitor +eneral, that the act"al p"rpose of the s"$:ect cla"se of li itin! the entitle ent of OF=s to their three* onth salary in case of ille!al dis issal, is to !ive the a $etter chance of !ettin! hired $y forei!n e ployers. #his is plain spec"lation. As earlier disc"ssed, there is nothin! in the te9t of the la& or the records of the deli$erations leadin! to its enact ent or the pleadin!s of respondent that &o"ld indicate that there is an e9istin! !overn ental p"rpose for the s"$:ect cla"se, or even :"st a prete9t of one. #he s"$:ect cla"se does not state or i ply any definitive !overn ental p"rposeM and it is for that precise reason that the cla"se violates not :"st petitioner?s ri!ht to e%"al protection, $"t also her ri!ht to s"$stantive d"e process "nder Section /,/@2 Article III of the Constit"tion.

#he s"$:ect cla"se $ein! "nconstit"tional, petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire "ne9pired period of nine onths and 1@ days of his e ploy ent contract, p"rs"ant to la& and :"rispr"dence prior to the enact ent of R.A. No. 6071. "n the !hird Issue Petitioner contends that his overti e and leave pay sho"ld for part of the salary $asis in the co p"tation of his onetary a&ard, $eca"se these are fi9ed $enefits that have $een stip"lated into his contract. Petitioner is ista'en. #he &ord salaries in Section /0354 does not incl"de overti e and leave pay. For seafarers li'e petitioner, DOAE Depart ent Order No. @@, series /EEF, provides a Standard E ploy ent Contract of Seafarers, in &hich salary is "nderstood as the $asic &a!e, e9cl"sive of overti e, leave pay and other $on"sesM &hereas overti e pay is co pensation for all &or' >perfor ed> in e9cess of the re!"lar ei!ht ho"rs, and holiday pay is co pensation for any &or' >perfor ed> on desi!nated rest days and holidays. By the fore!oin! definition alone, there is no $asis for the a"to atic incl"sion of overti e and holiday pay in the co p"tation of petitioner?s onetary a&ard, "nless there is evidence that he perfor ed &or' d"rin! those periods. As the Co"rt held in Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. *ela Cr z,/@6 Co&ever, the pay ent of overti e pay and leave pay sho"ld $e disallo&ed in li!ht of o"r r"lin! in Ca!a pan v. National Aa$or Relations Co ission, to &it8 #he rendition of overti e &or' and the s"$ ission of s"fficient proof that said &as act"ally perfor ed are conditions to $e satisfied $efore a sea an co"ld $e entitled to overti e pay &hich sho"ld $e co p"ted on the $asis of @0< of the $asic onthly salary. In short, the contract provision !"arantees the ri!ht to overti e pay $"t the entitle ent to s"ch $enefit "st first $e esta$lished. In the sa e vein, the clai for the day?s leave pay for the "ne9pired portion of the contract is "n&arranted since the sa e is !iven d"rin! the act"al service of the sea en. !8ERE4ORE, the Co"rt GRANTS the Petition. #he s"$:ect cla"se >or for three onths for every year of the "ne9pired ter , &hichever is less> in the 5th para!raph of Section /0 of Rep"$lic Act No. 6071 is 9EC ARE9 "NCONSTIT"TIONA M and the Dece $er 6, 1007 Decision and April /, 1005 Resol"tion of the Co"rt of Appeals are MO9I4IE9 to the effect that petitioner is A!AR9E9 his salaries for the entire "ne9pired portion of his e ploy ent contract consistin! of nine onths and 1@ days co p"ted at the rate of )SB/,700.00 per onth. No costs. SO OR9ERE9. MA. A ICIA A"STRIA#MARTINE$ Associate ."stice =E CONC)R8 RE6NATO S. +"NO Chief ."stice
EONAR9O A. :"IS"M;ING Associate ."stice ANTONIO T. CAR+IO Associate ."stice CONC8ITA CAR+IO MORA ES Associate ."stice 3On leave4 MINITA V. C8ICO#NA$ARIO Associate ."stice ANTONIO E9"AR9O ;. NAC8"RA Associate ."stice 3see conc"rrin! opinion4 CONS"E O 6NARES#SANTIAGO Associate ."stice RENATO C. CORONA Associate ."stice 9ANTE O. TINGA Associate ."stice +RES;ITERO <. VE ASCO, <R. Associate ."stice TERESITA <. EONAR9O#9E CASTRO Associate ."stice 9IOS9A9O M. +ERA TA

ART"RO 9. ;RION Associate ."stice

Associate ."stice

CER#IFICA#ION P"rs"ant to Section /@, Article DIII of the Constit"tion, it is here$y certified that the concl"sions in the a$ove Decision &ere reached in cons"ltation $efore the case &as assi!ned to the &riter of the opinion of the Co"rt. RE6NATO S. +"NO Chief ."stice 4ootnot%) / http8GG&&&."n.or!GNe&sGPressGdocsG1002Gs!s //067.doc.ht . 1 -i!rant =or'ers and Overseas Filipinos Act of /EE5, effective ."ly /5, /EE5. @ Penned $y Associate ."stice Andres B. Reyes, .r. and conc"rred in $y Associate ."stices A"cas P. Bersa in and Celia C. Ai$rea*Aea!o!oM rollo, p. 1@/. 7 Id. at 176. 5 Rollo, p. 52. F Id. at 56. 2 Id. at 5E. 6 Id. at 76. E Id. at 55. /0 Accordin! to petitioner, this a o"nt represents the pro*rated difference $et&een the salary of )SB1,5E0.00 per onth &hich he &as s"pposed to receive as Chief Officer fro -arch /E, /EE6 to April @0, /EE6 and the salary of )SB/,650.00 per onth &hich he &as act"ally paid as Second Officer for the sa e period. See AA Decision, rollo, pp. /02 and //1. // Position Paper, id. at 5@*57. /1 #he AA a&arded petitioner )SB75.00 o"t of the )SB/,760.00 salary differential to &hich petitioner is entitled in vie& of his havin! received fro respondents )SB/,7@5.00 as evidenced $y receipts ar'ed as Anne9es >F>, >+> and >C>, id. at @/E*@1/. /@ Id. at //7. /7 Rollo, pp. ///*//1. /5 Id. at /17. /F Id. at //5. /2 +.R. No. /1E567, Dece $er @, /EE6, 1EE SCRA F06. /6 Appeal -e orand" , rollo, p. /1/. /E Id. at /@7. 10 NARC Decision, rollo, p. /70. 1/ Id. at /7F*/50. 11 Id. at /5@. 1@ Id. at /55. 17 Id. at /FF*/22. 15 CA Decision, id. at 1@E*17/. 1F Id. at 171. 12 Id. at 176. 16 Petition, rollo, p. 16. 1E Id. at 262. @0 Id. at 2EE. @/ Rollo, p. 161 @1 -e orand" for Petitioner, id. at 27/*271. @@ Id. at 27F*25@. @7 Section /6. #he State affir s la$or as a pri ary social econo ic force. It shall protect the ri!hts of &or'ers and pro ote their &elfare. @5 Rollo, pp. 2F@*2FF. @F Petition, id. at 2@5. @2 -e orand" of the Solicitor +eneral, rollo, p. F60. @6 -e orand" for Petitioner, id. at 255.

@E

Id. at 2F/*2F@. Rollo, pp. F75*F7F and 5/1*5/@. 7/ Alfredo A. Benipayo &as Solicitor +eneral at the ti e the Co ent &as filed. Antonio Ed"ardo B. Nach"ra 3no& an Associate ."stice of the S"pre e Co"rt4 &as Solicitor +eneral &hen the -e orand" &as filed. 71 -e orand" of the Solicitor +eneral, id. at FF1*FF5. 7@ +.R. No. //@F56, -arch @/, /EE5, 17@ SCRA /E0. 77 +.R. No. //0517, ."ly 1E, 1001, @65 SCRA @0F. 75 -e orand" of the Solicitor +eneral, rollo, pp. FF6*F26. 7F Id. at F61. 72 The 1rovince o! North Cotabato v. The ;overnment o! the Rep blic o! the 1hilippines 1eace 1anel on &ncestral *omain, +.R. No. /6@5E/ Octo$er /7, 1006. 76 & tomotive Ind stry 5or$ers &lliance v. Rom lo, G.R. No. 1=7=09, <an'ar1 1>, 200=, 449 SCRA 1. 7E *avid v. Macapagal,&rroyo, +.R. No. /2/@EF, -ay @, 100F, 76E SCRA /F0. 50 &rceta v. Mangrobang, +.R. No. /516E5, ."ne /5, 1007, 7@1 SCRA /@F. 5/ Molde6 Realty, Inc. v. <o sing and Land 4se Reg latory 0oard, +.R. No. /7E2/E, ."ne 1/, 1002, 515 SCRA /E6M Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 1=607>, March 14, 200>, =4> SCRA 409. 51 Matibag v. 0enipayo, +.R. No. /7E0@F, April 1, 1001, @60 SCRA 7E. 5@ Rollo, p. /75. 57 Id. at /FF. 55 Smart Comm nications, Inc. v. National Telecomm nications Commission , +.R. No. /5/E06, A"!"st /1, 100@, 706 SCRA F26. 5F 2= i,&sia 1lacement, Inc. v. *epartment o! "oreign &!!airs, +.R. No. /511/7, Septe $er /E, 100F, 501 SCRA 1E5. 52 -e orand" for Petitioner, rollo, pp. 27/*271. 56 "rti0as A ;o., +td. v. ;ourt of %ppeals, +.R. No. /1F/01, Dece $er 7, 1000, @7F SCRA 276. 5E 1icop Reso rces, Inc. v. 0ase Metals Mineral Reso rces Corporation, +.R. No. /F@50E, Dece $er F, 100F, 5/0 SCRA 700. F0 5al$er v. 5hitehead, 6@ ).S. @/7 3/62@4M 5ood v. Lovett, @/@ ).S. @F1, @20 3/E7/4M Intrata, &ss rance Corporation v. Rep blic o! the 1hilippines, +.R. No. /5F52/, ."ly E, 1006M Smart Comm nications, Inc. v. City o! *avao, G.R. No. 1==491, S%-t%(0%r 16, 200>. F/ 26ec tive Secretary v. Co rt o! &ppeals, +.R. No. /@/2/E, -ay 15, 1007, 71E SCRA 6/, citin! >MM 1romotion and Management, Inc. v. Co rt o! &ppeals, +.R. No. /100E5, A"!"st 5, /EEF, 1F0 SCRA @/E. F1 3rtigas ? Co., Ltd. v. Co rt o! &ppeals, s"pra note 56. F@ Section /6. #he State affir s la$or as a pri ary social econo ic force. It shall protect the ri!hts of &or'ers and pro ote their &elfare. F7 Section @, #he State shall afford f"ll protection to la$or, local and overseas, or!ani;ed and "nor!ani;ed, and pro ote f"ll e ploy ent and e%"ality of e ploy ent opport"nities for all. F5 See City o! Manila v. Lag io, +.R. No. //6/12, April /1, 1005, 755 SCRA @06M 1imentel III v. Commission on 2lections, +.R. No. /267/@, -arch /@, 1006, 576 SCRA /FE. FF Leag e o! Cities o! the 1hilippines v. Commission on 2lections +.R. No. /2FE5/, Nove $er /6, 1006M 0eltran v. Secretary o! <ealth, +.R. No. /@E/72,Nove $er 15, 1005, 72F SCRA /F6. F2 &ssociation o! Small Lando#ners in the 1hilippines v. Secretary o! &grarian Re!orm , +.R. No. 26271, ."ly /7, /E6E, /25 SCRA @7@. F6 Los &ngeles v. &lmeda 0oo$s, Inc., 5@5 ).S. 715 310014M Craig v. 0oren, 71E )S /E0 3/E2F4. FE #here is also the >hei!htened scr"tiny> standard of revie& &hich is less de andin! than >strict scr"tiny> $"t ore de andin! than the standard rational relation test. Cei!htened scr"tiny has !enerally $een applied to cases that involve discri inatory classifications $ased on se9 or ille!iti acy, s"ch as in 1lyler v. *oe, 752 ).S. 101, &here a hei!htened scr"tiny standard &as "sed to invalidate a State?s denial to the children of ille!al aliens of the free p"$lic ed"cation that it ade availa$le to other residents.
70

20

&merica v. *ale, 5@0 ).S. F70 310004M 1arents Involved in Comm nity Schools v. Seattle School *istrict No. 1, 55/ ).S. 310024M http8GG&&&.s"pre eco"rt"s.!ovGopinionsG0FpdfG05* E06.pdf. 2/ Adarand Constr"ctors, Inc. v. PeQa, 5/5 )S 1@0 3/EE54. 21 ;r tter v. 0ollinger, 5@E )S @0F 3100@4M 0ernal v. "ainter, 7F2 )S 1/F 3/E674. 2@ #he concept of s"spect classification first e er!ed in the fa o"s footnote in the opinion of ."stice Carlan Stone in ).S. v. Carolene Prod"cts Co., @07 ).S. /77 3/E@64, the f"ll te9t of &hich footnote is reprod"ced $elo&8 #here ay $e narro&er scope for operation of the pres" ption of constit"tionality &hen le!islation appears on its face to $e &ithin a specific prohi$ition of the Constit"tion, s"ch as those of the first ten a end ents, &hich are dee ed e%"ally specific &hen held to $e e $raced &ithin the Fo"rteenth. See Stro $er! v. California, 16@ ).S. @5E, @FE*@20M Aovell v. +riffin, @0@ ).S. 777, 751. It is "nnecessary to consider no& &hether le!islation &hich restricts those political processes &hich can ordinarily $e e9pected to $rin! a$o"t repeal of "ndesira$le le!islation is to $e s"$:ected to ore e9actin! :"dicial scr"tiny "nder the !eneral prohi$itions of the Fo"rteenth A end ent than are ost other types of le!islation. On restrictions "pon the ri!ht to vote, see Ni9on v. Cerndon, 12@ ).S. 5@FM Ni9on v. Condon, 16F ).S. 2@M on restraints "pon the disse ination of infor ation, see Near v. -innesota e9 rel. Olson, 16@ ).S. FE2, 2/@*2/7, 2/6*210, 211M +ros:ean v. A erican Press Co., 1E2 ).S. 1@@M Aovell v. +riffin, s"praM on interferences &ith political or!ani;ations, see Stro $er! v. California, s"pra, @FEM Fis'e v. ,ansas, 127 ).S. @60M =hitney v. California, 127 ).S. @52, @2@*@26M Cerndon v. Ao&ry, @0/ ).S. 171, and see Col es, .., in +itlo& v. Ne& (or', 1F6 ).S. F51, F2@M as to prohi$ition of peacea$le asse $ly, see De .on!e v. Ore!on, 1EE ).S. @5@, @F5. Nor need &e en%"ire &hether si ilar considerations enter into the revie& of stat"tes directed at partic"lar reli!io"s, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1F6 ).S. 5/0, or national, -eyer v. Ne$ras'a, 1F1 ).S. @E0M Bartels v. Io&a, 1F1 ).S. 707M Farrin!ton v. #o'"shi!e, 12@ ).S. 167, or racial inorities, Ni9on v. Cerndon, s"praM Ni9on v. Condon, s"pra8 &hether pre:"dice a!ainst discrete and ins"lar inorities ay $e a special condition, &hich tends serio"sly to c"rtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to $e relied "pon to protect inorities, and &hich ay call for a correspondin!ly ore searchin! :"dicial in%"iry. Co pare -cC"lloch v. -aryland, 7 =heat. @/F, 716M So"th Carolina v. Barn&ell Bros., @0@ ).S. /22, /67, n 1, and cases cited. 27 ,ore ats" v. )nited States, @1@ ).S. 1/7 3/E774M Regents o! the 4niversity o! Cali!ornia v. 0a$$e, 7@6 ).S. 1F5 3/E264. 25 "rontiero v. Richardson, 7// ).S. F22 3/E2@4M 4.S. v. 8irginia, 5/6 ).S. 5/5 3/EEF4. 2F San &ntonio Independent School *istrict v. Rodrig ez , 7// ).S. / 3/E2@4. 22 +.R. No. /76106, Dece $er /5, 1007, 77F SCRA 1EE. 26 Rollo, pp. 212 and 2@5. 2E @2/ Phil. 612 3/EEE4. 60 Id. at 670*67/. 6/ +.R. No. /@/F5F, Octo$er 10, /EE6, 1E2 SCRA 212. 61 Id. 6@ S"pra note /2. 67 +.R. No. /FF@F@, A"!"st /5, 100F, 7E6 SCRA F@E. 65 +.R. No. /F1/E5, April 6, 1006, 550 SCRA F00. 6F +.R. No. /602/E, A"!"st 11, 1006. 62 +.R. No. /210@/, ."ly /7, 1006, 556 SCRA 12E. 66 +.R. No. /525@7, ."ne /6, 100@ 3Resol"tion4. 6E +.R. No. /5@250, .an"ary 15, 100F, 760 SCRA /00. E0 +.R. No. /767/6, ."ly 16, 1005, 7F7 SCRA @/7. E/ +.R. No. /76702, Nove $er /1, 100@, 7/5 SCRA 210. E1 +.R. No. /5F@6/, Octo$er /7, 1005, 72@ SCRA /10. E@ +.R. No. /52@2@, ."ly 12, 1007, 7@5 SCRA @71. E7 +.R. No. /7726F, April /5, 1007, 712 SCRA 2@1.

E5

+.R. No. /22E76, -arch /7, 1006, 576 SCRA 2/1. +.R. No. /5/@0@, April /5, 1005, 75F SCRA @/@. E2 &sian Center v. National Labor Relations Commission, s"pra note 6/. E6 +.R. No. /7@E7E, A"!"st E, 100/, @F1 SCRA 52/. EE +.R. No. /1@@57, Nove $er /E, /EEF, 1F7 SCRA 7/6. /00 +.R. No. /0E@E0, -arch 2, /EEF, 157 SCRA 752. /0/ +.R. No. //10EF, .an"ary @0, /EEF, 151 SCRA 566. /01 +.R. No. /75562, Octo$er 1F, 1002, 5@2 SCRA 70E. /0@ +.R. No. /1@E0/, Septe $er 11, /EEE, @/5 SCRA 1@. /07 +.R. No. /52E25, ."ne 1F, 1002, 515 SCRA 56F. /05 &&&. erria *&e$ster.co Gdictionary visited on Nove $er 11, 1006 at @80E. /0F See also "lo rish, s"pra note E5@ and &thena, s"pra note EF. /02 It is noted that $oth petitioner and the OS+ dre& co parisons $et&een OF=s in !eneral and local &or'ers in !eneral. Co&ever, the Co"rt finds that the ore relevant co parison is $et&een OF=s &hose e ploy ent is necessarily s"$:ect to a fi9ed ter and local &or'ers &hose e ploy ent is also s"$:ect to a fi9ed ter . /06 Pro "l!ated on A"!"st F, /666 $y S"een -aria Cristina of Spain and e9tended to the Philippines $y Royal Decree of A"!"st 6, /666. It too' effect on Dece $er /, /666. /0E No. //@@, -arch 1E, /E07, @ SCRA 5/E. //0 No. A*67@/, Octo$er @0, /E56, /07 SCRA 276. /// See also 5allem 1hilippines Shipping, Inc. v. <on. Minister o! Labor, No. A*502@7*@2, Fe$r"ary 10, /E6/, /01 scra 6@5, &here Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc. v. 3gilvie is cited. //1 No. A*/0711, .an"ary //, /E/F, @@ SCRA /F1. //@ No. A*/5626, .an"ary //, /E11, 71 SCRA FF0. //7 2 Phil. 1F6 3/E024. //5 See also An st v. Morse, 7/ Phil /67 3/E104. //F 0rent School, Inc. v. Bamora, No. A*767E7, Fe$r"ary 5, /EE0, /6/ SCRA 201. //2 No. A*11F06, ."ne @0, /EFE, 16 SCRA FEE. //6 #he Aa$or Code itself does not contain a specific provision for local &or'ers &ith fi9ed*ter e ploy ent contracts. As the Co"rt o$served in 0rent School, Inc., the concept of fi9ed*ter e ploy ent has slo&ly faded a&ay fro o"r la$or la&s, s"ch that reference to o"r la$or la&s is of li ited "se in deter inin! the onetary $enefits to $e a&arded to fi9ed*ter &or'ers &ho are ille!ally dis issed. //E No. A*F5575, ."ly E, /E6F., /71 SCRA 571. /10 +.R. No. /00@EE, A"!"st 7, /EE1, 1/1 SCRA /@1. /1/ +.R. No. ///1/1, .an"ary 11, /EEF, 151 SCRA //F. /11 +.R. No. //@@F@, A"!"st 17, /EEE, @/@ SCRA /. /1@ +.R. No. //@E//, .an"ary 1@, /EE6, 167 SCRA F5F. /17 See 2strada v. 2scritor, A.-. No. P*01*/F5/, A"!"st 7, 100@, 706 SCRA /. /15 Id. /1F Roe v. 5ade, 7/0 ).S. //@ 3/E2/4M see also Carey v. 1op lation Service International, 7@/ ).S. F26 3/E224. /12 Sabio v. ;ordon, +.R. Nos. /27@70, /27@/6, /27/22, Octo$er /F, 100F, 507 SCRA 207. /16 Co ent, rollo, p. 555. /1E -e orand" of the Solicitor +eneral, id. at F61*F6@ /@0 Id. at p. FE@. /@/ Section @. #he State shall afford f"ll protection to la$or, local and overseas, or!ani;ed and "nor!ani;ed, and pro ote f"ll e ploy ent and e%"ality of e ploy ent opport"nities for all. It shall !"arantee the ri!hts of all &or'ers to self*or!ani;ation, collective $ar!ainin! and ne!otiations, and peacef"l concerted activities, incl"din! the ri!ht to stri'e in accordance &ith la&. #hey shall $e entitled to sec"rity of ten"re, h" ane conditions of &or', and a livin! &a!e. #hey shall also participate in policy and decision* a'in! processes affectin! their ri!hts and $enefits as ay $e provided $y la&. #he State shall pro ote the principle of shared responsi$ility $et&een &or'ers and e ployers and the preferential "se of vol"ntary odes in settlin! disp"tes, incl"din! conciliation, and shall enforce their "t"al co pliance there&ith to foster ind"strial peace.
EF

#he State shall re!"late the relations $et&een &or'ers and e ployers, reco!ni;in! the ri!ht of la$or to its :"st share in the fr"its of prod"ction and the ri!ht of enterprises to reasona$le ret"rns to invest ents, and to e9pansion and !ro&th. /@1 Manila 1rince <otel v. ;overnment Service Ins rance System, +.R. No. /11/5F, Fe$r"ary @, /EE2, 1F2 SCRA 706. /@@ 0asco v. 1hilippine &m sement and ;aming Corporation, +.R. No. E/F7E, -ay /7, /EE/, /E2 SCRA 51. /@7 +.R. No. /56FE@, Nove $er /2, 1007, 771 SCRA 52@. /@5 &gabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, s"pra note /@7, at F6F. /@F &ssociated Comm nications and 5ireless Services, Ltd. v. * mlao , +. R. No. /@F2F1, Nove $er 1/, 1001, @E1 SCRA 1FE. /@2 Section /. No person shall $e deprived of life, li$erty, or property &itho"t d"e process of la&, nor shall any person $e denied the e%"al protection of the la&s. /@6 G.R. No. 1>0719, A'&')t 22, 200>. See also 1CL Shipping 1hilippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission. +.R. No. /5@0@/, Dece $er /7, 100F, 5// SCRA 77.