Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

Atty. Voltaire T. Duano

Labor Law Review
I.

Memorize

Labor Law is the body of laws, rules and regulations enacted or issued by
the State to promote the welfare of employees and regulate their relations
with their employers. It also includes all judicial decisions, interpreting said
laws, rules and regulations.

Purpose of labor legislation to implement the state policies in the labor

code and the Constitution

General Classifications of labor statutes

-

Labor standards shall refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by

existing laws, rules, and regulations and other issuances relating to wages,
hours of work, cost of living allowances and other monetary and welfare
benefits, including those set by occupational safety and health standards.

Social security law are those laws that provided for income security
and/or medical care for contingencies such as: a. sickness b. maternity c.
invalidity d. old age e. death of a bread winner; unemployment; f. emergency
expenses; and g. employment injuries

Labor relations law defines the status, rights and duties, and the
institutional mechanisms, that govern the individual and collective
interactions of employers, employees or their representatives.

Labor is understood as physical toil although it does not necessarily

exclude the application of skill, this there is skilled and unskilled labor.

Protection to labor clause under the Constitution

1. Extent and coverage of protection
- Full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized
2. Policy on employment
- Promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all
3. Unionism and Methods of determination, conditions of
employment, Concerted activities
- The rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
self-organization, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with law
4. Wording Conditions
- Security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage
5. Codetermination
- Participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law
6. Shared Responsibility
- Promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers
7. Policy on dispute resolution
- Preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including
conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to
foster industrial peace
8. Right of labor and of enterprise
Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

1 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

-

Right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right
of enterprises to reasonable returns to investment, and to expansion
and growth.
Labor code promulgated May 1, 1974 and took effect on November 4,
1974

Article 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

afford protection to labor,

promote full employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and
regulate the relations between workers and employers.
The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.

Article 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation
of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be
resolved in favor of labor.

Management Prerogatives refers to the right of an employer to regulate all aspects

of employment, such as the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

freedom to prescribe work assignments,

working methods,
processes to be followed,
regulation regarding transfer of employees,
supervision of their work,
lay-off and discipline, and
dismissal and recall of work

The exercise of management prerogatives involves the following aspects:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Employee selection
Discipline
Transfer of Employees
Productivity standard
Grant of Bonus
Change of Working hours
Post-employment ban
Marital discrimination

Article 6. Applicability. All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as
may otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.
Exceptions:
1. Those employed in the civil service
2. Those employed in government owned and controlled corporations with special charter involving
intra corporate controversy
3. Employers with immunity form suit
4. Those excluded under working conditions and rest periods of BOOK III Title I under Article 82 of
the Labor Code in relation to the implementing rules and regulations

Transfer of Employees - A transfer means a movement from one position to another of

equivalent rank, level or salary, without break in the service and from one office to another
within the same business establishment.

Constructive Dismissal a quitting because continued employment is rendered

impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution
in pay.
Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by
an employer has becomes so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to
forego with his continued employment

Demotion said to exist when there is a reduction in position, rank or salary.

Bonus from a legal point of view, it is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the
recipient has no right to demand as a matter of right.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

2 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

A Bonus is an amount granted and paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which
contributed to the success of the employers business and made possible the realization of
profits.
It is an act of generosity granted by an enlightened employer to spur the employee to
greater efforts for the success of the business and realization of bigger profits.
Direct hires workers directly hired by employers for overseas employment as authorized
by the Sec. of Labor and Employment and processed by the POEA including:
1. Those hired by International organizations
2. Those hired by members of the diplomatic corps
3. Name hires or workers who are able to secure overseas employment opportunity with
an employer without the assistance or participation of any agency.
Derogatory records refers to the existence of negative information such as but not
limited to illegal recruitment, falsification, swindling, estafa, and or conviction for crimes
involving moral turpituted

II.

Cases

1. JMM Promotion vs CA

- Assailed is the governments power to control deployment of female

entertainers to Japan by requiring an Artist Record Book as a precondition to
the processing by the POEA of any contract for overseas employment

- Petitioner argues that the right to overseas employment is a property right

within the meaning of the Constitution and that deprivation thereof through
the onerous requirement of an ARB violates due process clause and
constitutes and invalid exercise of the Police Power.

- Police power is the power of the State to prohibit all things hurtful to the
comfort, safety and welfare of society. The welfare of Female Filipino
performing artists is paramount in the Issuance of D.O. no. 3, The method of
screening ensures their safety and welfare by requiring reasonable
educational and artistic skills and limits deployment to only those individual
adequately prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment as artist
abroad.

- No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling,

business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid
exercise of the police power by the State.
Agabon vs NLR

- Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and
-

assures him of his rights in criminal, civil and administrative proceedings

Statutory due process found in the Labor code and Implementing Rules
protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just case after
notice and hearing

Serrano vs NLRC

- 1st Due process clause of the Constitution is a limitation on governmental

-

powers. It does not apply to the exercise of private powers, such as the
termination of employment under the Labor Code.
2nd Notice and Hearing is required under the Due process clause before the
power of organized society are brought to bear upon an individual so that he
may be given an opportunity to be heard. The purpose of the 30-day written
notice before an employee is laid off is not to afford him an opportunity to be
heard but rather to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

3 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

and the DOLE an opportunity to determine whether economic causes do exist

justifying the termination of his employment.
3rd The notice cannot be said to be part of due process since the employer
cannot really be expected to be an entirely impartial judge of his own cause.

Serrano vs Gallant (Non-impairment)

- The prohibition of non-impairment of contracts is aligned with the general

-

principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation and
cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected.
However, as to laws already inexistence, their provisions are read into
contracts and deemed a part thereof.
Therefore since the enactment of RA 8042 was in 1995 which preceded the
execution of the employment contract in the case which was on 1998 the
provision of RA 8042 were deemed incorporated into such employment
contract.

Serrano vs Gallant (Equal protection)

Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just,
valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the
full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
-

Discriminatory in 3 circumstances

First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis--vis OFWs with
employment contracts ofone year or more;
The first category includes OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of less than one
year; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired
portion of their contract. The second category consists of OFWs with fixed-period
employment contracts of one year or more; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to
monetary award equivalent to only 3 months of the unexpired portion of their contracts.
The disparity becomes more aggravating when the Court takes into account jurisprudence
that, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8042 on July 14, 1995, 97 illegally dismissed
OFWs, no matter how long the period of their employment contracts, were entitled to their
salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts.
Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year; and
the subject clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods
are for more than one year: those who are illegally dismissed with less than one year left in
their contracts shall be entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof,
while those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more remaining in their contracts
shall be covered by the subject clause, and their monetary benefits limited to their salaries
for three months only.
Third, OFWs vis--vis local workers with fixed-period employment;
In sum, prior to R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term employment who
were illegally discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation of their money
claims: they were uniformly entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of
their contracts. But with the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, specifically the adoption of the
subject clause, illegally dismissed OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in
their employment contract have since been differently treated in that their money claims are
subject to a 3-month cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local workers with fixedterm employment.

Sameer vs Cabiles

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

4 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

- Limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas

-

worker to three months is both a violation of due process and equal

protection clause
Putting a cap on the money claims of certain overseas workers does not
increase the standard of protection afforded them rather foreign employers
are more incentivized by the reinstated clause to enter into a contract of at
least a year because it gives them more flexibility to violate our overseas
workers rights

- Equal protection

Substantial distinction
Germane to the purpose of the law
Must not be limited to existing conditions only
Must apply equally to all members of the same class

PLDT vs NLRC

- It is not correct to say that there is no express justification for the grant of
separation pay to a lawfully dismissed employee other than the abstract
consideration of equity. The categorical mandates in the Constitution for the
improvement of the lot of the workers are more than sufficient basis to justify
the award of separation pay in proper cases even if the dismissal be for
cause.
Allied vs Ople

- Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor

anarchy but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated.
Fuentes vs NLRC

- The state is bound under the Constitution to afford full protection to labor and

when conflicting interest of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales
of social justice the heavier influence of the latter should be counterbalanced
with the sympathy and compassion the law accords to the less privileged
workingman.
Thus labor is not a mere employee of capital but its active and equal partner

Pal vs NLRC

- The principal issue is whether management may be compelled to share with

-

the union or its employees its prerogative of formulating a code of discipline

Indeed it was only on March 2, 1989 with the approval of RA 6715 amending
the labor code that the law explicitly considered it a state policy To ensure
the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting
their rights, duties and welfare.

- However, even with the absence of such provision the exercise of

management prerogatives was never considered boundless, thus it was held
that management prerogatives must be without abuse of discretion

- A close scrutiny of the objectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they
are not purely business oriented nor do they concern the management aspect
of the company.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

5 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

- Verily a line must be drawn between the management prerogatives regarding

business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the
employees
San Miguel vs Ople

- So long as a companys management prerogatives are exercised in good faith

for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or
under valid agreements, the Court will uphold them

- Managerial prerogatives are not unlimited, it is circumscribed by limitations

found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general principles of
fair play and justice.
Agabon vs NLRC

- Article XIII sec. 3 is not self-actuating, it cannot be treated as a principal

-

source of direct enforceable rights, for the violation of which the questioned
clause may be declared unconstitutional.
It may unwittingly risk opening the floodgates of litigation to every worker or
union over every conceivable of so broad a concept as social justice for labor.

Songco vs NLRC

- In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Codes provisions and its
implementing regulations, the workingmans welfare should be the primordial
and paramount consideration.
Kaisahan at kapatiran ng mga manggagawa vs Manila Water

- Article 111 of the labor contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorneys

-

fees and that article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict
construction in the award of attorneys fees.
Although an express finding of fact and law is still necessary to prove the
merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted
maliciously or in bad faith where it withheld the wages.

Penaflor vs Outdoor clothing

- In case of serious doubts about the merits of the case specially in the
-

appreciation of the clinching evidence such contest of evidence by virtue of

Article 4 should be ruled in favor of labor
Article 4 is extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence
presented by the employer and employee

San Miguel vs San Miguel

- Interpreting the seniority rules in the promotion of employees has a bearing

on salary and benefits, it may, following a liberal construction of Article 261
of the Labor Code, be considered an economic provision of the CBA.
Philippine National Construction vs NLRC

- The program bases the computation of separation benefits on every year of

-

completed or credited service

Nothing in the phrase every year of completed or credited service can be
understood as requiring that the service be continuous, the requirement of
continuous service pertains only to ones eligibility under the separation
program.
An employee may qualify under such program if he has rendered atleast one
year of continuous service.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

6 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

- Thus the court granted liberality in favor of labor

Marcopper vs NLRC

- Article is not applicable in the interpretation of a CBA since it is a contract

-

thus the rules embodied in the Civil Code on the interpretation of contracts
should govern.
The intent of the parties should be ascertained by considering the relevant
provisions of the CBA in light of article 1374
Article 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.

Plastic Town vs NLRC

- The subject for interpretation in the petition for review is not the Labor Code
or its implementing rules and regulations but the provisions of the CBA. As a
contract, it constitutes the law between the parties and in interpreting
contracts, the rules on contracts must govern.
Bonifacio vs GSIS

- The liberal interpration applies only if there is doubt either in their

interpration or application.
Gemina vs Bankwise

- The only criterion to guide the exercise of management prerogatives is that

the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees
must always be fair and reasonable.
Manila chauffer vs Bachrach

- In the exercise of its prerogative to select his employees, the employer

-

cannot be compelled to hire somebody against it will.

Since the employer is generally responsible for the damages caused by his
employees it is logical and just that he be the one exclusively entitled to
freely select them.

Davao Stevedores vs Compania Maritima

- To compel an employer to hire employees from a specific source would not

only tend to promote sectionalism and disunity but would also interfere with
the citizens right to freedom of contract.
Industrial vs Tugade

- In general, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and

to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules
and regulations.
San Miguel vs NLRC

- It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of

management imposition.
UNILAB vs Domingo

- The entitlement of workers to security of tenure is correlative to the right of

enterprises to reasonable returns on investments.

- The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights
to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to
change their assignments or to transfer them.
Sutherland vs Labrador
Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

7 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

- The law, in protecting the rights of laborers, authorizes neither oppression

nor-self destruction of the employer. The workers right to security of tenure is
not an absolute right, for the law provides that he may be dismissed for a
cause.
Arabit vs Jardine

Management has the prerogative to characterize an employees services as no longer

necessary or sustainable, and therefore properly terminable.

Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. vs Aguinaldo

-

Jurisprudences recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives to transfer or

assign employees from on office or area of operation to another, provided there is no
demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the
action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of
punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.

Blue dairy vs NLRC

-

The employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable,
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or
a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to
overcome this burden of proof, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to
constructive dismissal.

BPI-Employees union vs BPI

It is management prerogative to farm out any of its activities, regardless of whether

such activity is peripheral or core in nature.

What is of primordial importance is that the service agreement does not violate the
employees security of tenure and payment of benefits to which he is entitled.

The Outsourcing must not squarely fall under labor-only contracting where the
contractor or sub-contractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a
job, work or service for a principal.

Leonardo vs NLRC

Failure to observe prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work

assignments due to inefficieny may constitute just cause for dismissal.
This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so long as
they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest.
Demotion is allowed as a valid exercise of management prerogative, often as a
consequence of an employees failure to comply with company productivity
standards.

Gaco vs NLRC
-

While due process required by law is applied on dismissals, the same is also
applicable to demotions as demotions likewise affect the employment of a worker
whose right to continued employment under the same terms and conditions is also
protected by law thus they are entitled to the twin-notice requirement in order to give
them the chance to contest the same.

Phil. National Construction Corp vs NLRC

The grant of a bonus is basically a management prerogative which cannot be forced

upon the employer who may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of
granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the employees basic salaries or
wages.
A bonus, however, becomes a demandable or enforceable obligation when it is made
part of the wage or salary compensation of the employee.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

8 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

Metro Transit vs NLRC

Whether or not a bonus forms part of wages depends upon the circumstances and
conditions for its payment
If it is additional compensation which the employer promised or agreed to give
without any conditions imposed for its payment such as success of business or
greater production or output, then it is part of the wage.
If it is paid only if profits are realized or if a certain level of productivity is achieved
then it cannot be considered as part of the wage.
Where it is not payable to all but only to some employees and only when their labor
becomes more efficient or more productive, it is only an inducement for efficieny, a
prize therefore, not a part of the wage.

Producers Bank vs NLRC

-

An employer cannot be enforced to distribute bonuses which it can no longer afford

to pay. To hold otherwise would be to penalize the employer for his past generosity.

NLU vs Insular

Management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require,

to change the working hours of its employees so long as such prerogatives are
exercised in good faith.

Rivera vs Solidbank

The issue is the validity of ban on post-employment competitive employment and

port-retirement competitive employment

- Valid even if unrestricted in time and geography since the prohibition, unlike
restraint included in the employment contract, is not a prohibition on the
employees engaging in competitive work but is merely a denial of the right
to participate in the retirement plan if he does so engage.
Tiu vs Platinum Plans

- A non-involvement clause or a restraint of trade in an employment contract is

valid provided that there are reasonable limitations as to time, trade and
place.
Portillo vs Rudolf

- A goodwill clause or the Non-Compete clause is a contractual undertaking

effective after the cessation of the employment relationship between the
parties. Therefore breach of the undertaking is a civil law dispute, not a labor
law case.
Duncan vs Glaxo

The prohibition by glaxo of an employee having a relationship with an employee of

another company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets especially against astra a rival company.

Star vs Simbol

- Validity of the no-spouse policy and anti-nepotism policy is being questioned

- Disparate treatment must prove that an employment policy is discriminatory
-

on its face. i.e. Discriminates a particular sex

Disparate impact must prove that a facially neutral policy has a
disproportionate effect on a particular class.

PT&T vs NLRC

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

9 | Page

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

- Test or reasonableness which is parallel to the bonafide occupational

-

qualification requirement
The requirement of reasonableness must be clearly established to uphold the
questioned policy
The employer must prove that the reasonable demands of the business
require a distinction based on marital status and there is no better available
or acceptable policy which would better accomplish the business purpose.

Postigo vs Phil. Tuberculosis Society

The SC discussed therein two classes of corporations

Those incorporated under the general corporation law
Those incorporated under a special law
Those employed by the latter are subject to the civil service law and
therefore not within the ambit of the labor code
Phil. Tuberculosis Society governed by the labor code since it was
incorporated as a non-profit, benevolent and non-stock corporation under the
Corporation Code.

PNOC vs Leogardo

- The test to determine whether a GOCC is subject to Civil Service law is the
-

manner of its creation

It should be noted that even if an entity is under the civil service law it is not
completely beyond the scope of labor laws
Such as its liabilities are joint and solidary with that of the contractor under
articles 106, 107 and 109 of the labor code
Book III title II "Employer" includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of
an employer in relation to an employee and shall include the government and all its
branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government-owned or controlled
corporations and institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions, or organizations.

Salenga vs CA

- CDC (Clark Development Corporation) was incorporated under the

Corporation Code and thus not governed by the Civil Service Law
Camporado vs NLRC

- PNRC (Phil. National Red Cross) is a GOCC with an original charter under RA
-

95
It was not impliedly converted to a private corporation simply because its
charter was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans and be
exempted to duties and taxes.

Liban vs Gordan
-

PNRC is a sui generis corporation. being neither strictly private nor public in nature.
WHILE IT IS PERFORMING HUMANITARIAN FUNCTIONS AS AN AUXILIARY TO
GOVERNMENT, IT IS A NEUTRAL ENTITY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT OF
GOVERNMENT CONTROL, YET IT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS STRICTLY PRIVATE IN
CHARACTER.

Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union vs Philippine Veterans Bank

-

Criterion of ownership is more important than the issue of original charter

Although The Bank has an original charter in the form of RA 3518

Coming now to the ownership of the Bank, we find it is not a government

bank, as claimed by the petitioners. The fact is that under Section 3(b) of

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

10 | P a g e

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

its charter, while 51% of the capital stock of the Bank was initially fully
subscribed by the Republic of the Philippines for and in behalf of the
veterans, their widows, orphans or compulsory heirs, the corresponding
shares of stock were to be turned over within 5 years from the organization
by the Bank to the said beneficiaries who would thereafter have the right to
vote such common shares. The balance of about 49% was to be divided into
preferred shares which would be opened for subscription by any recognized
veteran, widow, orphans or compulsory heirs of said veteran at the rate of
one preferred share per veteran, on the condition that in case of failure of
any particular veteran to subscribe for any preferred share of stock so
offered to him within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of notice,
said share of stock shall be available for subscription to other veterans in
accordance with such rules or regulations as may be promulgated by the
Board of Directors. Moreover, under Sec. 6(a), the affairs of the Bank are
managed by a board of directors composed of eleven members, three of
whom are ex officio members, with the other eight being elected annually
by the stockholders in the manner prescribed by the Corporation Law.

PNOC vs Leogardo

- PNOC is incorporated under the General Corporation law thus it is a GOCC

subject to the provisions of the Labor Code

- Phil. National Oil Company

Lumanta vs NLRC

- FTI (Food Terminal Inc.) is without original charter.

NASECO vs NLRC

- NASECO is a corporation without an original charter

Casino Labor Association vs CA

- PAGCOR, PCOC (Phil Casino Operators Corp) and PSSC (Phil Special Services
Corp) is with original charter
Duty Free vs Mojica

- With original charter under EO 46 under the exclusive authority of the PTA
Feliciano vs COA

- Local Water Districts created pursuant to PD 198

BSP vs NLRC

- GOCC with original charter and an instrumentality of the Government

DFA vs NLRC

- ADB is an international organization that has been extended a diplomatic

-

status, the ADB is independent of municipal law.

Service contracts were entered into in pursuance of acts Jure Imperii of a
State. (Public Acts) as opposed to private act or acts jure gestionis.

Callado vs IRRI

- The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver
of its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon
this immunity.
Lasco vs UN

- Immunity of Specialized agencies of the UN were affirmed

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

11 | P a g e

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

SEAFDEC vs Acosta

- SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying diplomatic Immunity

US vs Guinto

- When a State enters into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity it is

deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability
People vs Panis

- Respondent to constitute recruitment and placement all the acts mentioned

-

in the article should involve dealings with two or more persons as an

indispensable requirement
Petitioner argues the requirement of two or more person is imposed only
where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of
employment and always in consideration of a fee
Neither interpretation is acceptable
The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence which creates a presumption
that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity
dealing with them shall be deemed engaged in the act of recruitment and
placement

Article 13. Definitions.

"Worker" means any member of the labor force, whether employed or unemployed.
"Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall
be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
"Private fee-charging employment agency" means any person or entity engaged in recruitment and
placement of workers for a fee which is charged, directly or indirectly, from the workers or employers
or both.
"License" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or entity to
operate a private employment agency.
"Private recruitment entity" means any person or association engaged in the recruitment and
placement of workers, locally or overseas, without charging, directly or indirectly, any fee from the
workers or employers.
"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or
association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.

People vs Dela Piedra

- Void for vagueness Art. 13 b

- Not void for vagueness if simply couched in imprecise language

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

12 | P a g e