STO. TOMAS v.
PANEDA handling the recruitment and migration of overseas Filipino workers and
November 13, 2012 | Abad, J. |
PETITIONER: Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Jose G. Paneda, plus many more since consolidated
case
SUMMARY: These consolidated cases pertain to the constitutionality of certain
provisions of RA 8042 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995. RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Acts purpose, among others, is to set governments policies on overseas
employment. It also establishes a higher standard of protection and promotion of
the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.
(Guys, per case na-discuss so kailangan niyo talaga basahin per case sorry!!)
DOCTRINE: R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the
recruitment and deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the
injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. State
under police power may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment that will
secure or tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against
the consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud
Police power is that inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to
prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society.
LAWFUL PURPOSE: Aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses
suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad
LAWFUL MEANS: Regulate recruitment and deployment of OFWs
o Every statute = favor the presumption of constitutionality
o Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws
o Absence of clear and unmistakable case of unconstitutionality = uphold
validity
FACTS, ISSUES AND HELD PER GR:
G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710 (Constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30):
1. These sections commanded the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) to begin deregulating within 1 year of its passage the business of
phases out within 5 years the regulatory functions of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
2. Respondents Salac, et al. filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with application for TRO and preliminary injunction against
petitioners, the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
Secretary-General before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 96.
3. Respondents sought to (a) nullify DOLE Department Order 10 and POEA
Memorandum Circular 15; (b) prohibit the DOLE, POEA, and TESDA from
implementing the same and from further issuing rules and regulations that would
regulate the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs); and (c)
also enjoin them to comply with the policy of deregulation mandated under Sections
29 and 30 of Republic Act 8042.
4. In the RTC level, the QC RTC granted Salac, et al.s petition and ordered the
government agencies mentioned to deregulate the recruitment and placement of
OFWs.
5. RTC also annulled DOLE DO 10, POEA MC 15, and all other orders, circulars
and issuances that are inconsistent with the policy of deregulation under R.A. 8042.
6. government officials concerned filed the present petition seeking to annul the
RTCs decision and have the same enjoined pending action on the petition. The
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) intervened in the case,
claiming that the RTC Decision gravely affected them since it paralyzed the
deployment abroad of OFWs and performing artists. The Confederated Association
of Licensed Entertainment Agencies, Incorporated (CALEA) intervened for the same
purpose.
7. The Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining the QC RTC from enforcing its
decision.
8. In a parallel case, respondents Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc.
and others (Arcophil, et al.) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
application for TRO and preliminary injunction against the DOLE Secretary, the
POEA Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General, before the RTC of QC
9. To enjoin the latter from implementing the 2002 Rules and Regulations Governing
the Recruitment and Employment of Overseas Workers and to cease and desist from
issuing other orders, circulars, and policies that regulate the recruitment and
placement of OFWs in violation of the policy of deregulation provided in Sections
29 and 30 of R.A. 8042.
10. Quezon City RTC granted the petition and enjoined the government agencies
involved from exercising regulatory functions over the recruitment and placement of
OFWs.
11. Prompted the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the TESDA
Director-General to file the present action in G.R. 152710.
12. As in G.R. 152642, the Court issued a TRO enjoining the Quezon City RTC,
Branch 220 from enforcing its decision.
13. Republic informed the Court that former President Arroyo signed into law R.A.
9422 which expressly repealed Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 and adopted the
policy of close government regulation of the recruitment and deployment of OFWs.
14. R.A. 9422 pertinently provides: The Administration shall regulate private sector
participation in the recruitment and overseas placement of workers by setting up a
licensing and registration system. Admin will formulate and implement, when
necessary, a system for promoting and monitoring the overseas employment of
Filipino workers taking into consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower
requirements. Admin shall inform migrant workers not only of their rights as workers
but also of their rights as human beings, instruct and guide the workers how to assert
their rights and provide the available mechanism to redress violation of their rights.
15. In the recruitment and placement of workers to service the requirements for
trained and competent Filipino workers of foreign governments and their
instrumentalities, and such other employers as public interests may require, the
administration shall deploy only to countries where the Philippines has concluded
bilateral labor agreements or arrangements. Provided, That such countries shall
guarantee to protect the rights of Filipino migrant workers. Provided, further, That
such countries shall observe and/or comply with the international laws and standards
for migrant workers.
16. SEC. 2. Section 29 and 30 of the same law is hereby repealed.
17. Respondents Salac, et al. told the Court in G.R. 152642 that they agree with the
Republics view that the repeal of Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 renders the issues
they raised moot and academic. The Court has no reason to disagree.
18. R.A. 8042 IS A POLICE POWER MEASURE INTENDED TO REGULATE
THE RECRUITMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF OFWS. It aims to curb, if not
eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work
abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality. The Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the
laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the absence of a clear and
unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, the Court must uphold its
validity.
G.R. 167590 (Constitutionality of Sections 6,7 and 9)
1. PASEI: Petition for declaratory relief and prohibition with prayer for issuance of
TRO and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Manila, seeking to annul
Sections 6,7 and 9 for being unconstitutional
2. Sec 6 talks about illegal recruitment which means any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes
referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Art 13(f) of PD No. 442, as amended (Labor Code of the
Philippines). Such non-license or non-holder offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons.
3. RTC held that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the definition is vague as it
fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters. There is an undue
advantage to non-licensed recruiters in violation of right to equal protection of those
that operate with government licenses or authorities
4. SC said that the definition is CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS and that it actually
makes a distinction. Canvassing, enlisting, contracting xxx Without appropriate
government license or authority makes the person guilty WON they committed the
wrongful acts. If with appropriate government license or authority but committed
wrongful acts enumerated, then that is when the person becomes guilty.
5. With regard to Sec 7 which talks about the penalties for Illegal recruitment.
6. RTC : UNCONSTITUTIONAL because of its sweeping application and that it
Failed to make any distinction as to the seriousness of the act committed
7. SC: CONSTITUTIONAL
In fixing uniform penalties: Congress was within prerogative to determine
what acts are equally reprehensible xxx
It is not within the power of the Court to question the wisdom of the law
RA 10022: further stressed this policy
Tough penalties: OFW work outside countrys borders = beyond its
immediate protection
People V. Ventura
State under police power may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment
that will secure or tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them
against the consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and
fraud
Police power is that inherent and plenary power of the state which enables
it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society
8. Sec 9: Allow filing of criminal actions arising from illegal recruitment before
the RTC of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the
offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense
RTC : UNCONSTITUTIONAL
o Place of residence: negate the general rule on venue of criminal
cases = place where the crime was committed
o Venue jurisdictional in penal laws
o Allowing filing at the place of residence violates their right to
due process
9. SC: CONSTITUTIONAL
Nothing arbitrary fixing alternative venue
Sec. 15a, Rule 110 of Rules on Criminal Procedure: Subject to existing
laws xxx
For best interest of victims
G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79, G.R. 184298-99 (Constitutionality of Section 10,
last sentence of 2nd paragraph)
FACTS:
Respondent spouses Cueresmas filed a claim for death and insurance benefits and
damages against petitioners Becman and White Falcon for the death of their daughter
Jasmin Cuaresma while working as staff nurse in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
LABOR ARBITER: dismissed their claim
o Cuaresmas already received insurance benefits arising from their
daughters death from OWWA paragraph of Sec 10
o Saudi findings: Jasmin committed suicide o Corporate directors xxx jointly and solidarily liable with their company
NLRC: for money claims filed by OFWs against their employers and the recruitment firm
o Becman and White Falcon jointly and severally liable for Jasmins death RTC: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
o Ordered them to pay US$113,000 = actual damages o Absent sufficient proof of knowledge of and allowed illegal recruitment =
o Cabanatuan City Health Office autopsy = Jasmine died of criminal automatically liable = violate right to due process
violence and rape RULING:
CA: Liability of corporate directors and officers is NOT AUTOMATIC
o Held Becman and White Falcon jointly and severally liable o REMISS in directing the affairs of their company, such as sponsoring or
o Becman have a right for reimbursement from White Falcon tolerating the conduct of illegal activities
SC: At fault in not investigating
o Jasmins death = not work-related or work-connected as it did not occur o NO mention of evidence against them that they were personally involved
while on duty in their companys particular actions or omissions in Jasmins case
o Deleted award of actual damages R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and
o Becmans corporate directors and offices as solitarily liable with their deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses
company = failure to investigate the true nature of her death; Becman and White suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad.
Falcon abandoned their legal, moral, and social duty to assist in obtaining justice o Every statute = favor the presumption of constitutionality
o Awards: o Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws
o Moral = 2.5M o Absence of clear and unmistakable case of unconstitutionality = uphold
o Exemplary = 2.5M validity
o Attorney fees = 10% of total award
o Cost of suit RULING: Dismissed, moot and academic
Becman and Directors questioned the constitutionality of last sentence of second