G.R. No.

176264 : January 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, APPELLANT.

Doctrine and Law:

Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-
licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal
recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed
committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic
sabotage.

But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by
law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for
work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is
important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a
recruiter, whether locally or abroad.

FACTS:

Sometime during the second week of March 2000, Susan invited several individuals including six of the
seven complainants - namely, Teodulo dela Cruz, Billy dela Cruz, Jr., Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez,
Rogelio Enriquez, and Gary Bustillos - to her house in Bulacan, Bulacan to celebrate the town fiesta.
Appellant was among the several guests in Susan's house during the said occasion.

Appellant, along with a certain Susan Navarro, were found guilty of illegal recruitment. It was found that
Navarro met the complainants in a town fiesta. Navarro invited the complainants into her house where
she introduced them to appellant. Each of the complainants were told that Navarro would be able to
help them secure employment abroad. The complainants then paid differing amounts to Navarro as
placement fees, and were issued receipts bearing the logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy, the company of
appellant. Complainants eventually found out that appellant and Navarro were not registered with the
DOLE as a recruitment agency.

RTC:

WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Teresita (Tessie) Laogo y Villamor guilty as principal beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00 as imposed by law[;] to indemnify the private
offended parties x x x actual damages, as follows: Teodulo dela Cruz - P15,000.00, Billy dela Cruz -
P73,000.00, Dante Lopez - P6,000.00, Rogelio Enriquez - P3,000.00, and Edwin Enriquez - P12,000.00[;]
and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

CA: Affirmed lower court's Decision.

Issue: Is appellant guilty of illegal recruitment?

Held: Yes. Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken
by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the
illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is
deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of
economic sabotage.

But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by
law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for
work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is
important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a
recruiter, whether locally or abroad.

Appellant's contention that she had to change the name of her travel agency to disassociate herself with
Susan's recruitment activities is too lame to deserve serious consideration. In light of the testimonies of
the complainants that appellant with her co-accused promised them employment abroad, we find
appellant's act of closing Laogo Travel Consultancy and establishing a new one under her husband's
name as just an afterthought, a belated decision which cannot undo the damage suffered by the private
offended parties. It could indeed hardly be construed as a simple reaction of an innocent person, as it in
fact smacks of a desperate attempt of a guilty individual to escape liability or to confuse and dishearten
her victims.

G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.

Doctrine and Laws:

1. lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made)

2. Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes of termination by the employer.
Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following
causes:cralawlawlibrary

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; andChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

3. It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just or
valid cause belongs to the employerSection 15 of Republic Act No. 8042

4. In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled that the
clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.

FACTS:

Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency.

Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a one-year employment contract for a monthly
salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26,
1997. She alleged that in her employment contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year.
In Taiwan, she was asked to work as a cutter.

Sameer claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without
prior notice, that she was terminated and that “she should immediately report to their office to get her
salary and passport.” She was asked to “prepare for immediate repatriation.” Joy claims that she was
told that from June 26 to July 14, 1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, Wacoal
deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.

On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC against petitioner
and Wacoal. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed LA’s decision. CA affirmed the ruling of the
National Labor Relations Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three
months’ worth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorney’s fees

Issue:
a. Whether Cabiles was illegally dismissed.

b. Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to the unexpired portion of her salary due to illegal dismissal.

Held:

a. Yes. Cabiles was illegally dismissed. It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that
the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. It found that Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency failed to prove that there were just causes for termination. There was no sufficient
proof to show that respondent was inefficient in her work and that she failed to comply with company
requirements. Furthermore, procedural due process was not observed in terminating respondent.

b. Yes. In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled
that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.

A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It “confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
passed at all.”

The Court said that they are aware that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less” was reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042 upon promulgation of
Republic Act No. 10022 in 2010.

Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, in accordance
with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of the three-month equivalence of respondent’s
salary must be modified accordingly. Since she started working on June 26, 1997 and was terminated on
July 14, 1997, respondent is entitled to her salary from July 15, 1997 to June 25, 1998. “To rule
otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal
that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFW’s security of tenure
which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an
unconstitutional provision of law.

G.R. NO. 180636 : March 13, 2013

LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN,* Petitioner, v. PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE

TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C. SALINAS, Respondents.

Doctrine and Laws: Interpretation of RA 8042 Section 10: Money Claims

FACTS:
Under the employment contract entered by Tangga-an with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC)
for and in behalf of its foreign employer, Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC., he was to be employed for a
period of six months as chief engineer of the vessel the S.S. “Kure”. He was to be paid a basic salary of
US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay equivalent to 15 days a month or US$2,500.00 per month and tonnage
bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a month. On February 2002, Tangga-an was deployed but was
dismissed on April 2002. Tangga-an filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of
salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral damages, attorney’s
fees and interest.

The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to be illegally dismissed. As regards petitioner’s claim for back
salaries, LA said he is entitled not to four months which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of his
contract, but only to three months, inclusive of vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus (or US$8,200 x 3
months = US$24,600) pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or The Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 2005.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an illegally dismissed overseas employee is only entitled to 3months back salaries in
pursuance to RA 8042 Section 10.

Held:

No. They are entitled to unexpired portion of the contract. In resolving petitioner's monetary claims, the
CA utterly misinterpreted the Court's ruling in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd.,23
using it to support a view which the latter case precisely ventured to strike down. In that case, the
employee was hired as the vessel's Master on a six-months employment contract, but was able to work
for only two months, as he was later on illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the CA all took
the view that the complaining employee was entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his
contract, but limited to only three months pursuant to Section 1024 of RA 8042. The Court did not agree
and hence modified the judgment in said case. It held that, following the wording of Section 10 and its
ruling in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,25 when the illegally
dismissed employee's employment contract has a term of less than one year, he/she shall be entitled to
recovery of salaries representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment contract. Indeed, there
was nothing even vaguely confusing in the Court's citation therein of Marsaman.

In Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, involving Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, we held:

We cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only. A
plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed
overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or three (3) months 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 (1) year or more. This is
evident from the wording "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the wording "salaries x x
x for three months." To follow petitioners' thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3)
months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some
words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in
legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof
be given effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in
the statute and to have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.

It is not disputed that private respondent's employment contract in the instant case was for six (6)
months. Hence, we see no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that private respondent should
be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

At this juncture, the courts, especially the CA, should be reminded to read and apply this Court's labor
pronouncements with utmost care and caution, taking to mind that in the very heart of the judicial
system, labor cases occupy a special place. More than the State guarantees of protection of labor and
security of tenure, labor disputes involve the fundamental survival of the employees and their families,
who depend upon the former for all the basic necessities in life.

Thus, petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his six-months
employment contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all his corresponding monthly
vacation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided and guaranteed in his
employment contract as part of his monthly salary and benefit package. These benefits were guaranteed
to be paid on a monthly basis, and were not made contingent. In fact, their monetary equivalent was
fixed under the contract: US$2,500.00 for vacation leave pay and US$700.00 for tonnage bonus each
month. Thus, petitioner is entitled to back salaries of US$32,800 (or US$5,000 + US$2,500 + US$700 =
US$8,200 x 4 months).