You are on page 1of 4

23. Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. Vs. Amando A. Vinuya, et al.

Facts: The respondents alleged that the agency deployed them was to work as aluminum fabricator/installer. However, they were shocked to find out what their working and living conditions were in Dubai. They were required to work from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., with a break of only one hour to one and a half hours. When they rendered overtime work, they were most of the time either underpaid or not paid at all. Burdened by all the expenses and financial obligations, they signed new employment contracts. Due to agencys inaction, the respondents expressed to Modern Metal their desire to resign.Out of fear, as they put it, that Modern Metal would not give them their salaries and release papers, the respondents, except Era, cited personal/family problems for their resignation. It took the agency several weeks to repatriate the respondents to the Philippines. The agency countered that the respondents were not illegally dismissed; they voluntarily resigned from their employment to seek a better paying job.The agency further alleged that the respondents even voluntarily signed affidavits of quitclaim and release after they resigned Issue: W/N petitioners were illegally dismissed Held: The agency and its principal, Modern Metal, committed a prohibited practice and engaged in illegal recruitment when they altered or substituted the contracts approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code provides: It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor. Meanwhile, Article 38 (i) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042, defined illegal recruitment to include the substitution or alteration, to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment. Furthermore, the agency and Modern Metal committed breach of contract by providing substandard working and living arrangements, when the contract provided free and suitable housing. We thus cannot accept the agencys insistence that the respondents voluntarily resigned since they personally prepared their resignation letters in their own handwriting.

24. SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO Facts: Rosalie Tesoro charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure . It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner has (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code A team was then tasked to implement the said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitioners residence. They served the order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The said Order violated due process. Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code Held: Under the new Constitution, . . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts. Furthermore, the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be seized. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order

25. TOLOSA vs NLRC FACTS Evelyn Tolosa, was the widow of Captain Virgilio Tolosa who was hired by Qwana-Kaiun, through its manning agent, Asia Bulk, to be the master of the Vessel named M/V Lady Dona. . The vessel departed for Long Beach California, passing by Hawaii in the middle of the voyage. At the time of embarkation, CAPT. TOLOSA was allegedly shown to be in good health. During channeling activities upon the vessels departure CAPT. TOLOSA was drenched with rainwater. The following day, he had a slight fever and in the succeeding twelve (12) days, his health rapidly deteriorated resulting in his death . It was alleged that the request for emergency evacuation of Capt Tolosa was too late. Because of the death of CAPT. TOLOSA, his wife, EVELYN, as petitioner, filed a Complaint/Position Paper before the POEA against Qwana-Kaiun, thru its resident-agent. The case was however transferred to the NLRC, when the amendatory legislation expanding its jurisdiction, and removing overseas employment related claims from the ambit of POEA jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that her cause of action is not predicated on a quasi delict or tort, but on the failure of private respondents -- as employers of her husband (Captain Tolosa) -- to provide him with timely, adequate and competent medical services under Article 161 of the Labor Code. Respondents aver that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, since her cause did not arise from an employer-employee relation, but from a quasi delict or tort. Further, there is no reasonable causal connection between her suit for damages and her claim under Article 217 (a)(4) of the Labor Code, which allows an award of damages incident to an employeremployee relation. ISSUE Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the subject matter. HELD The SC held that the NLRC and the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over petitioners claim for damages, because that ruling was based on a quasi delict or tort per Article 2176 of the Civil Code. After carefully examining the complaint/position paper of petitioner, we are convinced that the allegations therein are in the nature of an action based on a quasidelict or tort. It is evident that she sued Pedro Garate and Mario Asis for gross negligence. Petitioners complaint/position paper refers to and extensively discusses the negligent acts of shipmates Garate and Asis, who had no employer-employee relation with Captain Tolosa. The SC stressed that the case does not involve the adjudication of a labor dispute, but the recovery of damages based on a quasi delict. The

jurisdiction of labor tribunals is limited to disputes arising from employer-employee relations. Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining agreement.