THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. CAROL M. DELA PIEDRA, accused-appellant G.R. No.

121777 (350 SCRA 163) January 2 , 2!!1 "AP#NAN, J. FACTS$ On the afternoon of January 30 1!!" #aria $ourdes #odesto and %ancy Araneta to&ether 'ith her friends Jennelyn (ae) and Sandra A*uino 'ent to the house of Jas+ine Ale,andro after ha-in& learned that a 'o+an is there to recruit ,o. applicants for Sin&apore/ Carol dela 0iedra 'as already .riefin& so+e people 'hen they arri-ed/ Jas+ine on the other hand 'elco+ed and as1ed the+ to sit do'n/ 2hey listened to the 3recruiter4 'ho 'as then tal1in& a.out the .rea1do'n of the fees in-ol-ed5 030 000 for the -isa and the round trip tic1et and 05 000 as place+ent fee and for the processin& of the papers/ 2he initial pay+ent 'as 06 000 'hile 030 000 'ill .e .y salary deduction/ 2he recruiter said that she 'as 3recruitin&4 nurses for Sin&apore/ Araneta her friends and $ourdes then filled up .io-data for+s and 'ere re*uired to su.+it pictures and a transcript of records/ After the inter-ie' $ourdes &a-e the initial pay+ent of 06 000 to Jas+ine 'ho assured her that she 'as authori)ed to recei-e the +oney/ #ean'hile in the +ornin& of the said date 7rlie Ra+os Attorney 88 of the 0hilippine O-erseas 7+ploy+ent A&ency (0O7A) recei-ed a telephone call fro+ an unidentified 'o+an in*uirin& a.out the le&iti+acy of the recruit+ent conducted .y a certain #rs/ Carol 9i&ueroa/ Ra+os 'hose duties include the sur-eillance of suspected ille&al recruiters i++ediately contacted a friend a certain #ayeth (ellotindos so they could .oth &o the place 'here the recruit+ent 'as reportedly .ein& underta1en . :pon arri-in& at the reported area at around "500 p/+/ (ellotindos entered the house and pretended to .e an applicant/ Ra+os re+ained outside and stood on the pa-e+ent fro+ 'here he 'as a.le to see around si; (6) persons in the sala/ Ra+os e-en heard a 'o+an identified as Carol 9i&ueroa tal1 a.out the possi.le e+ploy+ent she has to pro-ide in Sin&apore and the docu+ents that the applicants ha-e to co+ply 'ith/ 9ifteen (15) +inutes later (ellotindos ca+e out 'ith a .io-data for+ in hand/ 2hereafter Ra+os conferred 'ith a certain Capt/ #endo)a of the Cri+inal 8n-esti&ation Ser-ice (C8S) to or&ani)e the arrest of the alle&ed ille&al recruiter/ A sur-eillance tea+ 'as then or&ani)ed to confir+ the report/ After 'hich a raid 'as e;ecuted/ Conse*uently Carol 'as char&ed and con-icted .y the trial court of ille&al recruit+ent/ :pon appeal accused *uestions her con-iction for ille&al recruit+ent in lar&e scale and assails as 'ell the constitutionality of the la' definin& and penali)in& said cri+e/ First, accused su.+its that Article 13 (.) of the $a.or Code definin& 3recruit+ent and place+ent4 is -oid for -a&ueness and thus -iolates the due process clause/ 2he pro-ision in *uestion reads5 ART. 1%. D&'(n()(ons.<(a) ; ; ;/ (.) 3Recruit+ent and place+ent4 refers to any act of can-assin& enlistin& contractin& transportin& utili)in& hirin& or procurin& 'or1ers and includes referrals contract ser-ices pro+isin& or ad-ertisin& for e+ploy+ent locally or a.road 'hether for profit or not5 Prov(*&*, T+a) any ,&rson or &n)()y -+(.+, (n any /ann&r, o''&rs or ,ro/(s&s 'or a '&& &/,0oy/&n) )o )-o or /or& ,&rsons s+a00 1& *&&/&* &n2a2&* (n r&.ru()/&n) an* ,0a.&/&n). ISS#ES$ 314 =hether or not sec/ 13 (.) of 0/>/ ""6 as a+ended other'ise 1no'n as the ille&al recruit+ent la' is unconstitutional as it -iolates the due process clause/ 324 =hether or not accused 'as denied e*ual protection and therefore should .e e;culpated HELD$ 314 For )+& F(rs) (ssu&, *&0a P(&*ra su1/()s )+a) Ar)(.0& 1% 314 o' )+& La1or Co*& *&'(n(n2 5r&.ru()/&n) an* ,0a.&/&n)6 (s vo(* 'or va2u&n&ss an*, )+us, v(o0a)&s )+& *u& ,ro.&ss .0aus&. >ue process re*uires that the ter+s of a penal statute +ust .e sufficiently e;plicit to infor+ those 'ho are su.,ect to it 'hat conduct on their part 'ill render the+ lia.le to its penalties/

8n support of her su.+ission dela 0iedra in-o1es 0eople -s/ 0anis 'here the Supre+e Court 3critici)ed4 the definition of 3recruit+ent and place+ent/4 2he Court ruled ho'e-er that her reliance on the said case 'as +isplaced/ 2he issue in 0anis 'as 'hether under the pro-iso of Article 13 (.) the cri+e of ille&al recruit+ent could .e co++itted only 3'hene-er t'o or +ore persons are in any +anner pro+ised or offered any e+ploy+ent for a fee/4 8n this case the Court +erely .e+oaned the lac1 of records that 'ould help shed li&ht on the +eanin& of the pro-iso/ 2he a.sence of such records not'ithstandin& the Court 'as a.le to arri-e at a reasona.le interpretation of the pro-iso .y applyin& principles in cri+inal la' and dra'in& fro+ the lan&ua&e and intent of the la' itself/ Section 13 (.) therefore is not a 3perfectly -a&ue act4 'hose o.scurity is e-ident on its face/ 8f at all the pro-iso therein is +erely couched in i+precise lan&ua&e that 'as sal-a&ed .y proper construction/ 8t is not -oid for -a&ueness/ D&0a P(&*ra 'ur)+&r ar2u&s )+a) )+& a.)s )+a) .ons)()u)& 5r&.ru()/&n) an* ,0a.&/&n)6 su''&r 'ro/ ov&r1r&a*)+ s(n.& 1y /&r&0y 5r&'&rr(n26 a ,&rson 'or &/,0oy/&n), a ,&rson /ay 1& .onv(.)&* o' (00&2a0 r&.ru()/&n). 2hat Section 13 (.) enco+passes 'hat appellant apparently considers as custo+ary and har+less acts such as 3la.or or e+ploy+ent referral4 (3referrin&4 an applicant accordin& to appellant for e+ploy+ent to a prospecti-e e+ployer) does not render the la' o-er.road/ 7-idently >ela 0iedra +isapprehends concept of o-er.readth/ A statute +ay .e said to .e o-er.road 'here it operates to inhi.it the e;ercise of indi-idual freedo+s affir+ati-ely &uaranteed .y the Constitution such as the freedo+ of speech or reli&ion/ A &enerally 'orded statute 'hen construed to punish conduct 'hich cannot .e constitutionally punished is unconstitutionally -a&ue to the e;tent that it fails to &i-e ade*uate 'arnin& of the .oundary .et'een the constitutionally per+issi.le and the constitutionally i+per+issi.le applications of the statute/ 324 An&n) )+& s&.on* (ssu&, D&0a P(&*ra (nvo7&s )+& &8ua0 ,ro)&.)(on .0aus& (n +&r *&'&ns&. She points out that

althou&h the e-idence purportedly sho's that Jas+ine Ale,andro handed out application for+s and e-en recei-ed $ourdes #odesto?s pay+ent appellant 'as the only one cri+inally char&ed/ Ale,andro on the other hand re+ained scot-free/ 9ro+ this she concludes that the prosecution discri+inated a&ainst her on &rounds of re&ional ori&ins/ Appellant is a Ce.uana 'hile Ale,andro is a @a+.oan&ueAa and the alle&ed cri+e too1 place in @a+.oan&a City/ 2he Supre+e Court held that the ar&u+ent has no +erit/ 2he prosecution of one &uilty person 'hile others e*ually &uilty are not prosecuted is not .y itself a denial of the e*ual protection of the la's/ 2he unla'ful ad+inistration .y officers of a statute fair on its face resultin& in its une*ual application to those 'ho are entitled to .e treated ali1e is not a denial of e*ual protection unless there is sho'n to .e present in it an ele+ent of intentional or purposeful discri+ination/ (ut a discri+inatory purpose is not presu+ed there +ust .e a sho'in& of 3clear and intentional discri+ination/4 8n the case at .ar >ela 0iedra has failed to sho' that in char&in& her there 'as a 3clear and intentional discri+ination4 on the part of the prosecutin& officials/ 9urther+ore the presu+ption is that the prosecutin& officers re&ularly perfor+ed their duties and this presu+ption can .e o-erco+e only .y proof to the contrary not .y +ere speculation/ As said earlier accused has not presented any e-idence to o-erco+e this presu+ption/ 2he +ere alle&ation that dela 0iedra a Ce.uana 'as char&ed 'ith the co++ission of a cri+e 'hile a @a+.oan&ueAa the &uilty party in appellant?s eyes 'as not is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant e*ual protection of the la's/

SALA9AR :S. ACHACOSO ;1<% SCRA 1 => G.R. NO. <1=1!> 1 MAR 1??!@ =ednesday 9e.ruary 0" 600! 0osted .y Coffeeholic =rites $a.els5 Case >i&ests 0olitical $a' Fa.)s$ Rosalie 2esoro of 0asay City in a s'orn state+ent filed 'ith the 0O7A char&ed petitioner 'ith ille&al recruit+ent/ 0u.lic respondent Atty/ 9erdinand #ar*ue) sent petitioner a tele&ra+ directin& hi+ to appear to the 0O7A re&ardin& the co+plaint a&ainst hi+/ On the sa+e day after 1no'in& that petitioner had no license to operate a recruit+ent a&ency pu.lic respondent Ad+inistrator 2o+as Achacoso issued a Closure and Sei)ure Order %o/ 1605 to petitioner/ 8t stated that there 'ill a sei)ure of the docu+ents and paraphernalia .ein& used or intended to .e used as the +eans of co++ittin& ille&al recruit+ent it ha-in& -erified that petitioner has< (1) %o -alid license or authority fro+ the >epart+ent of $a.or and 7+ploy+ent to recruit and deploy 'or1ers for o-erseas e+ploy+entB (6) Co++ittedCare co++ittin& acts prohi.ited under Article 3" of the %e' $a.or Code in relation to Article 3D of the sa+e code/ A tea+ 'as then tas1ed to i+ple+ent the said Order/ 2he &roup acco+panied .y +edia+en and #andaluyon& police+en 'ent to petitioner?s residence/ 2hey ser-ed the order to a certain #rs/ 9or a Sala)ar 'ho let the+ in/ 2he tea+ confiscated assorted costu+es/ 0etitioner filed 'ith 0O7A a letter re*uestin& for the return of the sei)ed properties .ecause she 'as not &i-en prior notice and hearin&/ 2he said Order -iolated due process/ She also alle&ed that it -iolated sec 6 of the (ill of Ri&hts and the properties 'ere confiscated a&ainst her 'ill and 'ere done 'ith unreasona.le force and inti+idation/ Issu&$ =hether or %ot the 0hilippine O-erseas 7+ploy+ent Ad+inistration (or the Secretary of $a.or) can -alidly issue 'arrants of search and sei)ure (or arrest) under Article 3D of the $a.or Code H&0*$ :nder the ne' Constitution 3/ / / no search 'arrant or 'arrant of arrest shall issue e;cept upon pro.a.le cause to .e deter+ined personally .y the ,ud&e after e;a+ination under oath or affir+ation of the co+plainant and the 'itnesses he +ay produce and particularly descri.in& the place to .e searched and the persons or thin&s to .e sei)ed4/ #ayors and prosecutin& officers cannot issue 'arrants of sei)ure or arrest/ 2he Closure and Sei)ure Order 'as .ased on Article 3D of the $a.or Code/ 2he Supre+e Court held 3=e reiterate that the Secretary of $a.or not .ein& a ,ud&e +ay no lon&er issue search or arrest 'arrants/ Eence the authorities +ust &o throu&h the ,udicial process/ 2o that e;tent 'e declare Article 3D para&raph (c) of the $a.or Code unconstitutional and of no force and effectF 2he po'er of the 0resident to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is o.-iously e;ceptional/ 8t (the po'er to order arrests) cannot .e +ade to e;tend to other cases li1e the one at .ar/ :nder the Constitution it is the sole do+ain of the courts/4 9urther+ore the search and sei)ure order 'as in the nature of a &eneral 'arrant/ 2he court held that the 'arrant is null and -oid .ecause it +ust identify specifically the thin&s to .e sei)ed/ =E7R79OR7 the petition is GRA%27>/ Article 3D para&raph (c) of the $a.or Code is declared :%CO%S282:28O%A$ and null and -oid/ 2he respondents are OR>7R7> to return all +aterials sei)ed as a result of the i+ple+entation of Search and Sei)ure Order %o/ 1605/

;G.R. No. 12? <A, Ju0y ! , 2!!<@ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFFBAPPELLEE, :S. GLORIA CARTOLOME, ACC#SEDBAPPELLANT.

9AC2S5 On Septe+.er 6 1!D! in the Re&ional 2rial Court (R2C) in %aic Ca-ite theOffice of the 0ro-incial 9iscal of Ca-ite filed ei&ht (D) separate 8nfor+ations four (") for 8lle&al Recruit+ent and four (") for 7stafa a&ainst accused-appellant Gloria (artolo+e and $idelia Capa'an/ 9or 8lle&al Recruit+ent the a.o-e-na+ed accused 'ith deli.erate intent to defraud .y falsely representin& the+sel-es to ha-e the capacity to contract enlist and recruit 'or1ers a.road did then and there 'illfully unla'fully and feloniously for a fee recruit and pro+ise e+ploy+entC,o. place+ent in (ahrain to one 9e Rollon 'ithout first o.tainin& the re*uired license andCor authority fro+ the >epart+ent of $a.or and 7+ploy+ent there.y resultin& da+a&e and pre,udice/ CO%2RARH 2O $A=/ 9or 7stafa the a.o-e-na+ed accused 'ith false +anifestation and +isrepresentation pretendin& the+sel-es that they possessed po'er and influence to recruit 'or1ers for e+ploy+ent a.road o.li&ated the+sel-es to see1 and facilitate e+ploy+ent a.road of 9e Rollon as saleslady in (ahrain and pursuant to said o.li&ation recei-ed fro+ 9e Rollon the total a+ount of 016 500/00 .ut accused upon receipt and possession of the afore+entioned a+ount of 016 500/00 and far fro+ co+plyin& 'ith their o.li&ation did then and there 'illfully unla'fully and feloniously +isapply +isappropriate and con-ert the aforesaid a+ount of 016 500/00 to their o'n use and .enefits and despite repeated de+ands +ade to +a1e &ood of their pro+ise andCor return the a+ount ta1en andCor recei-ed fro+ the said -icti+ accused failed and refused to do so there.y resultin& to the da+a&e and pre,udice of said 9e Rollon in the aforesaid a+ount of 016 500/00/ CO%2RARH 2O $A=/ Of the t'o accused na+ed in the infor+ations only accused-appellant (artolo+e 'as .rou&ht under the ,urisdiction of the R2C Capa'an .ein& then and still is at lar&e/ =hen arrai&ned accused-appellant entered a plea of not &uilty to all char&es/ 2he four (") pri-ate co+plainants 9e Rollon Ray+undo >i+atulac 7speran)a (uhay and Reynaldo Rollon each char&in& accused-appellant 'ith one count of ille&al recruit+ent and one count of estafa 'ere all fro+ Calu+pan& $e,os 8ndan& Ca-ite li1e accused-appellant/I1J (uhay presented as co++on prosecution 'itness for all cases testified seein& accused-appellant her hus.and and Capa'an so+eti+e in July 1!DD 'al1in& around Calu+pan& $e,os +a1in& it appear that they 'ere .adly in need of 'or1ers for o-erseas e+ploy+ent/ =hen as1ed (uhay e-inced interest to 'or1 a.road and upon .ein& assured .y accused-appellant and Capa'an of the &enuineness of their offer later &a-e the t'o a su+ of +oney to co-er +edical processin& and passport fees/ And -ery +uch later (uhay paid accused-appellant and Capa'an in #a1ati City 0h0 13 000 as place+ent fee for 'hich she 'as handed a pre-si&ned receipt/ (uhay 'as &i-en a photocopied plane tic1et purportedly for a fli&ht to (ahrain .ut the pro+ised ,o. a.road ne-er +ateriali)ed/ >i+atulac on the other hand testified that he 'as &i-en a run around a.out his departure for (ahrain/ Accordin& to hi+ after si&nifyin& 'hen so as1ed his desire to 'or1 in (ahrain as ,anitor accused-appellant and Capa'an told hi+ to fill out a .io-data for+ and to pay the usual processin& and place+ent fees 'hich he did/ >i+atulac 'as not a.le to lea-e and failed to &et his +oney .ac1 pro+ptin& hi+ li1e (uhay to file a co+plaint 'ith the 0hilippine O-erseas

7+ploy+ent A&ency (0O7A)/ Co+plainin& 'itnesses 9e and Reynaldo &a-e parallel accounts a.out their dealin&s 'ith the rene&in& accusedappellant and Capa'an particularly 'ith respect to personally +eetin& the latter t'o 'ho offered o-erseas ,o. place+ents in (ahrain .ein& as1ed to pay and payin& the processin& and place+ent fees and .ein& &i-en a photocopy of a plane tic1et/ Accused-appellant denied the accusations a&ainst her and disclai+ed e-er pretendin& to possess po'er and influence to recruit and secure o-erseas e+ploy+ent for pri-ate co+plainants/ She clai+ed that the pri-ate co+plainants 'ere only out to .lac1+ail her .ecause the 'ife of her .rother-in-la' is related to Capa'an 'ho actually did the recruitin&B and that her hus.and and her .rother-in-la' 'ere the+sel-es -icti+s of Capa'anKs recruit+ent acti-ities/ R#LING$ R2C found accused-appellant &uilty .eyond reasona.le dou.t of the cri+es char&ed and sentenced her/ Accused Gloria (artolo+e &uilty .eyond reasona.le dou.t of four (") counts or offenses of ille&al recruit+ent under Art/ 3D para/ (.) $a.or Code of the 0hilippines as a+ended and on each count or offense sentences her 'ith an i+prison+ent of ei&ht (D) years and a fine of 050 000/00/ 2he Court finds said accused &uilty .eyond any shado' of dou.t of four (") counts or offenses of estafa under Art/ 315 6(A) Iof the Re-ised 0enal CodeJ and shall for each count or offense suffer an i+prison+ent of prision correccional in its +a;i+u+ period to prision +ayor in its +ini+u+ period or si; (6) years ei&ht (D) +onths and 61 days to ei&ht (D) years/ 2he ser-ices of the fore&oin& i+posed penalties of i+prison+ent shall .e successi-e pursuant to Art/ L0 Re-ised 0enal Code/ Accused-appellant 'ent to the Court of Appeals (CA)/ R#LING$ 2he CA rendered a >ecision affir+in& R2CMNs decision su.,ect to the #O>898CA28O% that appellant is here.y sentenced to suffer the penalty of $ife 8+prison+ent and ordered to pay 0100 000/00 as fine for the cri+e of 8lle&al Recruit+ent in $ar&e Scale/ 2he appellate court predicated its +odificatory action on the follo'in& pre+ises5 Appellant 'as char&ed and con-icted of ille&ally recruitin& four people and her cri+e is classified as 8lle&al Recruit+ent co++itted in lar&e scale and as such it is considered as in-ol-in& econo+ic sa.ota&e/ Said cri+e carries 'ith it the penalty of $ife 8+prison+ent and a fine of 0100 000/00/ Accused-appellant +o-ed for reconsideration/ 2he +otion 'as denied/ 2hen a petition for re-ie' of said decision and resolution 'as filed/ 2he Court dis+issed accused-appellantKs petition for re-ie'/ 2he dis+issal .eca+e final and e;ecutory 'ith the issuance of the entry of ,ud&+ent/ 2he R2CKs decision con-ictin& accused-appellant for estafa is dee+ed affir+ed 'ith finality/ Accused-appellant insists that Capa'an confederatin& 'ith a 2hai national 'as the ille&al recruiter/ ISS#E$ =C% the accused-appellant is &uilty as char&ed HELD5 8lle&al recruit+ent is co++itted 'hen t'o (6) ele+ents concur5 9irst the offender does not ha-e the re*uired license or

authority to en&a&e in the recruit+ent and place+ent of 'or1ers/ Second the offender undertoo1 (1) recruit+ent and place+ent acti-ity defined under Article 13(.) of the $a.or Code or (6) any prohi.ited practice under Art/ 3" of the sa+e code/ 8lle&al recruit+ent is *ualified into lar&e scale 'hen three or +ore persons indi-idually or as &roup are -icti+i)ed/I11J Art/ 13(.) of the $a.or Code defines recruit+ent and place+ent as MOAny act of can-assin& enlistin& contractin& transportin& utili)in& hirin& or procurin& 'or1ers and includes referrals contract ser-ices pro+isin& or ad-ertisin& for e+ploy+ent locally or a.road 'hether for profit or not5 0ro-ided 2hat any person or entity 'hich in any +anner offers or pro+ises for a fee e+ploy+ent to t'o or +ore persons shall .e dee+ed en&a&ed in recruit+ent and place+ent/MP 2he Court is fully con-inced as to accused-appellantKs &uilt of the cri+e of ille&al recruit+ent in lar&e scale/ 2he first ele+ent is present/ Accused-appellant had not sho'n any license to recruit or en&a&e in place+ent acti-ities/ As found .y the trial court the 0O7A no less initiated the filin& of the co+plaints a&ainst accused-appellant a reality 'hich ar&ues a&ainst the e;istence of such license or authority/ 2he second ele+ent also o.tains/ On separate occasions accused-appellant approached and recruited at least four (") persons at the sa+e place and at a.out the sa+e ti+e &i-in& the+ the i+pression that she and Capa'an had the capa.ility to send the+ to (ahrain for e+ploy+ent/ All four testified that accused-appellant pro+ised the+ e+ploy+ent for a fee/ 2heir testi+onies corro.orate each other on +aterial points such as the a+ount e;acted as place+ent fee the country of destination and the photocopied plane tic1ets/ Accused-appellant cannot plausi.ly escape lia.ility for her cri+inal acts .y con-eniently pointin& to and passin& the .la+e on Capa'an as the ille&al recruiter/ 2he cri+e of ille&al recruit+ent in lar&e scale is punisha.le under Art/ 3!(a) of the $a.or Code as a+ended 'ith life i+prison+ent and a fine of 0h0 100 000/ 2he CA accordin&ly i+posed the ri&ht penalty/

ANTONIO M. SERRANO VS. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC. GR No. 167614 March 24, 2009 ACTS! Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a P !A"approved contract o# employment #or $% months, as Chie# ##icer, with the basic monthly salary o# &S'$,()), plus '*))+month overtime pay, and * days paid vacation leave per month. n March $,, $,,-, the date o# his departure, Serrano was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract #or the position o# Second ##icer with a monthly salary o# &S'$,))) upon the assurance and representation o# respondents that he would be Chie# ##icer by the end o# April $,,-. .espondents did not deliver on their promise to ma/e Serrano Chie# ##icer. 0ence, Serrano re#used to stay on as second ##icer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May %1, $,,-, serving only two 2%3 months and seven 2*3 days o# his contract, leaving an une4pired portion o# nine 2,3 months and twenty"three 2%53 days. Serrano #iled with the 6abor Arbiter 26A3 a Complaint against respondents #or constructive dismissal and #or payment o# his money claims in the total amount o# &S'%1,((%.*5 2based on the computation o# '%7,)+month #rom 8une $,,- to 9ebruary $,,, '($5.,) #or March $,,-, and '$1() #or March $,,,3 as well as moral and e4emplary damages. :he 6A declared the petitioner;s dismissal illegal and awarded him &S'-,**), representing his salaray #or three 253 months o# the une4pired portion o# the a#oresaid contract o# employment, plus '(7 #or salary di##erential and #or attorney;s #ees e<uivalent to $)= o# the total amount> however, no compensation #or damages as prayed was awarded. n appeal, the N6.C modi#ied the 6A decision and awarded Serrano '(11,.7), representing three 253 months salary at '$())+month, plus ((7 salary di##erential and $)= #or attorney;s #ees. :his decision was based on the provision o# .A -)(%, which was made into law on 8uly $7, $,,7. Serrano #iled a Motion #or Partial .econsideration, but this time he <uestioned the constitutionality o# the last clause in the 7th paragraph o# Section $) o# .A -)(%, which reads? Sec. $). Money Claims. @ 4 4 4 In case o# termination o# overseas employment without Aust, valid or authoriBed cause as de#ined by law or contract, the wor/ers shall be entitled to the #ull reimbursement o# his placement #ee with interest o# twelve percent 2$%=3 per annum, plus his salaries #or the une4pired portion o# his employment contract or #or three 253 months #or every year o# the une4pired term, whichever is less. :he N6.C denied the Motion> hence, Serrano #iled a Petition #or Certiorari with the Court o# Appeals 2CA3, reiterating the constitutional challenge against the subAect clause. :he CA a##irmed the N6.C ruling on the reduction o# the applicable salary rate, but s/irted the constitutional issue raised by herein petitioner Serrano. ISS"ES! $. Chether or not the subAect clause violates Section $), Article III o# the Constitution on non"impairment o# contracts> %. Chether or not the subAect clause violate Section $, Article III o# the Constitution, and Section $-, Article II and Section 5, Article DIII on labor as a protected sector. #ELD! n the #irst issue. :he answer is in the negative. Petitioner;s claim that the subAect clause unduly inter#eres with the stipulations in his contract on the term o# his employment and the #i4ed salary pac/age he will receive is not tenable. Section $), Article III o# the Constitution provides? No law impairing the obligation o# contracts shall be passed. :he prohibition is aligned with the general 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 e4istence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereo#. :hus, the non" impairment clause under Section $), Article II is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate #rom e4isting acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention o# the parties thereto.

As aptly observed by the SG, the enactment o# ..A. No. -)(% in $,,7 preceded the e4ecution o# the employment contract between petitioner and respondents in $,,-. 0ence, it cannot be argued that ..A. No. -)(%, particularly the subAect clause, impaired the employment contract o# the parties. .ather, when the parties e4ecuted their $,,- employment contract, they were deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions o# ..A. No. -)(%. Eut even i# the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subAect clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause, #or the law was enacted in the e4ercise o# the police power o# the State to regulate a business, pro#ession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment o# 9Cs, with the noble end in view o# ensuring respect #or the dignity and well"being o# 9Cs wherever they may be employed. Police power legislations adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, sa#ety, and general wel#are o# the people are generally applicable not only to #uture contracts but even to those already in e4istence, #or all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures ta/en by the State to promote public wel#are. n the second issue. :he answer is in the a##irmative. Section $, Article III o# the Constitution guarantees? No person shall be deprived o# li#e, liberty, or property without due process o# law nor shall any person be denied the e<ual protection o# the law. Section $-, Article II and Section 5, Article DIII accord all members o# the labor sector, without distinction as to place o# deployment, #ull protection o# their rights and wel#are. :o 9ilipino wor/ers, the rights guaranteed under the #oregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity? all monetary bene#its should be e<ually enAoyed by wor/ers o# similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in e<ual degree> none should be denied the protection o# the laws which is enAoyed by, or spared the burden imposed on, others in li/e circumstances. Such rights are not absolute but subAect to the inherent power o# Congress to incorporate, when it sees #it, a system o# classi#ication into its legislation> however, to be valid, the classi#ication must comply with these re<uirements? $3 it is based on substantial distinctions> %3 it is germane to the purposes o# the law> 53 it is not limited to e4isting conditions only> and (3 it applies e<ually to all members o# the class. :here are three levels o# scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality o# a classi#ication embodied in a law? a3 the de#erential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged classi#ication needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest> b3 the middle" tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged classi#ication serves an important state interest and that the classi#ication is at least substantially related to serving that interest> and c3 strict Audicial scrutiny in which a legislative classi#ication which impermissibly inter#eres with the e4ercise o# a #undamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage o# a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classi#ication is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. &pon cursory reading, the subAect clause appears #acially neutral, #or it applies to all 9Cs. 0owever, a closer e4amination reveals that the subAect clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, 9Cs at two levels? 9irst, 9Cs with employment contracts o# less than one year vis"F"vis 9Cs with employment contracts o# one year or more> Second, among 9Cs with employment contracts o# more than one year> and :hird, 9Cs vis"F"vis local wor/ers with #i4ed"period employment> In sum, prior to ..A. No. -)(%, 9Cs and local wor/ers with #i4ed"term employment who were illegally discharged were treated ali/e in terms o# the computation o# their money claims? they were uni#ormly entitled to their salaries #or the entire une4pired portions o# their contracts. Eut with the enactment o# ..A. No. -)(%, speci#ically the adoption o# the subAect clause, illegally dismissed 9Cs with an une4pired portion o# one year or more in their employment contract have since been di##erently treated in that their money claims are subAect to a 5"month cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local wor/ers with #i4ed"term employment. :he Court concludes that the subAect clause contains a suspect classi#ication in that, in the computation o# the monetary bene#its o# #i4ed"term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 5"month cap on the claim o# 9Cs with an une4pired portion o# one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims o# other 9Cs or local wor/ers with #i4ed"term employment. :he subAect clause singles out one classi#ication o# 9Cs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage. :here being a suspect classi#ication involving a vulnerable sector protected by the Constitution, the Court now subAects the classi#ication to a strict Audicial scrutiny, and determines whether it serves a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means.

Chat constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale o# rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history. It is a/in to the paramount interest o# the state #or which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in sa#eguarding health or maintaining medical standards, or in maintaining access to in#ormation on matters o# public concern. In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but #ound no compelling state interest that the subAect clause may possibly serve. In #ine, the Government has #ailed to discharge its burden o# proving the e4istence o# a compelling state interest that would Austi#y the perpetuation o# the discrimination against 9Cs under the subAect clause. Assuming that, as advanced by the SG, the purpose o# the subAect clause is to protect the employment o# 9Cs by mitigating the solidary liability o# placement agencies, such callous and cavalier rationale will have to be reAected. :here can never be a Austi#ication #or any #orm o# government action that alleviates the burden o# one sector, but imposes the same burden on another sector, especially when the #avored sector is composed o# private businesses such as placement agencies, while the disadvantaged sector is composed o# 9Cs whose protection no less than the Constitution commands. :he idea that private business interest can be elevated to the level o# a compelling state interest is odious. Moreover, even i# the purpose o# the subAect clause is to lessen the solidary liability o# placement agencies vis"a"vis their #oreign principals, there are mechanisms already in place that can be employed to achieve that purpose without in#ringing on the constitutional rights o# 9Cs. :he P !A .ules and .egulations Governing the .ecruitment and !mployment o# 6and"Eased verseas Cor/ers, dated 9ebruary (, %))%, imposes administrative disciplinary measures on erring #oreign employers who de#ault on their contractual obligations to migrant wor/ers and+or their Philippine agents. :hese disciplinary measures range #rom temporary dis<uali#ication to preventive suspension. :he P !A .ules and .egulations Governing the .ecruitment and !mployment o# Sea#arers, dated May %5, %))5, contains similar administrative disciplinary measures against erring #oreign employers. .esort to these administrative measures is undoubtedly the less restrictive means o# aiding local placement agencies in en#orcing the solidary liability o# their #oreign principals. :hus, the subAect clause in the 7th paragraph o# Section $) o# ..A. No. -)(% is violative o# the right o# petitioner and other 9Cs to e<ual protection. :he subAect clause Gor #or three months #or every year o# the une4pired term, whichever is lessH in the 7th paragraph o# Section $) o# .epublic Act No. -)(% is I!C6A.!I &NC NS:I:&:I NA6.

$ECMEN SERVICE E%&ORTER AND &ROMOTION, INC. '(. S&O"SES SIM&LICIO a)* MILA C"ARESMA, W#ITE ALCON SERVICES, INC. a)* +AIME ORTI, GR No. 1-297-.79 S&O"SES SIM&LICIO AND MILA C"ARESMA '(. W#ITE ALCON SERVICES, INC. a)* $ECMEN SERVICE E%&ORTER, INC. GR No. 1-429-.99 A/r01 7, 2009

ACTS! n 8anuary 1, $,,*, 8asmin Cuaresma 28asmin3 was deployed by Eecmen Service !4porter and Promotion, Inc. 2Eecmen3 to serve as assistant nurse in Al"Eir/ 0ospital in the Jingdom o# Saudi Arabia 2JSA3, #or a contract duration o# three years, with a corresponding salary o# &S'%(*.)) per month. ver a year later, she died allegedly o# poisoning. 8essie 9aAardo, a co"wor/er o# 8asmin, narrated that on 8une %$, $,,-, 8asmin was #ound dead by a #emale cleaner lying on the #loor inside her dormitory room with her mouth #oaming and smelling o# poison. Eased on the police report and the medical report o# the e4amining physician o# the Al"Eir/ 0ospital, who conducted an autopsy o# 8asmin;s body, the li/ely cause o# her death was poisoning. 8asmin;s body was repatriated to Manila on September 5, $,,-. :he #ollowing day, the City 0ealth ##icer o# Cabanatuan City conducted an autopsy and the resulting medical report indicated that 8asmin died under violent circumstances, and not poisoning as originally #ound by the JSA e4amining physician. :he to4icology report o# the NEI, however, tested negative #or non"volatile, metallic poison and insecticides. Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma 2the Cuaresmas3, 8asmin;s parents and her surviving heirs, received #rom the verseas Cor/ers Cel#are Administration 2 CCA3 the #ollowing amounts? P7),))).)) #or death bene#its> P7),))).)) #or loss o# li#e> P%),))).)) #or #uneral e4penses> and P$),))).)) #or medical reimbursement. n November %%, $,,,, the Cuaresmas #iled a complaint against Eecmen and its principal in the JSA, .aAab K Silsilah Company 2.aAab3, claiming death and insurance bene#its, as well as moral and e4emplary damages #or 8asmin;s death, 8asmin;s death was wor/"related, having occurred at the employer;s premises> that under 8asmin;s contract with Eecmen, she is entitled to Gi<ama insuranceH coverage> that 8asmin is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount o# &S'$)5,*().)), which is the sum total o# her monthly salary o# &S'%(*.)) per month under her employment contract, multiplied by 57 years 2or the remaining years o# her productive li#e had death not supervened at age %7, assuming that she lived and would have retired at age 1)3. In their position paper, Eecmen and .aAab insist that 8asmin committed suicide, citing a prior unsuccess#ul suicide attempt sometime in March or April $,,- and relying on the medical report o# the e4amining physician o# the Al"Eir/ 0ospital. :hey li/ewise deny liability because the Cuaresmas already recovered death and other bene#its totaling P$5),))).)) #rom the CCA. :hey insist that the Cuaresmas are not entitled to Gi<ama insuranceH because this re#ers to the GissuanceH @ not insurance @ o# i<ama, or residency+wor/ permit re<uired in the JSA. n the issue o# moral and e4emplary damages, they claim that the Cuaresmas are not entitled to the same because they have not acted with #raud, nor have they been in bad #aith in handling 8asmin;s case. Chile the case was pending, Eecmen #iled a mani#estation and motion #or substitution alleging that .aAab terminated their agency relationship and had appointed Chite 9alcon Services, Inc. 2Chite 9alcon3 as its new recruitment agent in the Philippines. :hus, Chite 9alcon was impleaded as respondent as well, and it adopted and reiterated Eecmen;s arguments in the position paper it subse<uently #iled. ISS"ES! 2$.3 whether the Cuaresmas are entitled to monetary claims, by way o# bene#its and damages, #or the death o# their daughter 8asmin. 2%3 whether or not 8asmin;s death be considered as wor/"connected and thus compensable even while she was not on duty>

#ELD! Article $, o# the Civil Code provides that every person must, in the e4ercise o# his rights and in the per#ormance o# his duties, act with Austice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good #aith. Article %$ o# the Code states that any person who wil#ully causes loss or inAury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter #or the damage. And, lastly, Article %( re<uires that in all contractual, property or other relations, when one o# the parties is at a disadvantage on account o# his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental wea/ness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant #or his protection. Clearly, .aAab, Eecmen and Chite 9alcon;s acts and omissions are against public policy because they undermine and subvert the interest and general wel#are o# our 9Cs abroad, who are entitled to #ull protection under the law. :hey set an aw#ul e4ample o# how #oreign employers and recruitment agencies should treat and act with respect to their distressed employees and wor/ers abroad. :heir shabby and callous treatment o# 8asmin;s case> their uncaring attitude> their unAusti#ied #ailure and re#usal to assist in the determination o# the true circumstances surrounding her mysterious death, and instead #inding satis#action in the unreasonable insistence that she committed suicide Aust so they can conveniently avoid pecuniary liability> placing their own corporate interests above o# the wel#are o# their employee;s @ all these are contrary to morals, good customs and public policy, and constitute ta/ing advantage o# the poor employee and her #amily;s ignorance, helplessness, indigence and lac/ o# power and resources to see/ the truth and obtain Austice #or the death o# a loved one. Giving in handily to the idea that 8asmin committed suicide, and adamantly insisting on it Aust to protect .aAab and Eecmen;s material interest @ despite evidence to the contrary @ is against the moral law and runs contrary to the good custom o# not denouncing one;s #ellowmen #or alleged grave wrongdoings that undermine their good name and honor. Chether employed locally or overseas, all 9ilipino wor/ers enAoy the protective mantle o# Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. :his pronouncement is in /eeping with the basic public policy o# the State to a##ord protection to labor, promote #ull employment, ensure e<ual wor/ opportunities regardless o# se4, race or creed, and regulate the relations between wor/ers and employers. :his ruling is li/ewise rendered imperative by Article $* o# the Civil Code which states that laws which have #or their obAect public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ine##ective by laws or Audgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a #oreign country. :he relations between capital and labor are so impressed with public interest,and neither shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience o# the public. In case o# doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in #avor o# the sa#ety and decent living #or the laborer. :he grant o# moral damages to the employee by reason o# misconduct on the part o# the employer is sanctioned by Article %%$, 2$)3 o# the Civil Code, which allows recovery o# such damages in actions re#erred to in Article %$. :hus, in view o# the #oregoing, the Court holds that the Cuaresmas are entitled to moral damages, which Eecmen and Chite 9alcon are Aointly and solidarily liable to pay, together with e4emplary damages #or wanton and oppressive behavior, and by way o# e4ample #or the public good. O) 2h3 (3co)* 0((43! Chile the Gemployer;s premisesH may be de#ined very broadly not only to include premises owned by it, but also premises it leases, hires, supplies or uses, we are not prepared to rule that the dormitory wherein 8asmin stayed should constitute employer;s premises as would allow a #inding that death or inAury therein is considered to have been incurred or sustained in the course o# or arose out o# her employment. :here are certainly e4ceptions, but they do not appear to apply here. Moreover, a complete determination would have to depend on the uni<ue circumstances obtaining and the overall #actual environment o# the case, which are here lac/ing. C0!.!9 .!, .aAab K Silsilah Company, Chite 9alcon Services, Inc., Eecmen Service !4porter and Promotion, Inc., and their corporate directors and o##icers are #ound Aointly and solidarily liable and .I!.!I to indemni#y the heirs o# 8asmin Cuaresma, spouses Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma, the #ollowing amounts? 2$3 :C MI66I N 9IL! 0&NI.!I :0 &SANI P!S S 2P%,7)),))).))3 as moral damages> 2%3 :C MI66I N 9IL! 0&NI.!I :0 &SANI P!S S 2P%,7)),))).))3 as e4emplary damages> 253Attorney;s #ees e<uivalent to ten percent 2$)=3 o# the total monetary

award.