G.R. No.

101279 August 6, 1992

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, as Secretary of the Department of Labor & Employment, and JOSE N.
SARMIENTO, as Administrator of the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION,
respondents.
Facts: Published stories were released regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino housemaid employed in Hong
Kong. As a result, DOLE Secretary Ruben Torres issued Department Order No. 16 temporarily suspending the
recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. Through POEA, DOLE
took over the business of deploying the Hong Kong-bound workers. POEA, pursuant to DOLEs circular, provided for
the guidelines on the processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong Kong.
On September 2, 1991, PASEI, the largest national organization of private employment and recruitment engaged in
the business of obtaining overseas employment for Filipino, filed petition challenging the constitutionality on the
grounds: that DOLE and POEA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said circulars because it is in
excess of their rule-making power; violative of the Constitution because such circulars are oppressive, unfair and
unreasonable; and the requirement of publication was not satisfied.
Issue: whether the Department Order issued by DOLE Secretary suspending temporary the recruitment by private
employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong for their protection is unconstitutional on the
grounds that (1) DOLE and POEA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said circulars because it is in
excess of their rule-making power; (2) violative of the Constitution because such circulars are oppressive, unfair and
unreasonable; (3) the requirement of publication was not satisfied.
Held: The court held that there was no merit on the first and second grounds. Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the
Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. On the other hand, the
regulatory authority of POEA was created by EO No. 797 when it took over the functions of the Overseas
Employment Development Board, the National Seamen Board and the overseas employment of the Bureau of
Employment Services.
Regarding the second issue, it is a well-settled rule that the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers of
administrative bodies are not unconstitutional nor oppressive and unreasonable. Because of the complexity of
activities of the society, administrative bodies are necessary to help in the regulation of societys activities. The
questioned circulars are valid exercise of the police power as delegated by the executive branch of Government.
As to the third issue, the court held that there was no proper publication. It was not filed with the Office of the National
Administrative Register as required by Article 2 of Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4,
Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. Therefore, administrative circulars in question were
unenforceable until the requirement of publication was satisfied.