Intro to Labor Standards

Article 4 (Rules on Construction: In Favor of Labor)

Is it fair? Yes. The workers are often at a
disadvantaged balance and this
construction will create a balance.
Article 3 (Basic Policy)
Article 6 (Applicability)
Rights of Management
Article 12 (Statement of Objectives)
- statement of objectives in relation to
recruitment and placement
Article 13(b) Definition of Recruitment
and Placement
Q: When a person promises or offers employment to
only one person, does it mean that there is no
recruitment and placement?
A1: According to the rules of evidence. When one
person is claiming that something happened, it has
to be corroborated by another person. But it doesn't
mean that when only one person is at play, there is
no recruitment and placement.
A2: There is still recruitment and placement. In the
case of People vs. Panis, the Supreme Court held that
the number of persons is not an essential ingredient of
the act of recruitment and placement of workers. The
proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on
the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but
merely to create a presumption. Any of the act
mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will
constitute recruitment and placement even if only one
prospective worker is involved.
Article 13(c) Private Fee-Charging Employment
Agency
People vs. Fernandez
Issue: Whether or not Hernandez and
Spouses Reichl are guilty of illegal
recruitment.
Allegations of Complainants:
Job promised: Domestic Helper in Italy.
Defense 1 of Spouses: They were merely
facilitating in securing Austrian visas.
SC Ruling:The evidence shows that the spouses
promised overseas employment to
complainants and required them to prepare the
necessary documents and to pay the placement
fee, although they did not have any

license to do so. There is illegal recruitment

when one who does not possess the
necessary authority or license gives the
impression of having the ability to send a
worker abroad.
Defense 2 of Spouses: They were approached
by Hernandez and sought for their help in
securing Austrian visas for the relatives of
Hernandez.
SC Ruling:Act of promising/helping constitutes
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b)
of the Labor Code.
Q: What if the spouses were just merely
facilitating visa application? Would the
Supreme Court have ruled in the same way?
A: No. The act of facilitating is not coupled with
an offer or promise for a fee, employment to
the aspiring workers. Otherwise, they would
have deemed to be engaged in recruitment
and placement.
Defense 3 of Spouses: Mr. Karl Reichl did not
understand what he was signing.
SC Ruling: It was shown that karl signed a
document where he promised to refund the
payments given by complainants for the
processing of their papers. Karl cannot be
forced by Francisco to sign the said
document. Karl is an educated man and
cannot be said that he did not understand the
contents of the paper he was signing. When
he affixed his signature thereon, he in effect
acknowledged his obligation to ensure the
departure of complainants and to provide
them gainful employment abroad.
Q: We have established that there was
recruitment and placement. What made it
illegal?
A: There is illegal recruitment when one who
does not possess the necessary authority or
license gives the impression of having the
ability to send a worker abroad.
Q: Why is there a heavier penalty?
A: The law imposes a higher penalty when the
illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate
or in large scale as they are considered an
offense involving economic sabotage.
Generally, when a person engages in recruitment
and placement, what can be filed against him?
Estafa under the Revised Penal Code and
Illegal Recruitment under the Labor Code and
under RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022
Q: Is there double jeopardy?
A: No. Estafa being under the RPC is mala in

se while Ilegal Recruitment being under

a special law is mala prohibita.
People vs. Hadja Lalli
What happened? Facts.
What job was promised to her? Entertainer at
a restaurant.
Problem of Lolita? She has no passport.
Specific acts of recruitment and placement?
Defense of Aringoy: He only referred Lolita to
lalli for job opportunities in Malaysia.
SC Ruling: Such act of referring, whether for profit
or not, in connivance with someone without a
POEA license, is already considered illegal
recruitment, given the broad definition of
recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.
What happened when they were in Malaysia?
They served as prostitutes.
What is the sentence of those who engaged in
recruitment and placement in this case? They
were guilty of illegal recruitment committed by
a syndicate with a penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P500,000 imposed on each of
the accused?
Why by a syndicate? Illegal recruitment is
deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by 3 or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying
out any unlawful or illegal transaction,
enterprise or scheme.
Who are these 3 persons? Lalli, Aringoy and
Relampagos.
What is the degree of participation of each of
them?
As to Aringoy: He, being the neighbor of
Lolita's grandfather, was the one who
referred Lolita to Lalli.
As to Lalli: Had she not purchased Lolita's
boat ticket to Malaysia, Lolita would not
have been able to go to Malaysia.
As to Relampagos: He's the one who
introduced Lolita and her companions to
their Boss when they arrived in Malaysia. He
was also the one who brought Lolita and the
other girls on board a van to a place where
they stayed for a night.
What crimes are they guilty of? They are guilty
of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and
Trafficking in Persons committed by a
syndicate.
Is there double jeopardy? No. Because Illegal
Recruitment is punished by a special law
which is 8042 while Trafficking in Persons is
punished by a different special law which is

RA 9208.
Can we still file a case for estafa? Yes. Estafa
is punished under the Revised Penal Code.
There is no double jeopardy.
What were the penalties? For Trafficking in
Persons, life imprisonment and a fine of P2
million. For Illegal Recruitment, life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.
Article 14 (Power and Authority of the Secretary)
Which is the primary force in recruitment and
placement? The private sector or the public sector?
The public sector is the primary force in
recruitment and placement.
Article 16 (Private recruitment)
Article 25 (Private sector participation in the
recruitment and placement of workers)

What is the POEA?

Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration
Section 28, RA 8042 (Jurisdiction of the
POEA)
Disciplinary action cases involve only employees?
False. Section 28(b).
Classifications of an OFW:
1) Land-based OFW
contract workers other than a seaman
including workers engaged in offshore
activities whose occupation requires that
majority of his working/gainful hours are
spent on land
constitutes the great majority of the OFWs.
2) Sea-based OFW
or seamen, are those employed in a vessel
engaged in maritime navigation
sea-based work pertains to ship operations
like navigation, engineering, maintenance,
including a variety of occupations from
kitchen staff to on-board entertainment in
large vessel ships.
Definition of an OFW:
Filipino citizens employed overseas.
How different is an OFW from a migrant worker?
The same.
Migrant Worker's Act
LAND-BASED OFWS

What are the Disciplinary Action Cases that can

be filed? In land-based? In sea-based?
drugs? Smugging? Gambling? Prostitution?
Penalties?
Preventive Suspension
Disqualification from Overseas Employment
Sec. 4, Rule III (4 Exempting Circumstances)
Disciplianry Action cases for Employers (Land-based)

Where filed? To the Administration.

If not favorable? Appeal to the Secretary of Labor.
(according to the rules and the case of Eastern
vs. Surio)
Eastern vs. Surio
Issue: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction
to review on appeal a case dismissed by the
POEA.
Ruling: When RA 8042 withheld the appellate
jurisdiction of the NLRC in respect of cased
decided by the POEA, the appellate
jurisdiction was vested in the Secretary of
Labor in accordance wit the power of
supervision and control under the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987.
When was the case filed? This complaint for
disciplinary action was filed on December
23, 1993.
What was the law at that time? POEA Rules
and Regulations of 1991.
Now, where to file money claims? NLRC.
Now, where to file disciplinary action cases?
POEA
Their journey: POEA NLRC (dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction) SC
Allegation of petitioners: NLRC should take
cognizance of petitioner's appeal because in
1993, when the complaint was filed, NLRC
still acquired jurisdiction.
SC Ruling: Although as a rule, all laws are
prospective in application unless the contrary
is expressly provided, or unless the law is
procedural or curative in nature, there is no
serious question about the retroactive
applicability of RA 8042 (July 15, 1995)
because it is a procedural law due to its
providing or omitting guidelines on appeal.
Thus, RA 8042 applies to petitioner's

complaint by virtue of the case being then still

pending or undetermined at the time of the
law's passage, there being no vested rights in
rules of procedure.
Asian Center
Issue: Whether or not RA 9042 applies.
Petitioner: It is not the date of employment but
the date of dismissal (May 26, 1996) which
should be considered in determining the
applicability of RA 8042.
NLRC Ruling: RA 8042 does not apply as
respondent's employment which started in
February 1995, occurred prior to its effectivity
on July 15, 1995.
SC Ruling:
Isn't the Asian Center Ruling in conflict with
Eastern vs. Surio? No. In Eastern vs. Surio, the
complaint was filed before the enactment of RA
8042 but at the time of the appeal, RA 8042
already took effect whereas in Asian Center vs.
NLRC, the complaint was filed when RA 8042
was already the applicable law.
Eastern vs. POEA
Issue: Whether or not the POEA has
jurisdiction over a complaint.
Allegation of Zaragoza:
Allegation of employer: Their company is not
engaged in overseas employment since they
are a Philippine corporation.
SC Ruling: The statute and regulations do not
limit their coverage to non-Filipino employers.
Filipinos working overseas share the same
risks and burdens whether their employers be
Filipino or foreign.
Where to file the case at that time? POEA
(Section 4a, EO 797). Complaint was filed
on December 17, 1985.
Where to file the case now? Labor Arbiter (RA
8042)
If not overseas, where to file before? POEA.
If not overseas, where to file now? Still labor
arbiter.
If employment is already severed, go to
NLRC.
If collection of benefits while employee is still
employed, go to DOLE.
Why is there a ban on direct hiring (Article 18 of the
Labor Code)?
Responsibility of the government agencies to
ensure the best possible terms and
conditions for the employees

 For the purposes of documenting employees.

OWWA benefits.
Exceptions on direct hiring ban: Direct hiring by
members of the diplomatic corps, international
organizations (UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO) and
such other employers as may be allowed by
the DOLE, name hirees (or those individual
workers who are able to secure contracts for
overseas employment on their own efforts and
representation without the assistance of
participation of any agency.)
What does the POEA Rules provide on direct
hiring?
Wallem Shipping vs. MOLE
SC Ruling 1: A ship's crew cannot be held liable
for breach of contract for accepting higher
salary rates provided for in a Special
Agreement
between
the
International
Transport Federation and the shipowner's
representative while the said crew's contract
for lower Far East salary rates was in force.
Chavez vs. Bonto-Perez
- SC Ruling: Any alternations or changes made in
any part of the employment contract without prior
approval by POEA shall be null and void unless in
cases of increasing the benefits.