Fuentes vs.

NLRC | January 2, 1997

Facts: Regular employees of Agusan Plantations were terminated per decision of the Singapore head office for the purpose of
Retrenchment measures, due to alleged business losses. Notices of termination were issued to the workers ranging from
August 22 to September 1, and they were all terminated on September 25 and 30 1990. This caused the workers to file for
illegal dismissal. The LA rendered a decision in favor of workers, but the NLRC reversed, hence this petition.

Issue: WON the termination of the petitioners is valid.

Ruling: No. Article 283 enumerates the requisites of a Valid Retrenchment: (a) it is to prevent losses; (b) written notices were
served on the workers and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one (1) month before the effective date
of retrenchment; and, (c) separation pay is paid to the affected workers. There was no proff presented of the alleged losses,
and there was insufficient notice due to the interval between the date of notice and date of termination.

Respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and ruling that there
was substantial compliance with the law. This Court firmly holds that measures should be strictly implemented to ensure that
such constitutional mandate on protection to labor is not rendered meaningless by an erroneous interpretation of applicable
laws.

Brew Master vs. National Federation of Labor Union | April 17, 1997

Facts: Estrada was employed as a route helper in Brew master. From April 19, 1993 to May 19, 1993, he was absent without
permission. When he reported back to work, he was issued a memo ordering him to explain the absences within 24 hours. He
immediately filed an answer the next day, thus: “Sa dahilan po na ako ay hindi nakapagpaalam sainyo dahil inuwi ko ang mga
anak ko sa Samar dahil ang asawa ko ay lumayas at walang mag-aalaga sa mga anak ko. Kaya naman hindi ako naka long
distance or telegrama dahil wala akong pera at ibinili ko ng gamot ay puro utang pa.” Brew master rejected the reason as
invalid, and terminated Estrada pursuant to its Rules and Regulations that absences without permission for six consecutive
days is considered abandonment of work Estrada then filed for illegal dismissal. The LA ruled in favor of Brew Master, but the
NLRC reversed, ordering reinstatement, hence this petition.

Issue: WON Estrada was validly terminated.

Ruling: No. Abandonment as a just and valid ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee
to resume his employment. Two elements must then be satisfied: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid
or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relation. The second element is the more
determinative factor and must be evinced by overt acts. Burden of proof is on the employer.

Moreover, petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof that complainant was guilty of abandonment. No evidence other
than complainant's letter explaining his absence was presented. Needless to state, the letter did not indicate, in the least,
that complainant was no longer interested in returning to work. On the contrary, complainant sought petitioner's
understanding. In declaring him guilty of abandonment, petitioner merely relied on its Rules and Regulations which limited its
application to a six-day continuous absence, contrary to the purpose of the law. While the employer is not precluded from
prescribing rules and regulations to govern the conduct of his employees, these rules and their implementation must be fair,
just and reasonable. It must be underscored that no less than our Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman
and protects his rights not only under a general statement of a state policy, but under the Article on Social Justice and Human
Rights, thus placing labor contracts on a higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between capital and labor
are not merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must, perforce, yield to the common
good.
International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing | June 1, 2000

Facts: International School employs two types of teachers: local hires and foreign hires. Foreign hires earn 25% more than
local hires, and enjoy more benefits than the latter, due to two justifying factors by the school: the dislocation factor and
limited tenure. During the CBA discussions between the school and Alliance, there was a disagreement on the salary
difference between the two types, and the inclusion of the foreign hires in the CBA. The Alliance then filed a notice of strike,
prompting the DOLE to take jurisdiction due to the national Conciliation and Mediation Board’s failure to bring the parties to
a compromise. The DOLE ruled in favor of the school, stating substantial discrimination between the two types. Hence this
petition.

Issue: WON the classification is discriminatory, not justifying the salary differentials.

Ruling: Yes. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. The Constitution8 in the Article on Social Justice
and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the
right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil
Code requires every person, "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are
often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible. The
Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to "humane conditions of work." These conditions are not restricted to
the physical workplace — the factory, the office or the field — but include as well the manner by which employers treat their
employees. The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all." Similarly, the
Labor Code provides that the State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed." It would be an
affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure
equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.

The School contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign-hires.
The Court finds this argument a little cavalier. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the
presumption is that these employees perform equal work. This presumption is borne by logic and human experience. If the
employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others
receive more. That would be adding insult to injury. The employer has discriminated against that employee; it is for the
employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more
efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform
under similar working conditions.

While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-hires, salaries should not be used as an enticement to the
prejudice of local-hires. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the same
salaries as the latter. For the same reason, the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as
valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign-hires are adequately
compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, transportation,
shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances.

The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare," "to afford labor full
protection." The State, therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. These relations
are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements
included, must yield to the common good. Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy,
courts will not hesitate to strike down these stipulations.

In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary
rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services
rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes
public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court.
Jamer vs. NLRC | September 5, 1997

Facts: Jamer worked as a Money changer, and Amortizado worked as Store Cashier, for Joy Mart. They were both terminated
for alleged dishonesty for a delayed report of cash discrepancy shortages amounting to 15k, 450k, 1k, and 70 pesos.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, establishing a defense that there was delay in the report because they
wanted to resolve the discovered discrepancy on July 14 and 16, until they had no other recourse before it was reported on
July 17, 1990. The NLRC ruled in favor of the petitioners, but when the case was reraffled to the LA, it was reversed, hence
this petition.

Issue: WON the petitioners were illegally dismissed.

Ruling: No. There was just cause in the dismissal. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides: “An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the followings causes: (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative.” From the foregoing premises, it is crystal clear that the failure of petitioners to
report the aforequoted shortages and overages to management as soon as they arose resulted in the breach of the fiduciary
trust reposed in them by respondent company, thereby causing the latter to lose confidence in them. This warrants their
dismissal.

The cause of social justice is not served by upholding the interest of petitioners in disregard of the right of private
respondents. Social justice ceases to be an effective instrument for the "equalization of the social and economic forces" by
the State when it is used to shield wrongdoing. While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the
disposition of cases involving termination of employment since it affects one's source or means of livelihood, it should not be
overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee
who has been shown to be a gross liability to the employer. It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice
in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the inherent economic inequality between labor and management. The intent is to
balance the scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be cases where the circumstances
warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to
the employer, Justicia remini regarda est (Justice is to be denied to none).

Parenthetically, the fact that petitioners Jamer and Amortizado had worked for respondent company for fourteen (14) and
thirteen (13) years, respectively, should be taken against them. The infractions that they committed, notwithstanding their
long years of service with the company, reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty — loyalty that they should have strengthened
instead of betrayed. If the petitioners' length of service is to be regarded as a justifying circumstance in moderating the
dismissal, it will actually become a prize for disloyalty, perverting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of
labor to cleanse its ranks of all undesirables.
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime | March 24, 2009

Facts: Serrano was employed by Gallant, but was subsequently illegally dismissed after only serving 2 months of his 1-year
contract initiated on 1998. Serrano filed a case for constructive dismissal and claim of the salary equal to the unexpired 9
months portion. The LA declared the dismissal illegal, but computed the monetary benefits for only 3 months of the
unexpired term ($8000, $2500 monthly), pursuant to RA8042, Sec. 10. Upon appeal, the NLRC further reduced the monthly
amount to $1400 by removing the overtime pay and the vacation leave pay. Hence, Serrano raises this case, challenging the
constitutionality of RA8042, Sec. 10.

Issue: WON RA8042, Sec. 10 is unconstitutional.

Ruling: It is unconstitutional. RA8042 provides: Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement
of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Does it violate the non-impairment clause? No, because the law is deemed written in the contract (in this case, perfected in
1998)

Does it violate Sec. 1 Art III and Art. II, Sec. 18 on Labor as a Protected Sector? Yes, for lack of substantial distinction and
violating equal protection. It classifies OFW’s into two: those with contracts of one year or more, and those with contract of
less than a year. Applying section 10, if the former is illegally dismissed, they are entitled only to 3-months’ worth of salaries
for every year of the unexpired term (3-month cap), while the latter is entitled to the entire unexpired term. Regarding Art. II,
given that it is not self-executing, Serrano cannot seek an enforceable right within it.

Does the award include overtime and holiday pay? No, For seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department Order No. 33, series
1996, provides a Standard Employment Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage, exclusive of
overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work "performed" in excess of the
regular eight hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any work "performed" on designated rest days and holidays.

Eastern Mediterranean Maritime vs. Estanislao | August 23, 2012

Facts: Eastern Mediterranean was the owner of a vessel manned by the respondents. After docking in Sweden, the
International Transport Federation boarded the vessel, and discovered that the wages of the respondents were lower than
the prevailing wages. Because of this, Eastern paid the worker the wage differentials. After returning to the Philippines on
1993, Petitioners filed for reimbursement against the respondents with the POEA. Pending the complaint, RA8042 (Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act) was promulgated, transferring jurisdiction over money claims arising out of employer-
employee relationships to the Labor Arbiters, previously exercised by POEA. POEA then dismissed the case. Then they filed
with the NLRC the same case by virtue of the 1991 POEA Rules which gives it appellate jurisdiction, which was dismissed by
the court for lack of jurisdiction. The CA affirmed this, hence this appeal contending that the NLRC should have taken
cognizance of the case, given that RA8042, promulgated on 1996, was still ineffective at the time of the case.

Issue: WON the NLRC has jurisdiction.

Ruling: No, RA 8042 is retroactive. 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 Republic Act No.
8042 to the appeal of the POEA s decision on petitioners’ disciplinary action against respondents. In a way, Republic Act No.
8042 was a procedural law due to it providing or omitting guidelines on appeal (from NLRC to Secretary of Labor), prescribing
them as rules and forms of procedure, without vesting any rights. Given that the case was still pending when RA8042 was
promulgated, then it applies retroactively. In this case, the appeal to the NLRC done by petitioners is invalid since RA8042
was already in effect at that time, and no vested right had been granted to Eastern prior to the law. Therefore, the vested
right to hear the appeal was solely on the Secretary of Labor.

People vs. Velasco | June 25, 2014

Facts: Velasco and several other recruiters from the Harvel International Talent Management and promotion were charged
and convicted of the crime of illegal recruitment for promising several victims that they could send them to Japan for a fee
ranging from 20k to 39k, despite having no license or authorization from the POEA. Hence this appeal by Inovero, the
accused-appellant, arguing against the conviction by denial of facts.

Issue: WON Inovero is guilty.

Ruling: Yes. The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused engaged in acts of
recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or in any prohibited activities under
Article 34 of the same Code; (2) that the accused had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment with respect to the requirement to secure a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers; and (3) that the
accused committed the unlawful acts against 3 or more persons. In this case, it was corroborated by the victims that Invoero
was the one who oriented them on potential abroad salary, that when introduced as a recruiter, she did not correct the
representation, that she herself represented herself as a recruiter to on of the victims when they applied for a working VISA
to japan, and that the POEA issued a certification stating that Inovero had no license to recruit. Additionally, Inovero is
deemed guilty of conspiracy in the crime, and is considered solidarily liable for the civil penalty.

People vs. Bacos | December 8, 2010

Facts: Bacos and her common law husband Dimayuga were charged and convicted with illegal recruitment in large scale
before the RTC for promising 10 individuals that they can send the victims to Japan despite not having any authority to do so,
and for not deploying them in the promised time. The victims filed the case upon discovering that the appellants moved to
another house in an attempt to defraud them. Hence this appeal by the living Bacos, arguing against the facts, that she was
merely an accomplice to her husband, and that the lack of misrepresentation on their part evades them the given charge.

Issue: WON Bacos is guilty of illegal recruitment at large.

Ruling: Yes. Together with Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), the law governing
illegal recruitment is the Labor Code which defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not." The same code punished illegal recruitment at large
in Art. 38. In this case, despite the lack of license or authority to engage in recruitment, Bacos admitted to assurances given
to the victims. We arrive at this conclusion after additionally considering the following established acts of the appellant: (a)
her acceptance of the placement fee given by the complainants; (b) the fact that she communicated to the complainants the
date of their departure; and (c) her information on how the balance of the placement fee should be paid. Hence, regardless
of the absence of misrepresentation on her part which is not a material element for the crime of illegal recruitment and
isperfected by mere promise without authority, Bacos is guilty as principal.

People vs. Senoron | January 30, 1997

Facts: Senoron was charged and convicted with illegal recruitment and three counts of estafa. She, with three other people,
gave promises to victims Virtucio, Corsega, and Bueno that the accused can send them abroad, promting a payment and
reciept of 20k to Ilano, one of the accused, in the presence of Senoron. Upon demand of refund, Senoron issued three
councing checks to each of the victims. Senoron argues in this appeal that she cannot be guilty of Illegal recruitment since it
was Ilano, and not her, who received and receipted the payments.

Issue: WON Senoron is guilty of Illegal Recruitment.

Ruling: Yes. Article 13 (b) of the Code defines "recruitment and placement" as [A]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Under Art.
38 of the LC, the two elements of the offense are: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment
activities, or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended; and (2) said person does not have
a license or authority to do so. In this case, the victims corroborated that after paying 20k to Ilano, Senoron assured them of
being deployed, showing them certain ledgers of payments, and told them to follow-up the application in Manila. Given that
Senoron has no license or authority from POEA to the recruiting activities, and she gave the impression that she could send
the victims abroad, she is guilty of Illegal Recruitment under Art. 38 of the Labor Code.

People vs. Saley | July 2, 1998

Facts: Saley was charged and convicted, from 17 informations, with illegal recruitment and estafa against several victims
whom she promised to send abroad for payment of a fee ranging from 18k-175k despite having no license to do so. In this
appeal, Saley argues that she did not present herself as a recruiter, and was merely assisting the victims with their
applications for VISA’s with several travel agencies, and that the solicited amounts were given to the said agencies.

Issue: WON Saley is guilty of illegal recruitment.

Ruling: Yes. Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur: (1) That the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) That the
offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.The claim that appellant did not categorically represent herself as a
licensed recruiter, or that she merely helped the complainants secure tourist visas, could not make her less guilty of illegal
recruitment, it being enough that he or she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for
deployment abroad. Regardless, assisting in plane tickets and Visas still require permission from the POEA rules and
regulations.

People vs. Alvarez | January 17, 1974

Facts: Alvarez was charged and convicted of illegal recruitment at large scale for recruiting several people as contract workers
in Taiwan for a fee ranging from 12k-48k, paid with receipt from Alvarez, without the proper license or authorization. When
Alvarez was arrested, one of the victims, Damian, was notified, and immediately proceeded to POEA, thereafter obtaining a
certification that Alvarez really had no license. Hence this appeal, Alvarez arguing against the evidence of payment since no
receipts were produced.

Issue: WON Alvarez is guilty of illegal recruitment.

Ruling: Yes. In People v. Pabalan, the Court held that the absence of receipts for some of the amounts delivered to the
accused did not mean that the appellant did not accept or receive such payments. Such proof may come from the
testimonies of witnesses. In this case, the court deems the witnesses as credible and convincing, given that generally, trial
courts are the best arbiters of facts, and not appellate courts. Therefore, all the elements of the crime are corroborated by
multiple witness testimonies.

Salazar vs. Achacoso | March 14, 1990

Facts: Administrator of the POEA Achacoso issued a closure and seizure order against Salazar for illegal recruitment on
November 3, 1987. The order was effectuated by several policemen, confiscating property like costumes and props from
Salazar’s Dance Studio which was allegedly used for the offense. Hence this petition, where Salazar argues that Art. 38, c. is
unconstitutional for violating Secion 2 of the bill of rights, which states that only a judge may issue search warrants and
warrants of arrest.

Issue: WON Art. 38 c. of the Labor Code is unconstitutional.

Ruling: Unconstitutional. Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who may issue
warrants of arrest and search: the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President
or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of
deportation. In this case, since the Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987, way before the issued warrant, the warrant
is unconstitutional.