PEOPLE vs. HADJA JARMA LALLI Y PURIH, GR No.

195419, 2011-10-12

Involved Persons :
Lolita Sagadsad Plando – Plaintiff/Appellee
Marife Plando – sister of appellee
Hadja Jarma Lalli Purih – Accused
Ronnie Aringoy – Accused
Rachelle Aringoy – Accused
Nestor Relampagos – Accused
Nora Mae Adling – ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines / witness
Mercedita SALAZAR and Estrella Galgan – witnesses of accused party

FACTS :
Crimes of Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No. 21930) and Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003 ( Criminal Case No. 21908) that is committed by a syndicate
In the evening of June 3, 2005, Lolita Sagadsad Plando, 23 years old, single, was in Tumaga,
Zamboanga City was on her way to the house of her grandfather, when she met Ronnie Masion
Aringoy and Rachel Aringoy Cañete.
Rachel Canete asked Lolita Plando if she is interested to work in Malaysia.
Lolita Plando was interested so she gave her cellphone number to Ronnie Aringoy
After a while Lolita Plando received a text message from Ronnie Aringoy inviting her to go to
the latter's house.
Ronnie brought Lolita to the house of his sister in Tumaga. Lolita asked what job is available in
Malaysia. Ronnie told her that she will work as a restaurant entertainer
Ronnie said that all that is needed is a passport. She will be paid 500 Malaysian ringgits which is
equivalent to P7,000.00 pesos in Philippine currency.
But Lolita told Ronnie that she does not have a passport
He told Lolita that she will leave for Malaysia on June 6, 2005 and they will go to Hadja Jarma
Lalli who will bring her to Malaysia.
Lolita asked his sister Marife to let her use Marife's passport. Marife refused but Lolita got the
passport. Marife.. cried.
Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went to the house of Hadja Jarma Lalli
Lolita handed a passport to Hadja Jarma telling her that it belongs to her sister Marife Plando.
Hadja Jarma told her it is not a problem because they have a connection with the DFA
(Department of Foreign Affairs) and Marife's picture in the passport will be... substituted with
Lolita's picture.
Lolita noticed there are three other women in Hadja Jarma's house that she will have many
companions going to Malaysia to work.
When they were already at the restaurant, a Filipina woman working there said that the place is a
prostitution den and the women there are used as prostitutes. Lolita and her companions went
back to the hotel.
Lolita worked at Pipen Club from June 14 to July 8, 2005. Every night, a customer used her. She
had at least one customer or more a night, and at most, she had around five customers a night.
They all had sexual intercourse with her.
Lolita was able to contact by cellphone at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning her sister Janet
Plando who is staying at Sipangkot Felda
Lolita told Janet that she is in Labuan, Malaysia and beg Janet to save her because she was sold
as a prostitute. Janet used his husband to take his sister Lolita from the hotel
The man asked her is she is the sister of Janet Plando.
Lolita replied that she is, and asked the man if he is the husband of her sister. He said, "yes." The
man had already paid at the counter. He stood up and left the place. Lolita got her wallet and
followed him
July 22, Lolita and her brother-in-law took a taxi from Sipangkot Felda to Mananamblas where
Lolita will board a speedboat to Sibuto, Tawi-Tawi.
Lolita was advised to file a complaint with the police regarding her ordeal in Malaysia.
Hadja Jarma Lalli admitted that she met Lolita Plando on June 6, 2005 on board M/V Mary Joy
while the said vessel was at sea on its way to Sandakan, Malaysia. The meeting was purely
coincidental.
accused HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH and RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION GUILTY of
the Crime of Trafficking in Persons defined in Section 3(a)
The trial court found that the accused, without a POEA license, conspired in recruiting Lolita and
trafficking her as a prostitute, resulting in crimes committed by a syndicate.
In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the concerted efforts of
Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who knew Lolita, since Aringoy was a
neighbor of Lolita's grandfather. It was Aringoy who referred Lolita to Lalli, a fact clearly
admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not
purchased Lolita's boat ticket to Malaysia. This fact can be deduced from the testimony of Nora
Mae Adling (Nora), ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner of the vessel M/V Mary Joy
2 plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan, Malaysia route and of M/V Kristel Jane 3. Nora testified
in open court that "Hadja Jarma Lalli bought passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not
only for herself but also for other women passengers." Lalli's claim... that she only goes to
Malaysia to visit her daughter and son-in-law does not explain the fact why she bought the boat
tickets of the other women passengers going to Malaysia. In fact, it appears strange that Lalli
visited Malaysia nine (9) times in a span of one year and three... months (March 2004 to June
2005) just to visit her daughter and son-in-law. In Malaysia, it was Relampagos who introduced
Lolita and her companions to a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their first employer. When Lolita
and her companions went back to the hotel to tell Relampagos and Lalli that they did not want to
work as prostitutes, Relampagos brought Lolita and the girls on board a van to Sangawan China
Labuan, where they stayed in a room for one night. The next day, they were picked up by a van
and brought to Pipen Club, where Lolita and her companions worked as prostitutes. To date,
accused Relampagos is at large and has not been brought under the jurisdiction of the courts for
his crimes.

ISSUES :
whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming in toto the RTC
Decision.

RULINGS :
It does not change the fact that the accused recruited Lolita to work in Malaysia without the
requisite
POEA license, thus constituting the crime of illegal recruitment. Worse, the accused deceived
her by saying that her work in Malaysia would be as restaurant entertainer, when in fact, Lolita
would be working as a prostitute, thus, constituting the crime of trafficking.
In this case, none of these exceptions to the general rule on conclusiveness of facts are applicable
It is clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the
requisite authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), whether for profit
or not, is engaged in illegal recruitment.
The commission of illegal recruitment by three or more persons... conspiring or confederating
with one another is deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes economic sabotage
The penalties in Section 7 of RA 8042 have already been amended by Section 6 of Republic Act
No. 10022, and have been increased to a fine of not less than ?2,000,000 but not more than
?5,000,000. However, since the crime was committed in 2005, we shall apply the penalties in
the... old law, RA 8042.
(1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art.
34 of the Labor Code;
(2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another.
illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give
the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.
In this case, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, found Lalli, Aringoy and
Relampagos to have conspired and confederated with one another to recruit and place Lolita for
work in Malaysia, without a POEA license. The three elements of syndicated illegal...
recruitment are present in this case, in particular: (1) the accused have no valid license or
authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; (2) the accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by... actually
recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and (3) illegal recruitment was
committed by three persons (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos), conspiring and confederating with
one another.
Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job opportunities to Malaysia.
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.
Lalli, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in the recruitment and placement of
Lolita to Malaysia, and claims she only met Lolita for the first time by coincidence on board the
ship M/V Mary Joy. Lalli's denial does not deserve credence because it completely... conflicts
with the testimony of Aringoy who claims he referred Lolita to Lalli who had knowledge of the
job opportunities in Malaysia.
Aringoy claims that no conspiracy existed in illegal recruitment, as he denies even knowing
Relampagos, who is currently at-large. Lalli denies any involvement in the illegal recruitment,
and claims that she only met Relampagos through Lolita on board the ship M/V Mary Joy on 6
June 2005, and learned that Relampagos was bringing Lolita and their other girl companions to
Malaysia to work as sales ladies.
the flight of accused Relampagos, who is still at-large, shows an indication of guilt in the crimes
he has been charged.
It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos, Lolita was
recruited and deployed to Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such conspiracy among Aringoy,
Lalli and Relampagos could be deduced from the manner in which the crime was perpetrated -
each... of the accused played a pivotal role in perpetrating the crime of illegal recruitment, and
evinced a joint common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
Ronnie Aringoy y Masion and Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purih guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate
In Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to
transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking.
that all the three accused (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos) conspired and confederated with one
another to illegally recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia, it follows that they are also
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified
Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime of
recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.
Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate
accused Lalli and Aringoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal
Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate

Principles:
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042) defines illegal recruitment
Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when... undertaken by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No.
442
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442
"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or
association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.
Section 7 of RA 8042 provides for the penalty of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate
elements of syndicated illegal recruitment conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."
Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (RA 9208), otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2003,... Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation,
transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability
of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a
minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a
prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional right against
double jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act
punished by a law and an ordinance. The prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act
or series of acts constituting different offenses.

ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia Ikdal and Ministry of Public Health Kuwait, GR No.
178551 October 11, 2010

Involved Persons/Agencies :
Josefina Echin – Appellee
ATCI Overseas Corporation Amalia Ikdal – Petitioner
Ministry of Public Heath Kuwait ( Foreign). – Petitioner
National Labor Relations Commission – where respondent filed

FACTS:
Josefina Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI Overseas Corporation in behalf of its principal-co-
petitioner, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical technologist
under a two-year contract, denominated as a MOA.
Under the MOA, all newly-hired employees undergo a probationary period of one year.
Respondent was deployed on February 17, 2000 but was terminated from employment on
February 11, 2001, she not having allegedly passed the probationary period.
Respondent filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal against ATCI as the local
recruitment agency, represented by Amalia Ikdal, and the Ministry, as the foreign principal.
The Labor Arbiter held that respondent was illegally dismissed and accordingly
ordered petitioners to pay her US$3,600.00, representing her salary for the three
months unexpired portion of her contract.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Petitioners appealed to the CA, contending that their principal, the Ministry, being a foreign
government agency, is immune from suit and, as such, the immunity extended to them; and that
respondent was validly dismissed for her failure to meet the performance rating within the one-
year period as required under Kuwaits Civil Service Laws.
The CA affirmed the NLRC Resolution
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent.

RULING:
Petitioner ATCI, as a private recruitment agency, cannot evade responsibility for the money
claims of OFWs which it deploys abroad by the mere expediency of claiming that its foreign
principal is a government agency clothed with immunity from suit, or that such foreign
principals liability must first be established before it, as agent, can be held jointly and solidarily
liable.
The imposition of joint and solidary liability is in line with the policy of the state to protect and
alleviate the plight of the working class. Verily, to allow petitioners to simply invoke the
immunity from suit of its foreign principal or to wait for the judicial determination of the foreign
principals liability before petitioner can be held liable renders the law on joint and solidary
liability inutile.
As to petitioners contentions that Philippine labor laws on probationary employment are not
applicable since it was expressly provided in respondents employment contract, which she
voluntarily entered into, that the terms of her engagement shall be governed by prevailing
Kuwaiti Civil Service Laws and Regulations as in fact POEA Rules accord respect to such rules,
customs and practices of the host country, the same was not substantiated.
It is hornbook principle, however, that the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the
burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption which, in this case,
petitioners failed to discharge.
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be
alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy
thereof and comply with the Rules of Court.
These documents submitted by petitioners do not sufficiently prove that respondent was validly
terminated as a probationary employee under Kuwaiti civil service laws.
Respecting Ikdal’s joint and solidary liability as a corporate officer, the same is in order too
following the express provision of R.A. 8042:
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the
contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation
or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
The petition is DENIED

People of the Philippines vs. Fernandez GR 199211 June 4, 2014

Person/s Agencies Involved :

Airene Etac, Jowel Barja, Joemar Aquino, Luis Bernardo and Anthony Canlas – Five
Complainants
Court of Appeals
Regional Trial Court
Jeric Fernandez – Accused

FACTS :
Out of the testimonies of the complainants that the appellant promised them employment abroad.
The appellant represented to the complainants that he had the power and ability to send them in
Hongkong, and that by virtue of this representation and fraud, the complainants were convinced
to part with their money in order to be employed.

ISSUES:
WHETHER OR NOT ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE IS COMMITTED AT
THE CASE AT BAR
WHETHER OR NOT CONVICTION UNDER LABOR CODE, PRECLUDES PUNISHMENT
UNDER REVISED PENAL CODE
RULING:
For illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove three essential
elements, namely: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any
prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license
or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the
accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group
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. Corollarily, where the offense
is committed against three or more persons, as in this case, it is qualified to illegal recruitment in
large scale which provides a higher penalty under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code.
Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as “any recruitment activities, including
the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of (the Labor Code), to be undertaken by
non-licensees or non holders of authority.” The term “recruitment and placement” refers to any
act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers,
including 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.
The CA held that the appellant’s acts of promising the complainants that they would be deployed
for work abroad after they paid him their placement fees, and his misrepresentations concerning
his purported power and authority despite the lack of license, are constitutive of illegal
recruitment in large scale.
We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude
punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa.The appellant’s act of falsely
pretending to possess power and qualifications to deploy the complainants to Hongkong, even if
he did not have the authority or license for the purpose, undoubtedly constitutes estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of deceit and damage are clearly
present; the appellant’s false pretenses were the very cause that induced the complainants to part
with their money.

Thus there can be illegal recruitment on Large Scale with Estafa

 SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES, GR No. 170139,
August 5, 2014

Person/s Agencies Involved :

Joy C. Cabiles – Appellee
Sameer Overseas Placement Agecy – Petitioner
Taiwan Wacoal Co. Ltd – Company in Taiwan
Mr. Huwang – employer of Appellee
Pacific Manpower Agency – pinpoint agency of the Appellee
National Labor Relations Commission
Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement
agency.Responding to an ad it published, respondent, Joy C. Cabiles, submitted her application
for a quality control job in Taiwan.
Joy's application was accepted. Joy was later asked to sign a one-year employment contract for a
monthly salary of NT$15,360.00.She alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency required her to pay a
placement fee of P70,000.00 when she... signed the employment contract.
Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997. She alleged
that in her employment contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year. In Taiwan,
she was asked to work as a... cutter
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from
Wacoal informed Joy, without prior notice, that she was terminated and that "she should
immediately report to their office to get her salary and passport."She was asked to "prepare for
immediate repatriation.
On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission
against petitioner and Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally dismissed. She asked for the
return of her placement fee, the withheld amount for repatriation costs, payment of her salary for
23 months as well as moral and exemplary damages.] She identified
Wacoal as Sameer Overseas Placement Agency's foreign principal.
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent's termination was due to her
inefficiency, negligence in her duties, and her "failure to comply with the work requirements [of]
her foreign [employer]."The agency also claimed that it did not ask... for a placement fee of
?70,000.00. As evidence, it showed Official Receipt No. 14860 dated June 10, 1997, bearing the
amount of ?20,360.00.Petitioner added that Wacoal's accreditation with petitioner had already
been... transferred to the Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. (Pacific) as of August
6, 1997. Thus, petitioner asserts that it was already substituted by Pacific Manpower.
On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy's complaint. Acting Executive Labor Arbiter
Pedro C. Ramos ruled that her complaint was based on mere allegations.
Joy appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission.
In a resolution dated March 31, 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission declared that
Joy was illegally dismissed. It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the
dismissal was based on a just or... valid cause belongs to the employer. It found that Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove that there were just causes for termination.There was
no sufficient proof to show that respondent was inefficient in her work and that she failed to
comply with company requirements.] Furthermore, procedural due process was not observed in
terminating respondent.
The National Labor Relations Commission awarded respondent only three (3) months worth of
salary in the amount of NT$46,080, the reimbursement of the NT$3,000 withheld from her, and
attorney's fees of NT$300.
Aggrieved by the ruling, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency caused the filing of a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the National Labor Relations Commission's
resolutions dated March 31, 2004 and July 2, 2004.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission with
respect to the finding of illegal dismissal, Joy's entitlement to the equivalent of three months
worth of salary, reimbursement of withheld repatriation expense,... and attorney's fees. The Court
of Appeals remanded the case to the National Labor Relations Commission to address the
validity of petitioner's allegations against Pacific.
ISSUES :
whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations
Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three months' worth of
salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and... attorney's fees despite the alleged
existence of just causes of termination.
RULING :
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing Joy's
dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.
Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work.
They may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply with these
standards. to comply may be a just cause... for their dismissal. Certainly, employers cannot be
compelled to retain the services of an employee who is guilty of acts that are inimical to the
interest of the employer. While the law acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of workers, it
does not "authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer." Management prerogative
is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence.
This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee's right to
security of tenure. “Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before
termination. They may not be removed from employment without a valid... or just cause as
determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.
Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our Constitution.[
First, established is the rule that lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is
made) governs in this jurisdiction. There is no question that the contract of employment in this
case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, the Labor Code, its... implementing rules
and regulations, and other laws affecting labor apply in this case. Furthermore, settled is the rule
that the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public
policy. Here in the Philippines, employment agreements... are more than contractual in nature.
Even with respect to fundamental procedural rights, this court emphasized in PCL Shipping
Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, to wit:
Petitioners admit that they did not inform private respondent in writing of the charges against
him and that they failed to conduct a formal investigation to give him opportunity to air his side.
However, petitioners contend that the twin requirements of notice... and hearing applies strictly
only when the employment is within the Philippines and that these need not be strictly observed
in cases of international maritime or overseas employment.
The Court does not agree. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which
afford protection to labor apply to Filipino employees whether working within the Philippines or
abroad. Moreover, the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where... the contract
is made) governs in this jurisdiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Contract of
Employment entered into by and between petitioners and private respondent was executed here
in the Philippines with the approval of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA). Hence, the Labor Code together with its implementing
rules and regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.[6
By our laws, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be terminated for a just or authorized
cause and after compliance with procedural due process requirements.
Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes of termination by the employer. Thus:
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that: 1) the
employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be
judged; 2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the...
employee; and 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee's
performance assessment.
The pre-determined standards that the employer sets are the bases for determining the
probationary employee's fitness, propriety, efficiency, and qualifications as a regular employee.
Due process requires that the probationary employee be informed of such standards at the time...
of his or her engagement so he or she can adjust his or her character or workmanship
accordingly. Proper adjustment to fit the standards upon which the employee's qualifications will
be evaluated will increase one's chances of being positively assessed for regularization by his...
or her employer.
In this case, petitioner merely alleged that respondent failed to comply with her foreign
employer's work requirements and was inefficient in her work.[74] No evidence was shown to
support such allegations. Petitioner did not even bother to specify what... requirements were not
met, what efficiency standards were violated, or what particular acts of respondent constituted
inefficiency.
There was also no showing that respondent was sufficiently informed of the standards against
which her work efficiency and performance were judged. The parties' conflict as to the position
held by respondent showed that even the matter as basic as the job title was not... clear.
Petitioner failed to comply with... the due process requirements
A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal.
The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before
termination.One of the written notices... must inform the employee of the particular acts that may
cause his or her dismissal.The other notice must "[inform] the employee of the employer's
decision." Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given
"an opportunity to be heard."
Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorney's fees and
reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995, states that overseas workers who were terminated without just, valid, or
authorized cause "shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with... interest
of twelve (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."
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 states that "repatriation of the worker and the transport of
his [or her] personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited
or deployed the worker overseas." The exception is when "termination of employment... is due
solely to the fault of the worker,"[80] which as we have established, is not the case.
The Labor Code also entitles the employee to 10% of the amount of withheld wages as
attorney's fees when the withholding is unlawful.
The award of the three-month equivalent of respondent's salary should, however, be increased to
the amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment contract.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,[82] this court
ruled that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less"is unconstitutional for... violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.
A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It "confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not
been passed at all."
We are aware that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less" was reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042 upon promulgation of Republic Act
No. 10022 in 2010. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 provides:
Republic Act No. 10022 was promulgated on March 8, 2010. This means that the reinstatement
of the clause in Republic Act No. 8042 was not yet in effect at the time of respondent's
termination from work in 1997. Republic Act No. 8042 before it was... amended by Republic Act
No. 10022 governs this case.
However, we are confronted with a unique situation. The law passed incorporates the exact
clause already declared as unconstitutional, without any perceived substantial change in the
circumstances.
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the government may
exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence
of any law that supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by any... other law.
All laws must be read in light of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the
nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or
provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains... as such
unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
We observe that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in Republic Act. No. 10022, violates
the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Petitioner as well as the Solicitor
General have failed to show any compelling change in the... circumstances that would warrant us
to revisit the precedent.
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that limiting wages that should be
recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due
process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
The equal protection clause does not infringe on this legislative power.[101] A law is void on
this basis, only if classifications are made arbitrarily. There is no violation of the equal protection
clause if the law applies... equally to persons within the same class and if there are reasonable
grounds for distinguishing between those falling within the class and those who do not fall
within the class.[103] A law that does not violate the equal protection clause prescribes a...
reasonable classification.
A reasonable classification "(1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the
purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply
equally to all members of the same class."
Along the same line, we held that the reinstated clause violates due process rights. It is arbitrary
as it deprives overseas workers of their monetary claims without any discernable valid purpose.
Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, in
accordance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of the three-month
equivalence of respondent's salary must be modified accordingly. Since she started working on
June 26,... 1997 and was terminated on July 14, 1997, respondent is entitled to her salary from
July 15, 1997 to June 25, 1998. "To rule otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other
OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and
recruitment/manning... agencies may violate an OFW's security of tenure which an employment
contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision
of law.
Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the foreign
employer and the local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims
including claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship and/or damages. This...
section also provides that the performance bond filed by the local agency shall be answerable for
such money claims or damages if they were awarded to the employee.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay
respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired... portion of her
employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. Petitioner
is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent
attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the... finality of this judgment.
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
PRINCIPLES
It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just
or... valid cause belongs to the employer.
First, established is the rule that lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is
made) governs in this jurisdiction.
Furthermore, settled is the rule that the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum's public policy.
The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to labor
apply to Filipino employees whether working within the Philippines or abroad. Moreover, the
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where... the contract is made) governs in this
jurisdiction.
By our laws, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be terminated for a just or authorized
cause and after compliance with procedural due process requirements.
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that: 1) the
employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be
judged; 2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the...
employee; and 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee's
performance assessment.
A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal.
The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before
termination. One of the written notices... must inform the employee of the particular acts that
may cause his or her dismissal. The other notice must "[inform] the employee of the employer's
decision." Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given
"an opportunity to be heard."
Sec. 10. MONEY CLAIMS. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of... the
complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law
or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provisions [sic] shall be incorporated in
the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its... approval. The
performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and... directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation
or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract
and shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a
foreign country of the said contract.
Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on money claims inclusive of
damages under this section shall be paid within four (4) months from the approval of the
settlement by the appropriate authority.
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 (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.
SEC. 15. REPATRIATION OF WORKERS; EMERGENCY REPATRIATION FUND. The
repatriation of the worker and the transport of his personal belongings shall be the primary
responsibility of the agency which recruited or deployed the worker overseas. All costs attendant
to... repatriation shall be borne by or charged to the agency concerned and/or its principal.
Likewise, the repatriation of remains and transport of the personal belongings of a deceased
worker and all costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the principal and/or local agency.
However, in cases where the termination of employment is due solely to the fault of the worker,
the principal/employer or agency shall not in any manner be responsible for the repatriation of
the former and/or his belongings.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,[82] this court
ruled that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less"[83] is unconstitutional for... violating the equal protection clause and substantive due
process.[84]
A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It "confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not
been passed at all."
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the government may
exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence
of any law that supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by any... other law.
All laws must be read in light of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the
nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or
provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains... as such
unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
We observe that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in Republic Act. No. 10022, violates
the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.[96] Petitioner as well as the
Solicitor General have failed to show any compelling change in the... circumstances that would
warrant us to revisit the precedent.
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that limiting wages that should be
recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due
process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay
respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired... portion of her
employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment. Petitioner
is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay respondent
attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the... finality of this judgment.
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC

G.R. No. 161757; January 25, 2006
Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales

Person/s Agencies Involved :

Divina A. Montehermozo – Appellee
Edmund Wang – Taiwanese Broker Jet Crown International Inc.
National Labor Relations Commission
Sunace International Management Services – Petitioner
FACTS:
Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services (Sunace), deployed to Taiwan Divina A.
Montehermozo (Divina) as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract effective February 1,
1997. The deployment was with the assistance of a Taiwanese broker, Edmund Wang, President
of Jet Crown International Co., Ltd.
After her 12-month contract expired on February 1, 1998, Divina continued working for her
Taiwanese employer, Hang Rui Xiong, for two more years, after which she returned to the
Philippines on February 4, 2000.
Shortly after her return or on February 14, 2000, Divina filed a complaint before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Sunace, one Adelaide Perez, the Taiwanese
broker, and the employer-foreign principal alleging that she was jailed for three months and that
she was underpaid
Reacting to Divina's Position Paper, Sunace filed on April 25, 2000 an ". . . ANSWER TO
COMPLAINANT'S POSITION PAPER" alleging that Divina's 2-year extension of her contract
was without its knowledge and consent, hence, it had no liability attaching to any claim arising
therefrom, and Divina in fact executed a Waiver/Quitclaim and Release of Responsibility and an
Affidavit of Desistance, copy of each document was annexed to said
The Labor Arbiter, rejected Sunace's claim that the extension of Divina's contract for two more
years was without its knowledge and consent.

ISSUE:
Whether the act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the contract of Divina be attributable to
Sunace

HELD:
No, the act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the contract of Divina is not attributable to
Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-
year employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its
"owner" cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Divina's claims arising from the 2-year
employment extension.
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its agency
relationship with its foreign principal when, after the termination of the original employment
contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and
separate employment contract in Taiwan.
 People vs. Lago G.R. No. 121272. June 6, 2001

Person/s Agencies Involved :

Benjamin Raymundo – murdered victim
Reyderick Lago – Appellant
Rainier Lisbog, Cozette Aragon, Jayson Diadid, Dennis Sison
Rosana Capacillo – neighbor of victim
Ramon Bernardo – technician
Dr. Alberto Reyes – medical legal officer
Regional Trial Court

FACTS :
That on or about the 24th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping [or]
aiding each other, with intent to gain, by means of force upon things, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa, by
then and there removing one blade of the glass window jalousie near the door, and once inside
the house, take, steal and carry away cash[,] money and jewelries worth P92,000.00 belonging to
said Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa, to the damage and prejudice of the latter; that on the
occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away
the said cash, money and jewelries, in pursuance of their conspiracy and to insure the success of
their criminal act, with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
stab said Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa on the vital part of his body, thereby inflicting upon
the latter stab wounds which directly caused his death.
When arraigned on February 23, 1994, appellant pleaded not guilty. After due trial, the RTC
promulgated its assailed Decision.
ISSUES :
The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Reyderick Lago of the crime of robbery
with homicide despite insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution.
RULINGS:
The second paragraph of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy, as follows:
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.
The elements of conspiracy are the following:
(1) Two or more persons came to an agreement,
(2) The agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based
on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties conduct indicating a
common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime.
Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an
explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried
out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was
perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or
common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that when conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the
act of all. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that conspiracy had
attended the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. Despite the protestations of
appellant that he did not conspire to rob and kill, but only to rob, the victim, we hold that
appellant is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The elements of this special complex crime are the following:
(1) The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against a
person;
(2) The property taken belongs to another;
(3) The taking is done with animo lucrandi; and
(4) By reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is
committed.
As aforesaid, whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part in the asportation will be held guilty of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless
it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the killing.
Appellant, upon hearing the groaning emanating from the bedroom, did not do anything to check
on what was happening. Thinking that his cohorts were stabbing the victim, appellant simply
allowed them to finish their dastardly deed. He hid for two years first in the house of his
grandmother and, later on, in that of his mother. On January 6, 1994, a barangay official
apprehended and brought him to the Mandaluyong jail.
It is therefore clear that appellant did not do anything to prevent his co-conspirators from
stabbing and ultimately killing the victim. When he left the scene of the crime; he could have
gone to the police to report the crime, but he hid and tried to escape the arm of the law. Because
he did not do anything to prevent the homicide, he is therefore equally guilty of robbery with
homicide.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against
appellant.