PHILSA v.

CA
G.R. No. 103144, April 4, 2001

Facts:
Petitioner Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation is a domestic
corporation focusing on the recruitment of workers for overseas employment.
Private respondents Mikin, de Mesa, and Leyson who were recruited by petitioners
for work in Saudi Arabia paid placement fees. On February 4, 1985, while in Saudi Arabia
they were allegedly made to sign a second contract which changed some of the provisions
of their original contract resulting in the reduction of some of their benefits and privileges.
Following then, their foreign employer allegedly forced them to sign a third contract which
increased their work hours from 48 hours to 60 hours a week without any corresponding
increase in their basic monthly salary. They refused to sign the third contact and got
terminated hence their return to the Philippines. The respondents then filed a case before
POEA.
Philsa insists that they cannot be held for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum
Circular 2 and 11, Series of 1983 were not published.

Issue:
Whether or not Philsa is liable for illegal exaction since POEA Memorandum
Circular 2 and 11 were not published as required by law

Ruling:
No. Applying the doctrine in Tañada v. Tuvera, the Supreme Court ruled that the
above-mentioned Memorandum shall be rendered ineffective because it lacks publication
which makes the petitioner not liable for illegal exaction. Administrative rules and
regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
pursuant to a valid delegation.