REPUBLIC ACT NO.

 10361

AN ACT INSTITUTING POLICIES FOR THE PROTECTION

AND WELFARE OF DOMESTIC WORKERS

I. BRIEF BACKGROUND

Republic Act No. 10361 or the “Domestic Workers Act” or “Batas Kasambay”
caused the express repeal of Articles 139 [141] to 150 [152] of the Labor Code. The
Domestic Workers Act was approved by President Benigno S. Aquino III on January 18,
2013.

II. COVERAGE

The Domestic Workers Act applies to all domestic workers employed and
working within the country.1

Who is a domestic worker?

A domestic worker or “kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic

work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following:
general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall
exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and
not on an occupational basis.

The term does not include children who are under foster family arrangement, and
are provided access to education and given an allowance incidental to education, i.e.
“baon”, transportation, school projects and school activities. 2 Service providers and
family drivers are not domestic workers.3

A domestic worker or “kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic

work within an employment relationship. One is engaged in “domestic work” when
refers to work performed in or for a household or households 4; households refer to
immediate members of the family or the occupants of the house that are directly
1
Sec. 3
2
Sec. 4 (d)
3
Rule I Sec. 2, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10361
4
Sec. 4(c)
provided services by the domestic worker5. To integrate the three definitions, a
domestic worker or “kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in work performed in
or for household or households or immediate members of the family or the occupants of
the house that are directly provided services by the domestic worker, within an
employment relationship.

Illustrative cases:

Apex Mining Company, INC. v. National Labor Relations Commission

G.R. 94951 (April 22, 1991)

FACTS: Private respondent Sinclita Candida was employed by

petitioner Apex Mining Company Inc. to perform laundry services at its
staff house. On December 18, 1987, while she was attending to her
assigned task and she was hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped
and hit her back on a stone. De la Rosa, her immediate supervisor offered
P5,000.00 to persuade her to quit her job, but she refused the offer and
preferred to return to work. Petitioner did not allow her to return to work
and dismissed her on February 4, 1988. Petitioner contends that it is only
when the househelper or domestic servant is assigned to certain aspects
of the business of the employer that such househelper or domestic
servant may be considered as such as employee.

RULING: The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of

the family of the employer in the home of said employer.  While it may be
true that the nature of the work of a househelper, domestic servant or
laundrywoman in a home or in a company staff house may be similar in
nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance
they are actually serving the family while in the latter case, whether it is a
corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or
any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the

5
Sec. 4(f)
 staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the employer. In
such instance, they are employees of the company or employer in the
business concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee.

The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working

within the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in
connection with its business, as in its staffhouses for its guest or even for
its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper
or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of
the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic servant
as contemplated in Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as
amended.

Similarly, in a case, respondent alleged that she started working in August 1983 as
company cook with a salary of Php 4,000.00 for Remington, a corporation engaged in
the trading business; that she worked for six (6) days a week . Petitioner contended that
respondent was a domestic helper and not a regular employee of the company since
Mr. Tan, the Managing Director, has a separate and distinct personality from the
petitioner. It maintains that it did not exercise control and supervision over her functions;
and that it operates as a trading company and does not engage in the restaurant
business, and therefore respondent’s work as a cook, which was not usually necessary
or desirable to its usual line of business or trade, could not make her its regular
employee. The Supreme Court reiterated the decision in Apex and ruled that the situs,
as well as the nature of respondent’s work as a cook, who caters not only to the needs
of Mr. Tan and his family but also to that of the petitioner’s employees, makes her fall
squarely within the definition of a regular employee under the doctrine enunciated in the
Apex Mining case. That she works within company premises, and that she does not
cater exclusively to the personal comfort of Mr. Tan and his family, is reflective of the
existence of the petitioner’s right of control over her functions, which is the primary
indicator of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. 6

6
Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v. Erlinda Castaneda, G.R. 169295-96 (November 20, 2006)
 In the case of Barcenas v. NLRC 7, where petitioner's position required her to receive
and assist Chinese visitors to the temple, act as tourist guide for foreign Chinese
visitors, attend to the callers of the Head Monk as well as to the food for the temple
visitors, run errands for the Head Monk such as paying the Meralco, PLDT, MWSS bills
and act as liaison in some government offices. The Court held that petitioner was a
regular employee of the Manila Buddhist Temple as secretary and interpreter.
Furthermore the Court held that the work that petitioner performed in the temple could
not be categorized as mere domestic work. Thus, the Court held that petitioner, being
proficient in the Chinese language, attended to the visitors, mostly Chinese, who came
to pray or seek advice before Buddha for personal or business problems; arranged
meetings between these visitors and Su and supervised the preparation of the food for
the temple visitors; acted as tourist guide of foreign visitors; acted as liaison with some
goverment offices; and made the payment for the temple's Meralco, MWSS and PLDT
bills. Indeed, these tasks may not be deemed activities of a household helper. They
were essential and important to the operation and religious functions of the temple.

III. RIGHTS AND PRIVILAGES

According to Rule IV, Section 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of

Republic Act No. 10361, Otherwise known as the “Domestic Workers Act” or “Batas
Kasambahay” (hereinafter, “IRR”), the rights and privileges of the Kasambahay are
as follows:

a. Minimum wage;
b. Othe mandatory benefits, such as the daily and weekly rest periods,
service incentive leave, and 13th month pay;
c. Freedom from employers’ interference in the disposal of wages;
d. Coverage under the SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG laws;
e. Standard treatment
f. Board, lodging and medical attendance
g. Right to privacy;
h. Access to outside communication;
7
Filomena Barcenas v. The National Labor Commission, G.R. 87210 (July, 16, 1990)
 i. Access to education and training;
j. Right to form, join or assist in labor organizations;
k. Right to be provided a copy of employment contract as required under
Section 7, Rule II of this IRR;
l. Right to certificate of employment as required under Sec. 5, Rule VII of
this IRR;
m. Right to terminate the employment as provided under Sec. 2, Rule VII of
this IRR; and
n. Right to exercise their own religious beliefs and cultural practices

Standard Treatment

The employer or any member of the household shall not subject a domestic
worker to (1) any kind of abuse, nor (2) inflict any form of physical violence or
harassment or (3) any act tending to degrade the dignity of a domestic worker 8.

Board, Lodging, and Medical Attendance

The employer shall provide the basic necessities of the Kasambahay, which shall
include the following9:

a. At least three (3) adequate meals a day, taking into consideration the
Kasambahay’s religious beliefs and cultural practices
b. Humane sleeping condition that respects the person’s privacy for live-in
arrangement. For kasambahays under live-out arrangement, he shall be
provided with space for rest and access to sanitary facility; and
c. Appropriate rest and medical assistance in the form of first aid medicines,
in case of illnesses and injuries sustained during service without loss of
privileges

Guarantee of Privacy

8
Sec. 5
9
Sec. 13, Rule IV, IRR
 Guaranteed at all times and shall extend to all forms of communication and
personal effects10

Access to Outside Communication.

The employer shall grant the domestic worker access to outside communication
during free time: Provided, That in case of emergency, access to communication shall
be granted even during work time. Should the domestic worker make use of the
employer’s telephone or other communication facilities, the costs shall be borne by the
domestic worker, unless such charges are waived by the employer. 11

Right to Education and Training.

The employer shall afford the domestic worker the opportunity to finish basic
education and may allow access to alternative learning systems and, as far as
practicable, higher education or technical and vocational training. The employer shall
adjust the work schedule of the domestic worker to allow such access to education or
training without hampering the services required by the employer. 12

Prohibition Against Privileged Information.

All communication and information pertaining to the employer or members of the

household are privileged and confidential, and shall not be publicly disclosed by the
domestic worker during and after employment. Such privileged information shall be
inadmissible in evidence except when the suit involves the employer or any member of
the household in a crime against persons, property, personal liberty and security, and
chastity.13

IV. PRE-EMPLOYMENT

Employment Contract

10
Sec. 7
11
Sec. 8
12
Sec. 9
13
Sec. 10
 Sec. 11 of the Domestic Workers Act requires the employer and the domestic
worker to execute an employment contract before the commencement of the
service. The contract MUST be in a language and dialect understood by both
parties. The domestic worker shall be provided a copy of the said contract. In cases
where the domestic worker was hired through a Private Employment Agency
(PEA),14 the PEA shall keep a copy of the employment contracts of domestic
workers and shall be made available for inspection and verification and inspection by
the DOLE.

The Employment Contract must include the following: (PLACARD BHAT)

1. Period of Employment;
2. Loan Agreement;
3. Authorized Deductions;
4. Compensation;
5. Agreements on deployment expenses;
6. Rest day and allowable leaves;
7. Duties and responsibilities of the domestic worker;
8. Board, lodging and medical attention;
9. Hours of work and proportionate additional payment;
10. Any other lawful conditions agreed upon; and
11. Termination of employment

Requirements, Recruitment and Finder’s Fee

Prior to the execution of the employment contract, the employer may require the
following from the domestic worker:

(a) Medical certificate or a health certificate issued by a local government health

officer;
(b) Barangay and police clearance;
(c) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance; and

14
Sec. 4(g) Private Employment Agency (PEA) refers to any individual, legitimate partnership, corporation or entity
licensed to engage in the recruitment and placement of domestic workers for local employment.
 (d) Duly authenticated birth certificate or if not available, any other document
showing the age of the domestic worker such as voter’s identification card,
baptismal record or passport.
Should the employment of the domestic worker be facilitated by a PEA, requirements a,
b and c are required at the cost of the employer or agency. 15 Similarly, the law provides
any portion of the recruitment and finder’s fee should not be charged against the
domestic worker.16

As provided by Sec. 17 mandates the employers to register all domestic workers

under their employment in the Registry of Domestic Workers in the barangay where the
employer’s residence is located. Furthermore, The Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) shall, in coordination with the DOLE, is also mandated to formulate
a registration system.

Unlawful Acts Under Art. III

1. Requiring deposits for loss or damage to tools, materials, furniture and

equipment in the household17
2. Placing the domestic worker under a debt bondage 18

A DEBT BONDAGE refers to the rendering of service by the domestic worker as

security or payment for a debt where the length and nature of service is not clearly
defined or when the value of the service is not reasonably applied in the payment of
the debt.19

3. Employment of any person below 15 years of age as a domestic worker

If found guilty of any offense in connection under this Act, the employer’s penalty
shall be one degree higher and he shall be prohibited from hiring a working child.

15
Sec. 12
16
Sec. 13

17
Sec. 14
18
Sec. 15
19
Sec. 4(a)
 Under R.A. No. 9231, children should not work for more than 8 hours per day
and beyond 40 hours per week, neither can they work between 10 pm and 6am.
Work that is hazardous, or potentially harmful to health, safety, or morals are
likewise prohibited20

Skills Training, Assessment and Certification 21

To ensure productivity and assure quality services, the DOLE, through the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), shall facilitate access
of domestic workers to efficient training, assessment and certification based on a duly
promulgated training regulation (Chan, 2019)

Bibliography
20

21
Sec. 17
Chan, J. G. (2019). Bar reviewer on labor law. Pasig City: ChanRobles Publishing .