1.Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v. Sec. of Labor and Employment, et.al., G.R.

No. 103144, April 4, 2001.

FACTS:

Petitioner is engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment. Sometime in 1985,
private respondents were recruited by the petitioner for employment in Saudi Arabia. Placement fees were
paid by the private respondents to the petitioner. After execution of their respective work contracts, they
were deployed to Saudi Arabia. However, private respondents alleged that during the term of their
employment, amendatory contracts were issued which have reduced their benefits and privileges, and
increase their work hours without concomitant increase in their basic salary. That according to them,
when the petitioners refused to sign the third contract, their employment were terminated and they were
repatriated to the Philippines.

Upon arrival in the Philippines, they alleged that private respondents demanded from the
petitioner their placement fees and salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract which to no avail.
Hence, they filed a case against the petitioner before the POEA which eventually found petitioner guilty
of exaction, contract substitution and unlawful deduction pursuant to POEA Memorandum Circular No.
2, Series of 1983.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner insists that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 1983 is void for lack of publication.

ISSUE: W/N POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 1983 is void for lack of publication?

HELD:

Yes. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 1983 must be declared ineffective as the same was
never published or filed with the National Administrative Register. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11,
s. 1983 provides the applicable schedule of placements fees and documentation fees which was issued in
compliance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Labor Code.

Accordingly, it is clear that the subject administrative circular under consideration is one of those
issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The fact that it is addressed only to a specified group namely,
private employment agencies or authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of the Court’s
ruling in Tañada v. Tuvera.

To reiterate the decision in Tañada v. Tuvera, Adminsitrative rules and regulations must be
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only
exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of
instructions issued by superiors of agency for the guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 1983 does not fall under any of those
exceptions.