Case No.: G.R. Nos.

152642, 152710, 167590, 182978-79, 184298-99

Case Title: Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Rosalinda Baldoz, Lucita Lazo, Petitioners vs. Rey Salac, Willie D.
Espiritu, Mario Montenegro, Dodgie Belonio, Lolit Salinel, Buddy Bonnevie, and others; Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Honorable Executive Secretary, et al., Petitioners vs. Philippine Association of
Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI); Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc., Petitioner vs. Spouses
Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma, White Falcon Services, Inc., Jaime Ortiz; Spouses Simplicio and Mila
Cuaresma, Petitioners vs. White Falcon Services, Inc., Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion, Inc.,
Respondents
Date: November 13, 2012

Summary of Facts:
The consolidated cases involved challenges to the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act 8042,
also known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. These provisions include Sections 29
and 30 (pertaining to deregulation of recruitment and migration of overseas Filipino workers), Sections 6, 7,
and 9 (defining illegal recruitment, penalties, and venue for filing criminal actions), and the last sentence of the
second paragraph of Section 10 (making corporate directors and officers jointly and solidarily liable with their
company for money claims by OFWs).

Issues:
1. Whether the challenged provisions of RA 8042 are constitutional.

Ruling and Decision:

1. Sections 29 and 30: The issues raised regarding these sections became moot and academic after the
enactment of RA 9422, which repealed them and adopted a policy of close government regulation of the
recruitment and deployment of OFWs.

2. Sections 6, 7, and 9: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these sections, which define illegal
recruitment, provide penalties, and determine venue for filing criminal actions. The Court rejected claims of
vagueness and lack of due process, affirming Congress's power to fix penalties and establish venue for
criminal actions.

3. Last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10: The Court upheld the constitutionality of this
provision, which holds corporate directors and officers jointly and solidarily liable with their company for money
claims by OFWs. However, the Court clarified that such liability is not automatic and requires a finding of
personal involvement or fault on the part of corporate directors and officers.

Doctrine:
The Court reiterated the principle of deference to legislative judgment in matters involving the regulation of
labor, particularly in the protection of OFWs. It emphasized that every statute carries a presumption of
constitutionality, and the Court must uphold its validity unless there is a clear and unmistakable case of
unconstitutionality. Moreover, the Court affirmed Congress's prerogative to fix penalties and establish venue
for criminal actions, as long as these measures are aimed at protecting the welfare of workers and are not
arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Highlighted Rules, Laws, and Codes:

- Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995)
- Republic Act 9422
- Labor Code of the Philippines
- Rules on Criminal Procedure
In the context of the case, the venue of criminal actions is relevant because it pertains to the jurisdiction where
criminal cases arising from illegal recruitment can be filed. Section 9 of Republic Act 8042 specifies that a
criminal action for illegal recruitment shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where
the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.

The constitutionality of this provision was challenged in the case, particularly by the Philippine Association of
Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), which argued that allowing the offended party to file a criminal case in their
place of residence violated the general rule on venue of criminal cases and their right to due process. PASEI
contended that venue, being jurisdictional in penal laws, should adhere strictly to the principle that criminal
actions must be filed where the crime or any of its essential elements were committed.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 9 of RA 8042. The Court reasoned that
Congress has the authority to establish an alternative venue for violations of the law, consistent with its
declared policy of providing a criminal justice system that protects the best interests of victims of illegal
recruitment. The Court also pointed out that the Rules on Criminal Procedure allow exceptions provided by
laws, affirming the validity of Section 9 as a legislative measure aimed at addressing the unique circumstances
surrounding cases of illegal recruitment involving overseas Filipino workers.