G.R. No.

152642 November 13, 2012

HON. PATRICIA A. STO.TOMAS vs. REY SALAC

This is a consolidated cases pertain to the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act 8042,
otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

GR Nos. 152642 and 152710

FACTS:
Respondents Rey Salac, Willie D. Espiritu, Mario Montenegro, Dodgie Belonio, Lolit Salinel, and Buddy
Bonnevie (Salac, et al.) are recruiters deploying workers abroad filed a petition against the petitioners, the
DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA) Secretary-General before the Regional Trial Court seeking to prohibit the DOLE, POEA, and
TESDA from implementing and issuing rules and regulations that would regulate the recruitment and
placement of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs); and to enjoin them to comply with the policy of
deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and 30 of Republic Act 8042.
RTC then granted Salac, et al.s petition and also annulled all orders, circulars and issuances that are
inconsistent with the policy of deregulation under R.A. 8042.
The government officials concerned, intervened by the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.
and Confederated Association of Licensed Entertainment Agencies, Incorporated (CALEA) then filed a
petition seeking to annul the RTCs decision claiming that it gravely affected them since it paralyzed the
deployment abroad of OFWs and performing artists.
Respondents Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. and others (Arcophil, et al.) also filed a
petition against the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General before
the RTC to enjoin the latter from implementing the 2002 Rules and Regulations Governing the
Recruitment and Employment of Overseas Workers and to cease and desist from issuing other orders,
circulars, and policies that tend to regulate the recruitment and placement of OFWs in violation of the
policy of deregulation provided in Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042.

ISSUE:
Whether Sections 29 and30 of RA 8042 are valid.

HELD:
No. The issue became moot and academic as it appears that during the pendency of the case,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. 9422 which expressly repealed Sections 29 and
30 of R.A. 8042 and adopted the policy of close government regulation of the recruitment and deployment
of OFWs. Under Section 23, paragraph (b.1) of Republic Act No. 8042, it provides that The POEA shall
regulate private sector participation in the recruitment and overseas placement of workers by setting up a
licensing and registration system. It shall also formulate and implement, in coordination with appropriate
entities concerned, when necessary, a system for promoting and monitoring the overseas employment of
Filipino workers taking into consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower requirements.
Thus, the two cases were dismissed for being moot and academic.
 GR No. 167590

FACTS:
Respondent Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) filed a petition before the
RTC of Manila, seeking to annul Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042. It contends that these sections are
unconstitutional as:
a. Sec. 6. It claims that the definition by law is vague as it fails to distinguish between licensed and
non-licensed recruiters.
b. Sec. 7. It argues that the penalties failed to make any distinction as to the seriousness of the act
committed for the application of the penalty imposed on such violation; like the mere failure to render a
report or obstructing the inspection by the Labor Department are penalized by imprisonment for six years
and one day and a minimum fine of 200,000.00 but which could unreasonably go even as high as life
imprisonment if committed by at least three persons.
c. Section 9. PASEI argues that the filing of a criminal case at the place where the victim resides or
where the crime was committed is void for being contrary to the Rules of Court in which the criminal cases
must be prosecuted in the place where the crime or any of its essential elements were committed.

ISSUE:
Whether Sections 6,7 and 9 of RA 8042 are void.

HELD:
NO. Sections 6,7 and 9 of RA 8042 are valid provisions.
a. Section 6 is clear and unambiguous as actually makes a distinction between licensed and non-
licensed recruiters. By its terms, persons who engage in "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers" without the appropriate government license or authority are guilty of
illegal recruitment whether or not they commit the wrongful acts enumerated in that section. On the other
hand, recruiters who engage in the canvassing, enlisting, etc. of OFWs, although with the appropriate
government license or authority, are guilty of illegal recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful
acts enumerated in Section 6.
b. Section 7 is valid as the Congress is within its prerogative to determine what individual acts are
equally reprehensible, consistent with the State policy of according full protection to labor, and deserving
of the same penalties. It is not within the power of the Court to question the wisdom of this kind of choice.
The law considered the unsettling fact that OFWs must work outside the countrys borders and beyond its
immediate protection. The law therefore make an effort to somehow protect them from conscienceless
individuals within its jurisdiction who, fueled by greed, are willing to ship them out without clear assurance
that their contracted principals would treat such OFWs fairly and humanely.
c. Section 9. Under Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it provides:
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where
any of its essential ingredients occurred.
Thus, the rules allow exceptions provided by laws. Section 9 of R.A. 8042 is then an exception to the rule
on venue of criminal action which is consistent with that laws declared policy of providing a criminal
justice system that protects and serves the best interests of the victims of illegal recruitment.
 G.R. Nos. 182978-79, and 184298-99
FACTS:
Respondent spouses Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas) filed a claim for death and
insurance benefits and damages against petitioners (Becmen) and (White Falcon) for the death of their
daughter Jasmin Cuaresma while working as staff nurse in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the claim on the ground that the Cuaresmas had already
received insurance benefits arising from their daughters death from the Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA). The LA also gave due credence to the findings of the Saudi Arabian authorities
that Jasmin committed suicide.
On appeal, however, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found Becmen and White
Falcon jointly and severally liable for Jasmins death and ordered them to pay the Cuaresmas the
amount of US$113,000.00 as actual damages. The NLRC relied on the Cabanatuan City Health Offices
autopsy finding that Jasmin died of criminal violence and rape.
Becmen and White Falcon appealed the NLRC Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) in which it
held that Becmen and White Falcon jointly and severally liable with their Saudi Arabian employer for
actual damages, with Becmen having a right of reimbursement from White Falcon. Becmen and White
Falcon appealed the CA Decision to SC.
In the SC, it found Jasmins death not work-related or work-connected since her rape and death
did not occur while she was on duty at the hospital or doing acts incidental to her employment. The
court also deleted the award of actual damages but ruled that Becmens corporate directors and
officers are solidarily liable with their company for its failure to investigate the true nature of her
death.
The corporate directors and officers of Becmen then filed a motion for leave to Intervene
questioning the constitutionality of the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042
which holds the corporate directors, officers and partners jointly and solidarily liable with their company for
money claims filed by OFWs against their employers and the recruitment firms.

ISSUE:
Whether Section 10 of RA 8042 is invalid.

HELD:
NO. The court held that the liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make
them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in
directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities. In
the case of Becmen and White Falcon, while there is evidence that these companies were at fault in not
investigating the cause of Jasmins death, there is no mention of any evidence in the case against them
that intervenors, Becmens corporate officers and directors, were personally involved in their companys
particular actions or omissions in Jasmins case.
Thus, R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of
OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to
work abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.