Sto Tomas Et Al vs. Salac Et Al

Sto. Tomas et al. vs Salac et al.
GR No’s 152642 etc. November 13, 2012
FACTS:
 Constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042

Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042 commanded the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to:
 begin deregulating within one year of its passage the business of handling the recruitment and
migration of overseas Filipino workers and
 phase out within five years the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA).
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for TRO and
preliminary injunction against petitioners DOLE Secretary, POEA Administrator, and TESDA Secretary-
General.
Salac et al sought to:

1. nullify DOLE Department Order 10 (DOLE DO 10) and POEA Memorandum Circular 15
(POEA MC 15);
2. prohibit the DOLE, POEA, and TESDA from implementing the same and from further issuing
rules and regulations that would regulate the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino
workers(OFWs); and
3. enjoin them to comply with the policy of deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and 30 of
Republic Act 8042.
The RTC granted Salac’s petition and ordered he government agencies mentioned to deregulate the
recruitment and placement of OFWs. The RTC also annulled DOLE DO 10, POEA MC 15, and all other
orders, circulars and issuances that are inconsistent with the policy of deregulation under R.A. 8042
Aggrieved by the decision, the government officials filed the present petition seeking to annul the
decision of the RTC.
In 2002, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. and Confederated Association of Licensed
Entertainment Agencies intervened in the case before the Court claiming that the previous RTC Decision
gravely affected them since it paralyzed the deployment abroad of OFWs and performing artist.
The respondents Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with application for TRO and preliminary injunction against the DOLE Secretary, POEA
Administrator and TESDA Secretary-General to enjoin them 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
In 2008, former GMA signed RA 9422 into law which expressly repealed Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042
and adopted the policy of close government regulation of the recruitment and deployment of OFWs.
According to the respondents, they agree with the Republic’s view that the repeal of Sections 29 and 30
of R.A.8042 renders the issues they raised by their action moot and academic. The Court has no reason to
disagree.
 Constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, 9 of RA 8042
Section 6 – Constitutional
“Illegal recruitment” as defined in Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and, contrary to the RTC’s
finding, 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.
In fixing uniform penalties for each of the enumerated acts under Section 6, Congress was 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.
Notably, this legislative policy has been further stressed in July 2010 with the enactment of R.A. 10022
which increased even more the duration of the penalties of imprisonment and the amounts of fine for the
commission of the acts listed under Section 7. Obviously, in fixing such tough penalties, the law
considered the unsettling fact that OFWs must work outside the country’s borders and beyond its
immediate protection. The law must, 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.
There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of
Section 6 of R.A. 8042 that differs from the venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Indeed, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the latter Rules allows exceptions provided by laws.
Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the rule on venue of criminal actions is, consistent with that
law’s declared policy [15] of providing a criminal justice system that protects and serves the best interests
of the victims of illegal recruitment.
 GR No. 167590, 182978-79 and 184298-99

Constitutionality of Section 10 (2nd Paragraph)
Respondent spouses Cuaresmas filed a claim for death and insurance benefits and damages against
petitioners Becmen Inc. and White falcon for the death of their daughter while working as a staff nurse in
Saudi Arabia.
On April 7, 2009 the Court found Jasmin’s 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 deleted the award of actual damages but ruled that Becmen’s corporate directors and officers
are solidarily liable with their company for its failure to investigate the true nature of her death.
Becmen and White Falcon abandoned their legal, moral, and social duty to assist the Cuaresmas in
obtaining justice for their daughter. Consequently, the Court held the foreign employer Rajab and Silsilah,
White Falcon, Becmen, and the latter’s corporate directors and officers jointly and severally liable to the
Cuaresmas.
The corporate officers of Becmen questioned the constitutionality of the last sentence of the second
paragraph of Section 10 RA 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.
The Court has already held, pending adjudication of this case, 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 Jasmin’s death, there is no mention of any evidence in the case against them
that intervenors Gumabay, et al., Becmen’s corporate officers and directors, were personally involved in
their company’s particular actions or omissions in Jasmin’s case.
As a final note, 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.
The Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the Legislative
Department. Hence, in the absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional,
the Court must uphold its validity.

Sto Tomas Et Al vs. Salac Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sto Tomas Et Al vs. Salac Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sto Tomas Et Al vs. Salac Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sto. Tomas et al. vs Salac et al.

GR No’s 152642 etc. November 13, 2012

 Constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042

Salac et al sought to:

 Constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, 9 of RA 8042

 GR No. 167590, 182978-79 and 184298-99

You might also like