FACTS:

The case involves the death of Manny dela Rosa Razon, an overseas Filipino worker, who died of acute cardiac arrest while asleep at the dormitory of the Samsong Textile Processing Factory in South Korea. The Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) immediately informed the Philippine Embassy in South Korea about the incident. The embassy sent a letter to the administrator of the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA), requesting assistance for the repatriation of the remains. It was discovered that Manny Razon was recruited by Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. and sent to South Korea to work at Yeongjin Machinery, Inc. The POEA issued a telegram-directive to Equi-Asia Placement, Inc., requesting them to provide prepaid ticket advice for the repatriation of the remains. In response, Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. stated that Manny violated his employment contract and therefore, they cannot provide the requested assistance. The WEO-POEA sent a letter to Equi-Asia Placement, Inc., reminding them that the repatriation is their responsibility and they must provide the prepaid ticket advice.

In this case, the petitioner is a recruitment agency that was ordered by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to pay in advance the costs for the repatriation of the remains of the deceased Manny dela Rosa Razon, an ex-trainee overseas Filipino worker (OFW). The petitioner argued that the provisions of Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, which require the agency to advance the cost of plane fare and recover the same from the estate of the deceased worker, are violative of due process and the principle on due delegation of power. Despite the petitioner's objections, it advanced the costs for repatriation under protest. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, questioning the legality of the POEA's order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that the POEA did not commit grave abuse of discretion as its directives were in accordance with existing laws and regulations. The Court of Appeals also held that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy available to the petitioner and that the unconstitutionality of the provisions could not be passed upon unless raised in an appropriate proceeding. The petitioner now brings the case to the Supreme Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of the issues and in dismissing the petition.

This case involves a petition seeking to declare certain provisions of the omnibus rules on overseas employment of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) as null and void for being violative of the Constitution and existing laws on repatriation. The provisions in question are Section 52, Section 53, and Section 54 of the said rules.

Section 52 states that the repatriation of the worker, his/her remains, and personal effects shall be the primary responsibility of the principal or agency which recruited or deployed him/her abroad. The principal or agency is required to bear all costs associated with repatriation.

Section 53 provides that the primary responsibility to repatriate entails the obligation of the principal or agency to advance the cost of plane fare and immediately repatriate the worker without a prior determination of the cause of termination of employment. However, the principal or agency can recover the cost of repatriation from the worker if the termination of employment was due solely to the worker's fault.

Every contract for overseas employment must provide for the primary responsibility of the agency to advance the cost of plane fare and the obligation of the worker to refund the cost if his/her fault is determined by the Labor Arbiter.

Section 54 deals with the procedure for repatriation. If the foreign employer fails to provide for the cost of repatriation, the worker may seek assistance from the Philippine government and the embassy or consulate nearest his/her work site.

The petitioner argues that these provisions violate the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the worker to just and humane conditions of work, security of tenure, and due process. They contend that the provisions unreasonably shift the burden of repatriation costs to the worker and deny them the opportunity to challenge the termination of employment before being repatriated.

In response, the respondents argue that the provisions are valid and in accordance with the Constitution and existing laws. They argue that the provisions promote the welfare and protection of overseas Filipino workers by ensuring that the burden of repatriation falls on the principal or agency, except in cases of worker fault.

The case was submitted for resolution after the parties were directed to submit their respective memoranda.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the Omnibus Rules are illegal and violative of due process.

2. Whether a special civil action for certiorari is the appropriate remedy to raise constitutional issues.

3. Whether Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 imposes the primary responsibility for the repatriation of a deceased Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) on placement agencies.

4. Whether Section 53 of the Omnibus Rules is invalid for contradicting Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042.

5. Whether Section 53 of the Omnibus Rules violates the due process clause of the constitution.

6. Whether the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration should advance the costs of repatriation of deceased OFWs.

7. Whether Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the Omnibus Rules are valid quasi-legislative acts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Labor and Employment.

8. Whether the requirements of prior notice and hearing are essential in the promulgation of the aforementioned rules and regulations.

9. Whether the recruitment agency bears the primary responsibility for the repatriation of an OFW, whether dead or alive.

10. Whether the questioned provisions of the Omnibus Rules are valid and within the scope of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042.

11. Whether the petitioner has the primary obligation to repatriate the remains of the deceased OFW and advance the cost of transportation without prior determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

12. What is the issue of the case?

13. What is the ruling of the court regarding the issue raised?

RULING:

1. Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the Omnibus Rules are valid and constitutional.

2. A special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to raise constitutional issues.

3. Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 imposes the primary responsibility for the repatriation of a deceased OFW on placement agencies.

4. Section 53 of the Omnibus Rules is not invalid for contradicting Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042.

5. Section 53 of the Omnibus Rules does not violate the due process clause of the constitution.

6. The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration should advance the costs of repatriation of deceased OFWs.

7. Yes, Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the Omnibus Rules are valid quasi-legislative acts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Labor and Employment.

8. No, the requirements of prior notice and hearing are not essential in the promulgation of the aforementioned rules and regulations.

9. Yes, the recruitment agency bears the primary responsibility for the repatriation of an OFW, whether dead or alive.

10. The questioned provisions of the Omnibus Rules are valid and within the scope of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042. The delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies is allowed to deal with the increasing complexity of modern life. The Omnibus Rules are germane to the objects and purposes of the law and are in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.

11. The petitioner has the primary obligation to repatriate the remains of the deceased OFW and advance the cost of transportation, as dictated by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042. The law mandates that the repatriation of remains and the costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the principal and/or the local agency. The obligations of the local recruitment agency to repatriate the deceased OFW can be held exclusively, even without recourse to the principal abroad. The petitioner's argument that the termination of the employer-employee relationship must be determined first is not valid, as repatriation is an unconditional responsibility of the agency and/or its principal that cannot be delayed.

12. The issue of the case is not stated in the text provided.

13. The court affirmed the Decision dated 4 October 2001 and Resolution dated 18 February 2002.

PRINCIPLES:

• The primary responsibility for the repatriation of a deceased OFW lies with the placement agency or principal.

• The appropriate remedy to raise constitutional issues is through a special civil action for certiorari.

• Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 imposes the primary responsibility for the repatriation of a deceased OFW on placement agencies.

• The Omnibus Rules, including Section 53, are valid exercises of legislative power by an administrative agency.

• Section 53 of the Omnibus Rules does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

• The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration should advance the costs of repatriation of deceased OFWs.

• Regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies, including regional trial courts.

• A petition for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must be present:

a) The writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

b) Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

c) There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

• Administrative bodies are vested with two basic powers, the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial. Prior notice to and hearing of every affected party are not required in the exercise of quasi-legislative power.

• In the recruitment of Filipino workers for work abroad, the nature of the agency's business calls for the exercise of the state's police power to safeguard the rights and welfare of Filipino laborers.

• The primary responsibility for the repatriation of an OFW, whether dead or alive, lies with the recruitment agency.

• Delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies is allowed to deal with the complexity of modern life.

• For the valid exercise of the power of subordinate legislation, the regulation must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law and in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.

• The primary obligation to repatriate the remains of a deceased OFW and advance the cost of transportation is imposed on the local recruitment agency, even without recourse to the principal abroad.

• Repatriation is an unconditional responsibility of the agency and/or its principal that cannot be delayed by an investigation of the termination of the worker's employment.

• The legislature's pronouncements in enacting Republic Act No. 8042, upholding the dignity of Filipinos and providing full protection to labor, meet the requirement of providing sufficient guidance for the formulation of the Omnibus Rules.

• No legal principles or doctrines were mentioned in the text provided.