View full case

PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS v. REY SALAC

FACTS:

The consolidated cases involve the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) 8042, also known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. The Act sets the government's policies on overseas employment and aims to protect and promote the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress. Specifically, the cases focus on the constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042.

Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 direct the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to start deregulating the business of handling the recruitment and migration of overseas Filipino workers within one year of the Act's passage. The provisions also mandate the phase-out of the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) within five years.

Respondents Rey Salac, Willie D. Espiritu, Mario Montenegro, Dodgie Belonio, Lolit Salinel, and Buddy Bonnevie filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeking to nullify DOLE Department Order 10 and POEA Memorandum Circular 15. They also asked the court to prohibit the government agencies from implementing these orders and from issuing further rules and regulations that regulate the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers. Salac et al. also sought compliance with the policy of deregulation mandated in Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042.

On March 20, 2002, the RTC granted Salac et al.'s petition, ordering the government agencies to deregulate the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers. The RTC also invalidated DOLE Department Order 10, POEA Memorandum Circular 15, and other inconsistent orders and circulars. In response, the government officials involved filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to annul the RTC's decision and enjoin its enforcement.

In a parallel case, Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. and others filed a petition before the RTC of Quezon City, seeking to enjoin the DOLE Secretary, POEA Administrator, and TESDA Director-General from implementing the 2002 rules and regulations governing the recruitment and employment of overseas workers. They argued that these regulations violate the policy of deregulation in Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042.

On March 12, 2002, the RTC issued an order granting the petition and enjoining the government agencies from exercising regulatory functions over the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers. This prompted the DOLE Secretary, POEA Administrator, and TESDA Director-General to file a petition before the Supreme Court to challenge the RTC's decision.

Two cases were consolidated. In G.R. No. 152642, the petitioners, who are recruitment agencies, sought to nullify the decision of the Quezon City RTC, which declared certain provisions of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) and its implementing rules and regulations unconstitutional. These provisions relate to the regulation of recruitment and placement of Filipino workers overseas. In G.R. No. 152710, the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General filed a petition to enjoin the Quezon City RTC from enforcing its decision in G.R. No. 152642, arguing that RA 9422, which repealed certain provisions of RA 8042, already addressed the issues raised in G.R. No. 152642. On December 4, 2008, the Republic informed the Court that RA 9422 had been signed into law, which expressly repealed the contested provisions of RA 8042 and adopted a policy of close government regulation of overseas recruitment and deployment. Respondents in G.R. No. 152642 agreed with the Republic's view that the repeal of the provisions rendered the issues moot and academic. Another case, G.R. No. 167590, involved a petition by the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) to annul Sections 6, 7, and 9 of RA 8042 for being unconstitutional. These sections define "illegal recruitment" and provide penalties for prohibited acts.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being vague and giving undue advantage to non-licensed recruiters in violation of the right to equal protection.

  2. Whether Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 is unconstitutional for failing to make distinctions as to the seriousness of the act committed for the application of the penalty imposed.

  3. Whether the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. 8042, which holds the corporate directors, officers, and partners of recruitment and placement agencies jointly and solidarily liable for money claims and damages, is unconstitutional.

  4. Whether or not Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Republic Act 8042 are valid and constitutional.

  5. Whether or not the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 is valid and constitutional.

  6. Whether or not intervenors Eufrocina Gumabay, Elvira Taguiam, Lourdes Bonifacio, and Eddie De Guzman should be held jointly and solidarily liable with respondent Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion, Inc. to spouses Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that Section 6 and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 are constitutional.

  2. The Supreme Court allowed the intervention and admitted the motion for reconsideration of the corporate directors and officers. The Court then proceeded to consider the constitutionality of the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. 8042.

  3. The Court declares Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Republic Act 8042 valid and constitutional.

  4. The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 is also declared valid and constitutional.

  5. The Court sets aside the portion of its decision that held the intervenors jointly and solidarily liable with respondent Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion, Inc. for lack of a finding that they had a part in the act or omission imputed to their corporation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Illegal recruitment, as defined in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, is clear and unambiguous and makes a distinction between licensed and non-licensed recruiters.

  • Congress has the prerogative to determine the penalties for the individual acts enumerated in Section 6, and the Court cannot question the wisdom of this choice.

  • The fixity of penalties in Section 7 is consistent with the State policy of according full protection to labor.

  • Police power allows the State to prescribe regulations to secure the general welfare of the people and protect them against deception and fraud.

  • Venue in criminal cases can be where the crime was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense, as provided in Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8042.

  • The court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts, subject to exceptions provided by laws.

  • Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure allows for exceptions in the place where the criminal action is to be instituted.

  • Section 9 of R.A. 8042 is an exception to the rule on venue of criminal actions and is consistent with the law's declared policy of providing a criminal justice system that protects and serves the best interests of the victims of illegal recruitment.

  • The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under Section 10 of R.A. 8042 shall be joint and several, and the corporate officers and directors and partners, as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the said claims and damages. However, the liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic and there must be a finding that they were remiss.

  • The Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Every statute has the presumption of constitutionality.

  • To hold corporate officers and directors jointly and solidarily liable with their company, it must be proven that they were personally involved in the actions or omissions of the company.

  • R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of OFWs and address the injustices and abuses suffered by them.