Labor Case Digests_Compiled

7/25/2019 Labor Case Digests_Compiled

1/35

Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 155109

Facts: The Labor Arbiter found the strike of the Union was illegal in violation of the

CBA agreement of no strike and no lockout provision; and that the Union officers be

deemed to have forfeited their emploment! But the Union members" without proof of

having committed illegal acts during the strike" were ordered reinstated withoutbackwages! Union members filed motion for immediate reinstatement but the Arbiter did

not act on the motion! The Compan did not reinstate them! Both parties appealed the

Arbiter#s decision!

$ssue: %hether or not the terminated Union members were entitled to backwages on

account of the Compan#s refusal to reinstate them pending appeal of the Arbiter#s

decision!

&uing: The Court held that the strike was illegal for violating the no strike and no lockout

CBA provision! 'ince the strike was illegal" the Union (fficers can be terminated from

emploment! But rank and file Union members who merel participated in the strike

should have been reinstated!

Article ))* of the Labor Code provides that the decision of the Labor Arbiter

reinstating a dismissed emploee shall be immediatel e+ecutor pending appeal! Thus"

the Compan is liable for accrued backwages until the eventual reversal of the order of

reinstatement b the ,L&C!

Labor Law Case Digests Santos, Ramirez, Untalan


2/35

Insular Hotel Employees n!on " N#$ v. %aterront Insular Hotel 'avao

GR 174040-41, September 22, 2010

Peralta

Facts:

(n ,ovember -" )..." respondent %aterfront $nsular /otel 0avao sent the 0epartment of Laborand 1mploment 20(L13" &egion 4$" 0avao Cit" a ,otice of 'uspension of (perationsnotifing the same that it will suspend its operations for a period of si+ months due to severe andserious business losses! $n said notice" respondent assured the 0(L1 that if the compan couldnot resume its operations within the si+5month period" the compan would pa the affectedemploees all the benefits legall due to them!

To save their emploer from total closure because of losses" the emploees union in %aterfront$nsular /otel proposed to the management to suspend for ten ears their collective bargaining

agreement and to waive some benefits and privileges granted under the CBA! $t was suggestedb emploees themselves to save the business and save their 6obs! /owever" some co5emploees7uestioned the legalit of the memorandum of agreement between the management and theunion as illegal diminution of benefits!

$ssue:

$s the memorandum of agreement 28(A3 between the management and the union reducing orwaiving some of the emploees# benefits considered to be an illegal diminution of benefits9

&uling:

,o! 8a6orit of the emploees ratified the 8(A and while its terms undoubtedl reduced thesalaries and certain benefits previousl en6oed b the members of the Union" it was thee+ecution of the 8(A which paved the wa for the re5opening of the hotel" notwithstanding itsfinancial distress! 8ore importantl" the e+ecution of the 8(A allowed the emploees to keeptheir 6obs! $n addition" the court ruled that the code does not prohibit a union from offering andagreeing to reduce wages and benefits of the emploees since the right to free collectivebargaining includes right to suspend it!



3/35

A(CI )verseas Corp, et al vs *osea Ec+!n

GR 178551, October 11, 2010

Carpio-Morales

osefina 1chin 2respondent3 was hired b petitioner ATC$ (verseas Corporation in behalf of itsprincipal5co5petitioner" the 8inistr of ublic /ealth of >" )..>" she not having allegedl passed the probationar period! The 8inistr deniedrespondents re7uest for reconsideration" she returned to the hilippines on 8arch >?" )..>"shouldering her own air fare!

(n ul )?" )..>" respondent filed with the ,ational Labor &elations Commission 2,L&C3 acomplaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner ATC$ as the local recruitment agenc"represented b petitioner" Amalia $kdal 2$kdal3" and the 8inistr" as the foreign principal!

etitioners contend that their principal" the 8inistr" being a foreign government agenc" isimmune from suit and" as such" the immunit e+tended to them; and that respondent was validldismissed for her failure to meet the performance rating within the one5ear period as re7uiredunder


4/35

recruited and emploed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement! )t+er!se, t+!s !llren/er nu-atory t+e very purpose or +!c+ t+e la -overn!n- t+e employment o

orers or ore!-n 2os aroa/ as enacte/

The imposition of 6oint and solidar liabilit is in line with the polic of the state to

protect and alleviate the plight of the working class!

eril" to allow petitioners to simplinvoke the immunit from suit of its foreign principal or to wait for the 6udicialdetermination of the foreign principals liabilit before petitioner can be held liablerenders the law on 6oint and solidar liabilit inutile!

2)3 ,o! $t is hornbook principle that the part invoking the application of a foreign law hasthe burden of proving the law" under the doctrine of process&al pres&mptiowhich" inthis case" petitioners failed to discharge!The hilippines does not take 6udicial notice of foreign laws" hence" the must not onlbe alleged; the must be proven! The documents presented b the petitioner" whethertaken singl or as a whole" do not sufficientl prove that respondent was validlterminated as a probationar emploee under ->G*E

Facts: Flores was an (F% deploed in a vessel of the coast of Thailand b arorient

'hipping! 8onths later" he was found to be suffering from a certain debilitation and was

repatriated back to the hilippines for further treatment! arorient refused to pa for his

treatment claiming that the have alread given enough reimbursement of medical

e+penses to Flores as evidenced b a &eceipt and Huitclaim which Flores had e+ecuted!

Flores" then" filed suit before the ,L&C!

$ssue: %hether or not Flores# e+ecution of &eceipt and Huitclaim barred him from

claiming further sickness wages!

&uling: The Court ruled that the law does not consider as valid an agreement to receive

less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from

demanding benefits to which he is entitled! Huitclaims e+ecuted b the emploees are

thus commonl frowned upon as contrar to public polic and ineffective to bar claims

for the full measure of the workers legal rights" considering the economic disadvantage of

the emploee and the inevitable pressure upon him b financial necessit!



5/35

6eople vs 'olores )c/en,

& ,o! >?*>GD" une > ).>>Leonardo5 0e Castro

Facts:

0olores (cden was charged of illegal recruitment in large scale and a crime of estafa! Theprivate complainants testified that the have paid placement fee and submitted documents forpurposes of emploment abroad to the accused! /owever all of them were not able to workabroad! 'ensing that the were fooled b the accused" the decided to get a refund of theirmone but (cden was nowhere to be found! The found out that (cden was not a licensedrecruiter!

(cden" however denied the complainants allegations" saing that she was also an applicant for anoverseas 6ob and identified another person to be the recruiter! 'he also denied that she deceived

the complainants" as the mone given to her was also forwarded to &amos!

(cden contends that she is not guilt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale! (ther thanthe bare allegations of the prosecution witnesses" no evidence was adduced to prove that she wasa non5licensee or non5holder of authorit to lawfull engage in the recruitment and placement ofworkers! ,o certification attesting to this fact was formall offered in evidence b theprosecution!

(cden further argues that the prosecution did not sufficientl establish that she illegall recruitedat least three persons" to constitute illegal recruitment on a large scale! (ut of the victims namedin the $nformation" onl two testified in court! (ne did not even complete her testimon"depriving (cden of the opportunit to cross5e+amine her!

$ssues:

2>3 $s the defendant guilt of illegal recruitment on large scale despite of the following:a! ,o evidence was adduced to prove that she was a non5licensee or non holder of

authorit9b! (nl two testified in Court

2)3 $s she guilt of estafa9

&uling:

2>3a! es! $t is not necessar for the prosecution to present a certification that (cden is

a non5licensee or non5holder of authorit to lawfull engage in the recruitmentand placement of workers! 'ection - of &epublic Act ,o! D.E) enumeratesparticular acts which would constitute illegal recruitment whether committed ban person" whether a non5licensee" non5holder" licensee or +ol/er o aut+or!ty!



6/35

'ince illegal recruitment under 'ection -2m3 can be committed b an person"even b a licensed recruiter" a certification on whether (cden had a license torecruit or not" is inconse7uential! (cden committed illegal recruitment asdescribed in said provision b receiving placement fees from the complainantsand failing to reimburse@refund to them the amounts the had paid when the

were not able to leave for $tal" through no fault of their own!b! es! %hile it is true that the law does not re7uire that at least three victims testifat the trial" nevertheless" it is necessar that there is sufficient evidence provingthat the offense was committed against three or more persons! $n this case" there isconclusive evidence that (cden recruited 8ana5a" Ferrer" and olidans sons"effries and /oward" for purported emploment as factor workers in $tal!

2)3 es! The ver same evidence proving (cdens liabilit for illegal recruitment alsoestablished her liabilit for estafa! $t is settled that a person ma be charged and convictedseparatel of illegal recruitment under &epublic Act ,o! D.E) in relation to the LaborCode" and estafa under Article *>I" paragraph )2a3 of the &evised enal Code!

The elements of estafa are: 2a3 that the accused defrauded another b abuse of confidenceor b means of deceit" and 2b3 that damage or pre6udice capable of pecuniar estimationis caused to the offended part or third person! Both of these elements are present in thiscase!



7/35

6eople vs. Romero

& >.D*I5DD

ul )-" >GG*

Facts:

1lma &omero" promised private complainants of emploment abroad for a fee! /owever" after7uite some time" and after pament of the re7uired sum of mone" the complainants were notable to leave the countr and work abroad! The also found out that &omero is not a licensedrecruiter as shown b the certification issued b (1A! Thus the charged &omero of estafa andillegal recruitment in large scale!

&omero" on the other hand" denied the allegations and contends that there was no

misrepresentation nor misappropriation on her part because the mone paid b complainant0oriJa 0apnit was for the purpose of facilitating the processing of the latterKs passport and visaonl as indicated in the receipts issued to the complainant and not in consideration of a promised6ob placement abroad!

Also" she contended that she cannot be convicted of large5scale illegal recruitment whichre7uires at least 2*3 persons to be victimiJed considering that onl one victim testified against herwhile the other two complainants e+ecuted a 6oint affidavit of desistance which resulted in thedismissal of their complaints against her is without merit!

$ssue:

2>3 $s the defendant guilt of estafa92)3 $s the defendant guilt of illegal recruitment in large scale9



8/35

6eople v. 8aut,G.R. No.11519:;I of the &evised enal Code! The offense of illegal recruitment

is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessar for

conviction" while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial

for conviction! Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for

offenses punishable b other laws! Conversel" conviction for estafa does not bar a

conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code! $t follows that ones ac7uittal of

the crime of estafa will not necessaril result in his ac7uittal of the crime of illegal

recruitment in large scale" and vice versa!



9/35

6eople vs. Gallo& >>D??*." une )G" ).>.elasco

Facts:

Accused5appellant made false misrepresentations and promises in assuring 0ela CaJa and theother victims that after the paid the placement fee" 6obs in


10/35

clearl show unit of action towards a common undertaking! /ence" conspirac is evidentlpresent!

6E)6$E )# (HE 6HI$I66INES, laintiff5Appellee" vs! E$ISSA CHA a..a. Clar!taN- C+ua, Accused5Appellant!G.R. No. 1=05; Septemer 1>, ;01;

?I$$ARAA, *R.,J.:

#AC(S

Appellant 8elissa Chua was charged on 8a -" )..*" with the crime of illegal recruitment in

large scale! 'he was also charged with four counts of estafa in separate $nformations!

'he offered the complainants a 6ob as a factor worker in Taiwan for deploment within the

month! Appellant then re7uired him to undergo medical e+amination and pa a placement fee!After completing pament" Complainants was made to sign a contract containing stipulations as

to salar and conditions of work! (n several occasions" thereafter" the complainants returned to

appellant#s office to follow5up on his application! After several visits" however" complainants

noticed that all the properties of olden ate in its aragon Tower (ffice were alread gone!

The filed a complaint for illegal recruitment against appellant before the hilippine (verseas

1mploment Agenc 2(1A3! $t was onl then that he learned that appellant Chua was not

licensed to recruit workers for overseas emploment!

0uring trial the prosecution presented 'everino 8aranan" 'enior Labor 1mploment (fficer of

the (1A! 8aranan confirmed that appellant Chua was neither licensed nor authoriJed to recruit

workers for overseas emploment! $n support" he presented to the court a certification issued b

the (1A to that effect!

Appellant Chua on her defense said that she was merel a cashier of olden ate $nternational!

'he disowns liabilit for allegedl Omerel acting under the direction of her superiorsO>D and for

being Ounaware that her acts constituted a crime

The Trial Court found the accused guilt beond reasonable doubt" 6udgment is hereb rendered

C(,$CT$, the accused as principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and

estafa 2four counts3 and she is sentenced to suffer the penalt of L$F1 $8&$'(,81,T and a

fine of Five /undred Thousand esos 2hpI.."...!..3 for illegal recruitment in large scale; andthe indeterminate penalt of four 2E3 ears and two 2)3 months of prision correccional" as

minimum" to Twelve 2>)3 ears of prision maor as ma+imum for 1AC/ count of 1stafa!

ISSE

%hether or not the accused@appellant is guilt of crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and

estafa even she claimed that she was merel a cashier of olden ate $nternational!



11/35

HE$'

1'!

The 'upreme Court agree with the appellate court that the same pieces of evidence which

establish appellant#s liabilit for illegal recruitment in large scale likewise confirm herculpabilit for estafa!

The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penaliJed under 'ections - and ? of &epublic Act

2&!A!3 ,o! D.E)" or the 8igrant %orkers and (verseas Filipinos Act of >GGI" as follows:

S'C$ ($ )e"iitio$ * +or p&rposes o" tis ct, ille%al recr&itmet sall mea a. act o"

ca#assi%, elisti%, cotracti%, trasporti%, &tili/i%, iri%, or proc&ri% orkers a!

icl&!es re"erri%, cotract ser#ices, promisi% or a!#ertisi% "or emplo.met abroa!, eter

"or pro"it or ot, e &!ertake b. a o-licesee or o-ol!er o" a&torit. cotemplate!

&!er rticle 1 "3 o" Presi!etial )ecree o$ 442, as ame!e!, oterise ko as te abor

Co!e o" te Pilippies6 Pro#i!e!, at a. s&c o-licesee or o-ol!er o, i a.

maer, o""ers or promises "or a "ee emplo.met abroa! to to or more persos sall be !eeme!

so e%a%e!$ t sall likeise icl&!e te "olloi% acts, 9 9 96

lle%al recr&itmet is !eeme! committe! b. a s.!icate i" carrie! o&t b. a %ro&p o" tree 3 or

more persos cospiri% or co"e!erati% it oe aoter$ t is !eeme! committe! i lar%e

scale i" committe! a%aist tree 3 or more persos i!i#i!&all. or as a %ro&p$

e persos crimiall. liable "or te abo#e o""eses are te pricipals, accomplices a!

accessories$ case o" :&ri!ical persos, te o""icers a#i% cotrol, maa%emet or !irectio o"

teir b&siess sall be liable$

$n order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment" the following elements must concur: 2>3

the offender undertakes an of the activities within the meaning of Orecruitment and placementO

under Article >*2b3 of the Labor Code" or an of the prohibited practices enumerated under

Article *E of the Labor Code 2now 'ection - of &epublic Act ,o! D.E)3 and 2)3 the offender has

no valid license or authorit re7uired b law to enable him to lawfull engage in recruitment and

placement of workers! $n the case of illegal recruitment in large scale" a third element is added:

that the offender commits an of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more

persons" individuall or as a group! All three elements are present in the case at bar!

$narguabl" appellant Chua engaged in recruitment when she represented to private complainants

that she could send them to Taiwan as factor workers upon submission of the re7uired

documents and pament of the placement fee! The four private complainants positivel identified

appellant as the person who promised them emploment as factor workers in Taiwan for a fee

of D."...! 8ore importantl" 'everino 8aranan the 'enior Labor 1mploment (fficer of the

(1A" presented a Certification dated 0ecember I" )..)" issued b 0irector Felicitas H! Ba" to



12/35

the effect that appellant Chua is not licensed b the (1A to recruit workers for overseas

emploment!

The Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court and

appellate court! The prosecution witnesses were positive and categorical in their testimonies that

the personall met appellant and that the latter promised to send them abroad for emploment!

$n fact" the substance of their testimonies corroborate each other on material points" such as the

amount of the placement fee" the countr of destination and the nature of work! %ithout an

evidence to show that private complainants were propelled b an ill motive to testif falsel

against appellant" we shall accord their testimonies full faith and credit! After all" the doctrinal

rule is that findings of fact made b the trial court" which had the opportunit to directl observe

the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies" are entitled to great

weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same" an

opportunit not e7uall open to the appellate court! The absence of an showing that the trial

court plainl overlooked certain facts of substance and value that" if considered" might affect the

result of the case" or that its assessment was arbitrar" impels the Court to defer to the trial court#s

determination according credibilit to the prosecution evidence!

Appellant cannot escape liabilit b convenientl limiting her participation as a cashier of

olden ate! The provisions of Article >*2b3 of the Labor Code and 'ection - of &!A! ,o! D.E)

are une7uivocal that illegal recruitment ma or ma not be for profit! $t is immaterial" therefore"

whether appellant remitted the placement fees to Othe agenc#s treasurerO or appropriated them!

The same provision likewise provides that the persons criminall liable for illegal recruitment

are the principals" accomplices and accessories! ust the same" therefore" appellant can be held

liable as a principal b direct participation since she personall undertook the recruitment of

private complainants without a license or authorit to do so! %orth stressing" the 8igrant%orkers and (verseas Filipinos Act of >GGI is a special law" a violation of which is malum

prohibitum" not mala in se! $ntent is thus" immaterial and mere commission of the prohibited act

is punishable!



13/35

6eople v. @enon )n-, G.R.No. 11959B

Facts: BenJon (ng was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and D counts of estafa! $nhis defense" he contends that he merel suggested to complainants that the could

appl for overseas at the 'teadfast &ecruitment Agenc" where he claims to be connected;

and that his signature on the receipts presented were forged!

$ssue: %hether or not accused committed illegal recruitment in large scale!

&uling: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: 2>3 the

accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art! >*2b3

or in an prohibited activities under Art! *E of the Labor Code; 2)3 the accused has not

secured a license or an authorit to recruit and deplo workers" either locall or overseas;

and 2*3 the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons" individuallor as a group! 1ven if accused did no more than OsuggestO to complainants where the

could appl for overseas emploment" his act constituted OreferralO within the meaning of

Art! >*2b3 of the Labor Code!

The Court held that presentation of the receipts acknowledging paments is not

necessar for the successful prosecution! As long as the prosecution is able to establish

through credible testimonial evidence that the accused has engaged in illegal recruitment"

a conviction of the offense can ver well be 6ustified!



14/35

Romero v. 6eople

& >?>-EE,ovember )*" ).>>

Facts:

0elia &omero" promised the complainants emploment in $srael in e+change of a sum of moneas processing and transaction fee! The complainants gave the re7uired amount but were not ableto work abroad! The demanded from petitioner the return of their mone but the latter refusedand failed to do so! Finding that the petitioner were not authoriJed to recruit for overseasemploment as checked with the 0(L1 N 0agupan" the filed a complaint of illegal recruitment!

&omero was convicted b the lower court of illegal recruitment! (n her appeal" she said that CAerred in affirming the trial courtKs reliance on a mere certification from the 0(L1 0agupan0istrict (ffice that she does not have the necessar licence to recruit workers for abroad! 'heclaims that the prosecution committed a procedural lapse in not procuring a certification from theagenc primaril involved" the hilippine (verseas 1mploment Administration 2(1A3!

Also" petitioner insists that the certain amount of mone paid to him must not be given ancredence due to the absence of an receipt or an other documentar evidence proving such!

$ssue:

$s there illegal recruitment despite the following:2a3 Certification showing that the alleged recruiter is not authoriJed came from (1A

and not from 0(L12b3 ,o receipt as to the amount of mone paid to the alleged recruiter

&uling:2a3 es! The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur" namel:

2>3 the offender has no valid license or authorit re7uired b law to enable one tolawfull engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and 2)3 he undertakes either



15/35

an activit within the meaning of Orecruitment and placementO defined under Article >*2b3" or an prohibited practices enumerated under Article *E of the Labor Code!

Under the first element" a non5licensee or non5holder of authorit is an person"corporation or entit which has not been issued a valid license or authorit to engage in

recruitment and placement b the 'ecretar of Labor" or whose license or authorit hasbeen suspended" revoked or cancelled b the (1A or the 'ecretar!Clearl" the creationof the (1A did not divest the 'ecretar of Labor of his@her 6urisdiction over recruitmentand placement activities!

2b3 es! The failure to present receipts for mone that was paid in connection with therecruitment process will not affect the strength of the evidence presented b theprosecution as long as the pament can be proved through clear and convincingtestimonies of credible witnesses!

6E)6$E )# (HE 6HI$I66INES, laintiff5Appellee" vs! R)SARI) R)SE )CH)A,

Accused5Appellant!G.R. No. 1>9; Au-ust >1, ;011$E)NAR'):'E CAS(R),J.

#AC(S

The $nformation filed before the &TC of HueJon Cit charging (choa with illegalrecruitment in large scale!Three other $nformations were filed before the &TC this timecharging (choa with three counts of estafa" committed separatel upon three privatecomplainants &obert ubat 2ubat3" Cesar A7uino 2Cesar3" and unior Agustin 2Agustin3!

(choa stated under oath that she was emploed b A4$L $nternational 'ervices and

Consultant 2A4$L3 as recruiter on 0ecember )." >GG?! A4$L had a temporar license torecruit Filipino workers for overseas emploment! (choa worked at A4$L from D:.. a!m!to I:.. p!m! and was paid on a commission basis! 'he admitted recruiting privatecomplainants and receiving from them the placement and medical fees! (choa claimedthough that she remitted private complainants# mone to a person named 8erc" themanager of A4$L" but A4$L failed to issue receipts because the private complainants didnot pa in full!

&TC rendered a 0ecision finding (choa guilt beond reasonable doubt of the crimes ofillegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa!

ISSE

%hether or not the accused can be held liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment andestafa9HE$'

1'! The Court find no reversible error in the assailed Court of Appeals decision!



16/35

$t is well5settled that to prove illegal recruitment" it must be shown that appellant gavecomplainants the distinct impression that she had the power or abilit to sendcomplainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with theirmone in order to be emploed!EE All eight private complainants herein consistentldeclared that (choa offered and promised them emploment overseas! (choa re7uired

private complainants to submit their bio5data" birth certificates" and passports" whichprivate complainants did! rivate complainants also gave various amounts to (choa aspament for placement and medical fees as evidenced b the receipts! 0espite privatecomplainants# compliance with all the re7uirements (choa specified" the were not ableto leave for work abroad! rivate complainants pleaded that (choa return their hard5earned mone" but (choa failed to do so!&egardless of whether or not (choa was a licensee or holder of authorit" she could stillhave committed illegal recruitment! 'ection - of &epublic Act ,o! D.E) clearl providesthat an person" whether a non5licensee" non5holder" licensee or holder of authorit mabe held liable for illegal recruitment for certain acts as enumerated in paragraphs 2a3 to2m3 thereof! Among such acts" under 'ection -2m3 of &epublic Act ,o! D.E)" is the

OMfPailure to reimburse e+penses incurred b the worker in connection with hisdocumentation and processing for purposes of deploment" in cases where thedeploment does not actuall take place without the worker#s fault!O (choa committedillegal recruitment as described in the said provision b receiving placement and medicalfees from private complainants" evidenced b the receipts issued b her" and failing toreimburse the private complainants the amounts the had paid when the were not able toleave for Taiwan and 'audi Arabia" through no fault of their own!

Under the last paragraph of 'ection - of &epublic Act ,o! D.E)" illegal recruitment shallbe considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in a large scale" thatis" committed against three or more persons individuall or as a group! /ere" there are

eight private complainants who convincingl testified on (choa#s acts of illegalrecruitment!

$n view of the overwhelming evidence presented b the prosecution" the Court uphold theverdict of the &TC" as affirmed b the Court of Appeals" that (choa is guilt of illegalrecruitment constituting economic sabotage!

The Court also affirm the conviction of (choa for estafa committed against three privatecomplainants! The ver same evidence proving (choa#s criminal liabilit for illegalrecruitment also established her criminal liabilit for estafa!

$t is settled that a person ma be charged and convicted separatel of illegal recruitmentunder &epublic Act ,o! D.E)" in relation to the Labor Code" and estafa under Article *>I"paragraph )2a3 of the &evised enal Code!



17/35

6eople v. Ha/2a *arma $all!, et. al., G.R.No. 195B19

Facts: &onnie Aringo asked Lolita lando if she wanted to work in 8alasia as an

entertainer in a restaurant! %hen she showed interest" he brought her to /ad6a arma

Lalli! Lalli then transported Lolita" along with some other girls" to 8alasia not to work

as an entertainers but as prostitutes at a night club!

Lolita was later able to escape and return to the hilippines! The police then

advised her to file a complaint for what happened to her in 8alasia!

Aringo claims that he onl referred Lolita to Lalli for 6ob opportunities to

8alasia!

$ssue: %hether or not Aringo was liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment and

trafficking in persons!

&uling: The Court held that the broad definition of recruitment and placement" as

provided b article >* 2b3 of the Labor Code" even the mere act referring someone for

placement abroad can be considered recruitment! 'uch act of referral" in connivance with

someone without the re7uisite authorit of (1A license" constitutes illegal recruitment!

The Court ruled that through the concerted efforts of Aringo" Lalli and

&elampagos" Lolita was recruited and deploed to 8alasia to work as a prostitute! 'uch

conspirac could be deduced from the manner in which the crime was perpetuated N eachof them plaed a pivotal role" and evinced a 6oint common purpose and design" concerted

action and communit of interest!



18/35

6N@ vs Caansa-& >I?.>." -@)>@)..Ianganiban

FACT':

$n late >GGD" Mherein &espondent Florence CabansagP arrived in 'ingapore as a tourist! 'heapplied for emploment" with the 'ingapore Branch of the hilippine ,ational Bank! At the time"the 'ingapore ,B Branch was under the helm of &uben C! Tobias" a lawer" as eneral8anager" with the rank of ice5resident of the Bank! 'he applied for emploment as BranchCredit (fficer" at a total monthl package of ='E"I..!.." effective upon assumption of dutiesafter approval! &uben C! Tobias found her eminentl 7ualified and wrote on (ctober )-" >GGD" aletter to the resident of the Bank in 8anila" recommending the appointment of Florence (!Cabansag" for the position!

(n 0ecember ?" >GGD" &uben C! Tobias wrote a letter to Florence (! Cabansag offering her atemporar appointment" as Credit (fficer" at a basic salar of 'ingapore 0ollars E"I..!.." amonth and" upon her successful completion of her probation to be determined solel" b theBank" she ma be e+tended at the discretion of the Bank" a permanent appointment and that hertemporar appointment was sub6ect to certain terms and conditions!

Cabansag accepted the position and assumed office! $n the meantime" the hilippine 1mbass in'ingapore processed the emploment contract of Florence (! Cabansag and" on 8arch D" >GGG"she was issued b the hilippine (verseas 1mploment Administration" an Q(verseas1mploment Certificate"# certifing that she was a bona fide contract worker for 'ingapore!

Barel three 2*3 months in office" Tobias told Cabansag that her resignation was imperative as aQcost5cutting measure# of the Bank! Tobias" likewise" told Cabansag that the ,B 'ingaporeBranch will be sold or transformed into a remittance office and that" in either wa" she had toresign from her emploment! 'he then asked &uben C! Tobias that she be furnished with a



19/35

QFormal Advice# from the ,B /ead (ffice in 8anila! /owever" &uben C! Tobias flatl refused!Florence (! Cabansag did not submit an letter of resignation!

(n April >-" >GGG" &uben C! Tobias again summoned Florence (! Cabansag to his office anddemanded that she submit her letter of resignation" with the prete+t that he needed a Chinese5

speaking Credit (fficer to penetrate the local market" with the information that a Chinese5speaking Credit (fficer had alread been hired and will be reporting for work soon! 'he waswarned that" unless she submitted her letter of resignation" her emploment record will beblemished with the notation Q0$'8$''10# spread thereon! %ithout giving an definitive answer"Florence (! Cabansag asked &uben C! Tobias that she be given sufficient time to look foranother 6ob! &uben C! Tobias told her that she should be Qout# of her emploment b 8a >I">GGG!

/owever" on April >G" >GGG" &uben C! Tobias again summoned Florence (! Cabansag andadamantl ordered her to submit her letter of resignation! 'he refused! (n April )." >GGG" shereceived a letter from &uben C! Tobias terminating her emploment with the Bank!

(n anuar >D" )..." the Labor Arbiter rendered 6udgment in favor of the Complainant andagainst the &espondents! ,B appealed the labor arbiter#s 0ecision to the ,L&C! $n a&esolution dated une )G" )..>" the Commission affirmed that 0ecision!etitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision in favor of FlorenceCabansag!

$ssues:>! %@, the arbitration branch of the ,L&C has 6urisdiction)! %@, the arbitration of the ,L&C in the ,C& is the proper venue*! %@, Cabansag was illegall dismissed

&uling:

>! Labor arbiters have original and e+clusive 6urisdiction over claims arising fromemploer5emploee relations including termination disputes involving all workers"including (F%s! /ere" Cabansag applied for and secured an (1C from the (1Athrough the hilippine 1mbass! The (1C authoriJed her working status in a foreigncountr and entitled her to all benefits and processes under our statutes! Although shema been a direct hire at the commencement of her emploment" she became an (F%who was covered b hilippine labor laws and policies upon certification b the (1A!%hen she was illegall terminated" she alread possessed the (1A emplomentcertificate!

)! A mi%rat orkerrefers to a person who is to be engaged" is engaged or has been

engaged in a remunerated activit in a state of which he or she is not a legal resident; tobe used interchangeabl with overseas Filipino worker!/ere" Cabansag was a Filipino"not a legal resident of 'ingapore" and emploed b petitioner in its branch office in'ingapore! 'he is clearl an (F%@migrant worker! Thus" she has the option where to fileher Complaint for illegal dismissal! 'he can either file at the &egional Arbitration Branch



20/35

where she resides or the &AB where the emploer is situated! Thus" in filing herComplaint before the &AB office in HueJon Cit" she has made a valid choice of propervenue!

*! The appellate court was correct in holding that respondent was alread a regular

emploee at the time of her dismissal" because her three5month probationar period ofemploment had alread ended! This ruling is in accordance with Article )D> of theLabor Code: An emploee who is allowed to work after a probationar period shall beconsidered a regular emploee! $ndeed" petitioner recogniJed respondent as such at thetime it dismissed her" b giving her one month#s salar in lieu of a one5month notice"consistent with provision ,o! - of her emploment Contract!

* 6R))(I)N AN' ANAGEEN(, INC., an/ 3AR8 IN(ERNA(I)NA$, INC.,

petitioner" vs! H)N. C)R( )# A66EA$S, H)N. A. NIE?ES C)N#ESS)R, t+enSecretary o t+e 'epartment o $aor an/ Employment, H)N. *)SE @RI$$AN(ES, !n

+!s capac!ty as act!n- Secretary o t+e 'epartment o $aor an/ Employment an/ H)N.

#E$ICISI) *)S)N, !n +!s capac!ty as A/m!n!strator o t+e 6+!l!pp!ne )verseas

Employment A/m!n!strat!on, respondents!G.R. No. 1;0095 Au-ust 5, 199GGI! A&C(5hil averred

that the law discriminates against unskilled workers b prohibiting their deploment

abroad; discriminates against licensed and authoriJed recruiters b giving incentives onl

to service and manning agencies to their e+clusion; violates the non5impairment of

contracts; violates e7ual protection clause b imposing the same penal sanctions for

economic sabotage against licensed and unlicensed recruiters; and that the law violates

the proscription against legislation of e+ post fact to laws and bills of attainder!

The overnment assailed that the law was approved b Congress as a valid

e+ercise of police power of the 'tate!

$ssue: %hether or not the assailed provisions of the 8igrant %orkers and (verseas

Filipinos Act of >GGI were constitutional!

&uling: The Court declared the challenged provisions of &!A! D.E)" constitutional!

The Court held that Othe non5impairment clause of the Constitution R must ield

to the loftier purposes targeted b the governmentR into ever contract is read provisions

of e+isting law" and alwas" a reservation of the police power for so long as theagreement deals with a sub6ect impressed with the public welfare!

The e7ual protection clause is not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited

to the ob6ect to which it is directed or b the territor in which it is to operate! $t does not

re7uire absolute e7ualit" but merel that all persons be treated alike under like conditions

both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed! The e7ual protection clause does

not forbid classification for so long as such classification is based on real and substantial



22/35

differences" having a reasonable relation to the sub6ect of the particular legislation"

germane to the purpose of the law" concerns all members of the class" and applies e7uall

to present and future conditions" the classification does not violate the e7ual protection

guarantee!

enaliJing unlicensed and licensed recruitment agencies and their officers and

emploees for illegal recruitment is not offensive to the Constitution! The accused ma

be convicted of illegal recruitment and large scale illegal recruitment onl if" after trial"

the prosecution is able to prove all the elements of the crime charged!

6eople vs. 6an!s

!&! ,os! L5ID-?E5?? ul >>" >GG.CruJ

#acts

Four informations were filed on anuar G" >GD>" in the Court of First $nstance of Sambales and(longapo Cit alleging that 'erapio Abug" private respondent herein" Owithout first securing alicense from the 8inistr of Labor as a holder of authorit to operate a fee5charging emplomentagenc" did then and there wilfull" unlawfull and criminall operate a private fee charging

emploment agenc b charging fees and e+penses 2from3 and promising emploment in 'audiArabiaO to four separate individuals named therein" in violation of Article >- in relation to Article*G of the Labor Code!

Abug filed a motion to 7uash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offensebecause he was accused of illegall recruiting onl one person in each of the four informations!Under the proviso in Article >*2b3" he claimed" there would be illegal recruitment onlOwhenever two or more persons are in an manner promised or offered an emploment for afee! O

$ssue:

Can there be an illegal recruitment for recruiting onl > person9

/eld:

es! The number of persons is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placementof workers! The proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor toprovide an e+ception thereto but merel to create a presumption! The presumption is that the



23/35

individual or entit is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing withtwo or more persons to whom" in consideration of a fee" an offer or promise of emploment ismade in the course of the Ocanvassing" enlisting" contracting" transporting" utiliJing" hiring orprocuring 2of3 workers!

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment andplacement of workers! An of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article >*2b3 wouldconstitute recruitment and placement even if onl one prospective worker is involved! Theproviso merel las down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of apromise or offer of emploment to two or more prospective workers" the individual or entitdealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement! Thewords Oshall be deemedO create that presumption!

(HE 6E)6$E )# (HE 6HI$I66INES" plaintiff5appellee" vs! CAR)$ . 'E$A 6IE'RA"accused5appellantG.R. No. 1;1 *anuary ;B, ;001

3A6NAN,J.

#AC(S

The accused was charged before the &egional Trial Court of Samboanga Cit in an informationalleging! that on or about anuar *." >GGE" in the Cit of Samboanga" the accused" withouthaving previousl obtained from the hilippine (verseas 1mploment Administration" a license

or authorit to engage in recruitment and overseas placement of workers" did then and there"wilfull" unlawfull and feloniousl" offer and promise for a fee emploment abroad particularlin 'ingapore thus causing 8aria Lourdes 8odesto MP adrino" ,anc Araneta Aliwanag andenneln BaeJ Timbol" all 7ualified to appl" in fact said 8aria Lourdes 8odesto had alreadadvanced the amount of )"...!.. to the accused for and in consideration of the promisedemploment which did not materialiJed thus causing damage and pre6udice to the latter in thesaid sum; furthermore" the acts complained of herein tantamount to economic sabotage in thatthe same were committed in large scale!

The trial court found her guilt of the crime charged! (n her appeal" accused5appellant Carol 8!dela iedra 7uestions her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and assails" as well" the

constitutionalit of the law defining and penaliJing said crime for it violates her right to dueprocess!

ISSE

%hether or not the Article >* 2b3 of the Labor Code is unconstitutional!%hether or not the accused is guilt of the crime of illegal recruitment!



24/35

HE$'

The 7uestioned law is constitutional and the accused is guilt of the crime of illegal recruitment!

AppellantKs reliance onPeople #s$ Pais is misplaced! The issue inPais was whether" under the

proviso of Article >* 2b3" the crime of illegal recruitment could be committed onl Owhenevertwo or more persons are in an manner promised or offered an emploment for a fee!

Os e see it, te pro#iso as ite!e! eiter to impose a co!itio o te basic r&le or topro#i!e a e9ceptio tereto b&t merel. to create a pres&mptio$ e pres&mptio is tat te

i!i#i!&al or etit. is e%a%e! i recr&itmet a! placemet ee#er e or it is !eali% it

to or more persos to om, i cosi!eratio o" a "ee, a o""er or promise o" emplo.met is

ma!e i te co&rse o" te ;ca#assi%, elisti%, cotracti%, trasporti%, &tili/i%, iri% orproc&ri% o"3 orkers$;

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and

placement of workers! An of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article >*2b3 will constituterecruitment and placement even if onl one prospective worker is involved! The proviso merellas down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offerof emploment to two or more prospective workers" the individual or entit dealing with themshall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement! The words Oshall bedeemedO create that presumption!

$llegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur! First" the offender has no validlicense or authorit re7uired b law to enable one to lawfull engage in recruitment andplacement of workers! 'econd" he or she undertakes either an activit within the meaning ofOrecruitment and placementO defined under Article >* 2b3" or an prohibited practices enumeratedunder Article *E of the Labor Code!*D $n case of illegal recruitment i lar%e scale" a thirdelement is added: that the accused commits said acts against three or more persons" individuallor as a group!

$n this case" the first element is present! The certification of (1A states that appellant is notlicensed or authoriJed to engage in recruitment and placement!

The second element is also present! Appellant is presumed engaged in recruitment and placementunder Article >* 2b3 of the Labor Code! Both complainants testified that appellant promised thememploment for a fee! Their testimonies corroborate each other on material points: the briefingconducted b appellant" the time and place thereof" the fees involved! Appellant has not shownthat these witnesses were incited b an motive to testif falsel against her! The absence ofevidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution strongltends to sustain that no improper motive e+isted and that their testimon is worth of full faithand credence!



25/35

6eople v. Goce, G.R.No.11>1


26/35

6eople vs )rt! !yae

!&! ,os! >>I**D5*G 'eptember >-" >GG?&egalado

Facts:

Lanie (rtiJ58iake was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale" following a complaintfiled b 1lenita 8arasigan" $melda enerillo and &osamar del &osario! 8arasigan had alsocharged her with estafa b means of false pretenses!

(nl 8arasigan was able to testif" however" as the other two complainants were abroad!8arasigan said (rtiJ58iake promised her a 6ob as factor worker in Taiwan! The former gaveher I"... initiall as placement fee" which amount subse7uentl became )*"... paid ininstallments upon the demands of the accused! Accused gave assurances that 8arasigan wouldhave no problem getting a visa and a plane ticket! 'he was unable to go to Taiwan" as there wasno ticket booked for her and" in fact" the supposed agenc did not even know 8iake!

(n the other hand" enerillo was represented b her mother" while del &osario#s sister testifiedin court on the latter#s behalf! As the were not personall present" however" during thetransactions with 8iake" the could onl claim the gave certain amounts that were supposed togo to 8iake" and concluded that since their relatives had not been able to leave as promised b8iake" then the were necessaril victims of illegal recruitment b the accused! A (1Arepresentative also testified that 8iake had no authoriJation to recruit workers for overseasemploment! M8iake claiming she onl offered discounted plane tickets to the supposedvictimsP



27/35

TC convicted the accused" largel basing their decision on the previous decision rendered barana7ue 8eTC" where the two complainants now absent had filed charges of estafa against8iake! The Court there had convicted 8iake!

$ssue:

%hether or not 8iake is guilt of illegal recruitment in large scale9

&uling:

,o" she is guilt of simple recruitment onl! An evaluation of the evidence presented before thetrial court shows us that" apart from the adopted decision in the previous estafa case" there wasno other basis for said trial courts conclusion that illegal recruitment in large scale wascommitted against all three complainants!

The distinction between simple illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment in large scale are

emphasiJed b 6urisprudence! 'imple illegal recruitment is committed where a person: 2a3undertakes an recruitment activit defined under Article >*2b3 or an prohibited practiceenumerated under Articles *E and *D of the Labor Code; and 2b3 does not have a license orauthorit to lawfull engage in the recruitment and placement of workers!

(n the other hand" illegal recruitment in large scale further re7uires a third element" that is" theoffense is committed against three or more persons" individuall or as a group!$n illegal recruitment in large scale" while the law does not re7uire that at least three victimstestif at the trial" it is necessar that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense wascommitted against three or more persons! This Court agrees with the trial court that the evidencepresented sufficientl proves that illegal recruitment was committed b appellant against8arasigan" but the same conclusion cannot be made as regards enerillo and 0el &osario aswell!



28/35

AN()NI) . SERRAN)" etitioner" vs! Gallant ARI(IE SER?ICES, INC. an/

AR$)% NA?IGA(I)N C)., INC!" &espondents!

G.R. No. 1


29/35

(n appeal" the ,L&C modified the LA decision based on the provision of &A D.E)!

'errano filed a 8otion for artial &econsideration" but this time he 7uestioned the

constitutionalit of the last clause in the Ith paragraph of 'ection >. of &A D.E)!

ISSES

>! %hether or not the sub6ect clause violates 'ection >." Article $$$ of the Constitution on non5

impairment of contracts;

)! %hether or not the sub6ect clause violate 'ection >" Article $$$ of the Constitution" and 'ection

>D" Article $$ and 'ection *" Article 4$$$ on labor as a protected sector!

HE$'

O te "irst iss&e$

The answer is in the negative! etitioner#s claim that the sub6ect clause undul interferes with the

stipulations in his contract on the term of his emploment and the fi+ed salar package he will

receive is not tenable!

The sub6ect clause ma not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the

impairment clause" for the law was enacted in the e+ercise of the police power of the 'tate to

regulate a business" profession or calling" particularl the recruitment and deploment of (F%s"

with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignit and well5being of (F%s wherever

the ma be emploed!

O te seco! iss&e$

The answer is in the affirmative!

To Filipino workers" the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions translate

to economic securit and parit!

Upon cursor reading" the sub6ect clause appears faciall neutral" for it applies to all (F%s!

/owever" a closer e+amination reveals that the sub6ect clause has a discriminator intent against"

and an invidious impact on" (F%s at two levels:

First" (F%s with emploment contracts of less than one ear vis55vis (F%s with emploment

contracts of one ear or more;

'econd" among (F%s with emploment contracts of more than one ear; and

Third" (F%s vis55vis local workers with fi+ed5period emploment;

The sub6ect clause singles out one classification of (F%s and burdens it with a peculiar

disadvantage!



30/35

Thus" the sub6ect clause in the Ith paragraph of 'ection >. of &!A! ,o! D.E) is violative of the

right of petitioner and other (F%s to e7ual protection!

The sub6ect clause or for three months for ever ear of the une+pired term" whichever is less

in the Ith paragraph of 'ection >. of &epublic Act ,o! D.E) is 01CLA&10

U,C(,'T$TUT$(,AL!

@ecmen Serv!ce EDporters an/ 6romot!ons v. Cuaresma"

!&!,o! >D)G?D5?G

Facts: (ne ear into a *5ear emploment contract in 'audi Arabia" asmin was found

dead in her apartment! $nitial findings revealed that the cause of death was due to poising

and possible suicide! Upon repatriation" subse7uent autops conducted b the ,B$ found

that the actual cause of death was due to violent phsical in6uries and ruled out suicide b

poisoning due to the negative findings of to+ic substances!

The parents of the deceased sued for damages against the local recruitment

agenc N Becmen 'ervice 1+porters and romotions and the principal emploer N &a6ab

'ilsilah Compan! Becmen and &a6ab insisted that asmin committed suicide b

poisoning and denied liabilit!

$ssue: %hether or not Becmen 'ervice 1+porters and romotions can be held liable for

damages for the death of asmin Cuaresma!

&uling: The Court found that: asmin#s death was not work5relaled" having died inher apartment and not at the place of work" hence not compensable; asmin did not

commit based on the autops report of the ,B$ and local health officers that asmin died

due to violent phsical in6uries and not due to poisoning!

The Court held Becmen solidaril liable with &a6ab for damages based on

provisions of &!A!D.E) upholding the dignit of migrant workers" and based on Article

>G and )> of the Civil Code" ratiocinating:



31/35

Clearl" &a6ab" Becmen and %hite Falcon#s acts and omissions are against public

polic because the undermine and subvert the interest and general welfare of our (F%s

abroad" who are entitled to full protection under the law! The set an awful e+ample of

how foreign emploers and recruitment agencies should treat and act with respect to their

distressed emploees and workers abroad! Their shabb and callous treatment of asmin#s

case; their uncaring attitude; their un6ustified failure and refusal to assist in thedetermination of the true circumstances surrounding her msterious death" and instead

finding satisfaction in the unreasonable insistence that she committed suicide 6ust so the

can convenientl avoid pecuniar liabilit; placing their own corporate interests above of

the welfare of their emploee#s N all these are contrar to morals" good customs and

public polic" and constitute taking advantage of the poor emploee and her famil#s

ignorance" helplessness" indigence and lack of power and resources to seek the truth and

obtain 6ustice for the death of a loved one!

'atuman vs. #!rst Cosmopol!tan anpoer an/ 6romot!on Serv!ces

& >I-.)G" ,ov! >E" )..DLeonardo N 0e Castro

Facts:

(n April >?" >GDG" petitioner was deploed to Bahrain after paing the re7uired placement

fee! /owever" her emploer 8ohammed /ussain took her passport when she arrived there; andinstead of working as a saleslad" she was forced to work as a domestic helper with a salar ofFort Bahrain 0inar 2B0E.!..3" e7uivalent onl to (ne /undred U' 0ollars 2U'=>..!..3! Thiswas contrar to the agreed salar of U'=*?.!.. indicated in her Contract of 1mploment signedin the hilippines and approved b the hilippine (verseas 1mploment Administration2(1A3!(n 'eptember >" >GDG" her emploer compelled her to sign another contract" transferring her toanother emploer as housemaid with a salar of B0E.!.. for the duration of two 2)3 ears! 'hepleaded with him to give her a release paper and to return her passport but her pleas wereunheeded! Left with no choice" she continued working against her will! %orse" she even worked

without compensation from 'eptember >GG> to April >GG* because of her emploers continuedfailure and refusal to pa her salar despite demand! $n 8a >GG*" she was able to finall returnto the hilippines through the help of the Bahrain assport and $mmigration 0epartment!$n 8a >GGI" petitioner filed a complaint before the (1A Ad6udication (ffice againstrespondent for underpament and nonpament of salar" vacation leave pa and refund of herplane fare" docketed as Case ,o! (1A A0! 2L3 GI5.I5>ID-! %hile the case was pending" she



32/35

filed the instant case before the ,L&C for underpament of salar for a period of one ear andsi+ months" nonpament of vacation pa and reimbursement of return airfare!

$ssues:

2>3 $s the respondent solidaril liable for mone claims92)3 $s the petitioner#s claim for underpaid salaries have prescribed9

&uling:

2>3 es! rivate emploment agencies are held 6ointl and severall liable with the foreign5based emploer"or a. #iolatio o" te recr&itmet a%reemet or cotract o"emplo.met$This 6oint and solidar liabilit imposed b law against recruitment agenciesand foreign emploers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of imme!iate a!s&""iciet pa.met of what is due him!This is in line with the polic of the state to protectand alleviate the plight of the working class!

$n addition"the signing of the substitute contracts with the foreignemploer@principalbeforethe e+piration of the (1A5approved contract and ancontinuation of petitioners emploment beond the original one5ear term" against thewill of petitioner" are continuing breaches of the original (1A5approved contract!

2)3 ,o! The right to claim unpaid salaries 2or in this case" unpaid salar differentials3accrue as they fall due. Thus" petitioners cause of action to claim salar differential for(ctober >GDG onl accrued after she had rendered service for that month 2or at the end of(ctober >GDG3! /er right to claim salar differential for ,ovember >GDG onl accrued atthe end of ,ovember >GDG" and so on and so forth! The petitioner was forced to workuntil April of >GG*!

The petitioner has a right to be compensated for all months she" in fact" was forced towork! To determine for which months petitioners right to claim salar differentials hasnot prescribed" we must count three ears prior to the filing of the complaint on 8a *>">GGI! Thus" onl claims accruing prior toay >1, 199;have prescribed when thecomplaint was filed on 8a *>" >GGI! etitioner is entitled to her claims for salardifferentials for the period 8a *>" >GG) to April >GG*" or appro+imatel eleven 2>>3months!



33/35

EFI:ASIA 6$ACEEN(, INC.,petitioner" vs! 'E6AR(EN( )# #)REIGN A##AIRS'#A represente/ y t+e H)N. ')ING) $. SIA)N, *R., SECRE(AR8,

'E6AR(EN( )# $A@)R AN' E6$)8EN( ')$E, represente/ y H)N.

@IEN?ENI') $AGESA, respondents!G.R. No. 15;;1B Septemer 19, ;00

Documents

Labor Case Digests_Compiled