EN BANC

[G.R. No. 152642. November 13, 2012.]

HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ROSALINDA BALDOZ and LUCITA

LAZO , petitioners, vs . REY SALAC, WILLIE D. ESPIRITU, MARIO
MONTENEGRO, DODGIE BELONIO, LOLIT SALINEL and BUDDY
BONNEVIE , respondents.

[G.R. No. 152710. November 13, 2012.]

HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, in her capacity as Secretary of

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), HON. ROSALINDA D.
BALDOZ, in her capacity as Administrator, Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), and the PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION GOVERNING BOARD ,
petitioners, v s . HON. JOSE G. PANEDA, in his capacity as the
Presiding Judge of Branch 220, Quezon City, ASIAN RECRUITMENT
COUNCIL PHILIPPINE CHAPTER, INC. (ARCOPHIL), for itself and in
behalf of its members: WORLDCARE PHILIPPINES SERVIZO
INTERNATIONALE, INC., STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL
RECRUITMENT CORP., VERDANT MANPOWER MOBILIZATION
CORP., BRENT OVERSEAS PERSONNEL, INC., ARL MANPOWER
SERVICES, INC., DAHLZEN INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
INTERWORLD PLACEMENT CENTER, INC., LAKAS TAO CONTRACT
SERVICES LTD. CO., SSC MULTI-SERVICES, DMJ INTERNATIONAL,
and MIP INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, represented by
PAGSIBIGAN respondents.
its proprietress, MARCELINA I. PAGSIBIGAN,

[G.R. No. 167590. November 13, 2012.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the HONORABLE

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, the HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE), the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS
EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA), the OVERSEAS WORKERS
WELFARE ADMINISTRATION (OWWA), the LABOR ARBITERS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), the
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, the HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS and the COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) ,
petitioners, vs . PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS,
(PASEI) respondent.
INC. (PASEI),

[G.R. Nos. 182978-79. November 13, 2012.]

BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER AND PROMOTION, INC. , petitioner, vs.

SPOUSES SIMPLICIO AND MILA CUARESMA (for and in behalf of
daughter, Jasmin G. Cuaresma), WHITE FALCON SERVICES, INC.,
and JAIME ORTIZ (President of White Falcon Services, Inc.) ,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondents.

[G.R. Nos. 184298-99. November 13, 2012.]

SPOUSES SIMPLICIO AND MILA CUARESMA (for and in behalf of

deceased daughter, Jasmin G. Cuaresma) , petitioners, v s . WHITE
FALCON SERVICES, INC. and BECMEN SERVICES EXPORTER AND
INC. respondents.
PROMOTION, INC.,

DECISION

ABAD J :
ABAD, p

These 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.
The Facts and the Case
On June 7, 1995 Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) 8042 or the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 that, for among other purposes, sets the Government's
policies on overseas employment and establishes a higher standard of protection and
promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in
distress.
G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710
(Constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30, R.A. 8042)
Sections 29 and 30 of the Act 1 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
ve years the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA).
On January 8, 2002 respondents Rey Salac, Willie D. Espiritu, Mario Montenegro,
Dodgie Belonio, Lolit Salinel, and Buddy Bonnevie (Salac, et al.) led a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and
preliminary injunction against petitioners, the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and
the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) Secretary-General
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 96. 2
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) also enjoin
them to comply with the policy of deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and 30 of
Republic Act 8042.
On March 20, 2002 the Quezon City RTC granted Salac, et al.'s petition and ordered
the government agencies mentioned to deregulate the recruitment and placement of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 OFWs. 3 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.
Prompted by the RTC's above actions, the government o cials concerned led the
present petition in G.R. 152642 seeking to annul the RTC's decision and have the same
enjoined pending action on the petition.
On April 17, 2002 the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. intervened in
the case before the Court, claiming that the RTC March 20, 2002 Decision gravely affected
them since it paralyzed the deployment abroad of OFWs and performing artists. The
Confederated Association of Licensed Entertainment Agencies, Incorporated (CALEA)
intervened for the same purpose. 4
On May 23, 2002 the Court 5 issued a TRO in the case, enjoining the Quezon City
RTC, Branch 96, from enforcing its decision.
In a parallel case, on February 12, 2002 respondents Asian Recruitment Council
Philippine Chapter, Inc. and others (Arcophil, et al.) led a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with application for TRO and preliminary injunction against the DOLE Secretary,
the POEA Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General, 6 before the RTC of Quezon City,
Branch 220, 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.
On March 12, 2002 the Quezon City RTC rendered an Order, granting the petition and
enjoining the government agencies involved from exercising regulatory functions over the
recruitment and placement of OFWs. This prompted the DOLE Secretary, the POEA
Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General to le the present action in G.R. 152710. As
in G.R. 152642, the Court issued on May 23, 2002 a TRO enjoining the Quezon City RTC,
Branch 220 from enforcing its decision.
On December 4, 2008, however, the Republic informed 7 the Court that on April 10,
2007 former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. 9422 8 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. R.A. 9422 pertinently
provides:
xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 1. Section 23, paragraph (b.1) of Republic Act No. 8042,

otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" is
hereby amended to read as follows:

(b.1) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration — The

Administration 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.

In addition to its powers and functions, the administration shall inform

migrant workers not only of their rights as workers but also of their rights as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 human beings, instruct and guide the workers how to assert their rights and
provide the available mechanism to redress violation of their rights.

In the recruitment and placement of workers to service the requirements for

trained and competent Filipino workers of foreign governments and their
instrumentalities, and such other employers as public interests may require, the
administration shall deploy only to countries where the Philippines has concluded
bilateral labor agreements or arrangements: Provided, That such countries shall
guarantee to protect the rights of Filipino migrant workers; and: Provided, further,
That such countries shall observe and/or comply with the international laws and
standards for migrant workers.

SEC. 2. Section 29 of the same law is hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 30 of the same law is also hereby repealed.

xxx xxx xxx

On August 20, 2009 respondents Salac, et al. told the Court in G.R. 152642 that they
agree 9 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. Consequently, the two cases, G.R. 152642 and 152710, should be dismissed for
being moot and academic.
G.R. 167590
(Constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042)
On August 21, 1995 respondent Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.
(PASEI) led a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition with prayer for issuance of
TRO and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Manila, seeking to annul Sections
6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042 for being unconstitutional. (PASEI also sought to annul a portion of
Section 10 but the Court will take up this point later together with a related case.)
Section 6 de nes the crime of "illegal recruitment" and enumerates the acts
constituting the same. Section 7 provides the penalties for prohibited acts. Thus:
SEC. 6. Definition. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall
mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring,
procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for pro t or not, when undertaken by
a non-license or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of
the Philippines: Provided, That such non-license or non-holder, who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons
shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority:
xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 7. Penalties. —
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not
more than twelve (12) years and a ne not less than two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a ne of not less than ve
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage as defined herein.

Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the

person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority. 1 0

Finally, Section 9 of R.A. 8042 allowed the ling of criminal actions arising from
"illegal recruitment" before the RTC of the province or city where the offense was
committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense.
The RTC of Manila declared Section 6 unconstitutional after hearing on the ground
that its de nition of "illegal recruitment" is vague as it fails to distinguish between licensed
and non-licensed recruiters 1 1 and for that reason gives undue advantage to the non-
licensed recruiters in violation of the right to equal protection of those that operate with
government licenses or authorities.
But "illegal recruitment" as de ned in Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and,
contrary to the RTC's nding, 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.
The Manila RTC also declared Section 7 unconstitutional on the ground that its
sweeping application of 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. As an
example, said the trial court, the mere failure to render a report under Section 6 (h) or
obstructing the inspection by the Labor Department under Section 6 (g) are penalized by
imprisonment for six years and one day and a minimum ne of P200,000.00 but which
could unreasonably go even as high as life imprisonment if committed by at least three
persons.
Apparently, the Manila RTC did not agree that the law can impose such grave
penalties upon what it believed were speci c acts that were not as condemnable as the
others in the lists. But, in xing 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 1 2 which increased even more the duration of
the penalties of imprisonment and the amounts of ne for the commission of the acts
listed under Section 7.
Obviously, in xing 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
As the Court held in People v. Ventura , 1 3 the State under its police power "may
prescribe such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure the general
welfare of the people, to protect them against the consequence of ignorance and
incapacity as well as of deception and fraud." Police power is "that inherent and plenary
power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
welfare of society." 1 4
The Manila RTC also invalidated Section 9 of R.A. 8042 on the ground that allowing
the offended parties to le the criminal case in their place of residence would negate the
general rule on venue of criminal cases which is the place where the crime or any of its
essential elements were committed. Venue, said the RTC, is jurisdictional in penal laws
and, allowing the ling of criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended parties
violates their right to due process. Section 9 provides:
SEC. 9. Venue. — A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as
de ned herein shall be led with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city
where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the
criminal action is rst led shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other
courts: Provided, however, That the aforestated provisions shall also apply to
those criminal actions that have already been led in court at the time of the
effectivity of this Act.

But there is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress xing 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. Thus:
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. — (a) Subject to
existing laws,
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. (Emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

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 1 5 of providing a criminal justice system that
protects and serves the best interests of the victims of illegal recruitment.
G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79, 1 6 and G.R. 184298-99 1 7
(Constitutionality of Section 10, last sentence of 2nd paragraph)
G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 are consolidated cases. Respondent spouses
Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas) led a claim for death and insurance
bene ts and damages against petitioners Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc.
(Becmen) and White Falcon Services, Inc. (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 bene ts arising from their daughter's death from the Overseas
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA). The LA also gave due credence to the ndings
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 Jasmin's 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 O ce's autopsy nding that Jasmin died of criminal
violence and rape.
Becmen and White Falcon appealed the NLRC Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
18 On June 28, 2006 the CA held 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
this Court.
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 o cers 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 o cers jointly and
severally liable to the Cuaresmas for: 1) P2,500,000.00 as moral damages; 2)
P2,500,000.00 as exemplary damages; 3) attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary
award; and 4) cost of suit.
On July 16, 2009 the corporate directors and o cers of Becmen, namely, Eufrocina
Gumabay, Elvira Taguiam, Lourdes Bonifacio and Eddie De Guzman (Gumabay, et al.) led
a motion for leave to Intervene. They questioned the constitutionality of the last sentence
of the second paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042 which holds the corporate directors,
o cers and partners jointly and solidarily liable with their company for money claims led
by OFWs against their employers and the recruitment rms. On September 9, 2009 the
Court allowed the intervention and admitted Gumabay, et al.'s motion for reconsideration.
The key issue that Gumabay, et al. present is whether or not the 2nd paragraph of
Section 10, R.A. 8042, which holds the corporate directors, o cers, and partners of
recruitment and placement agencies jointly and solidarily liable for money claims and
damages that may be adjudged against the latter agencies, is unconstitutional.
In G.R. 167590 (the PASEI case), the Quezon City RTC held as unconstitutional the
last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. 8042. It pointed out that, absent
su cient proof that the corporate o cers and directors of the erring company had
knowledge of and allowed the illegal recruitment, making them automatically liable would
violate their right to due process of law.
The pertinent portion of Section 10 provides:
SEC. 10. Money Claims. — . . .
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement
agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This
provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall
be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be led by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate
o cers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall
themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or
partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. (Emphasis supplied)

But 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 nding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of
that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities. 1 9 In the
case of Becmen and White Falcon, 2 0 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 o cers and
directors, were personally involved in their company's particular actions or omissions in
Jasmin's case.
As a nal 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.
WHEREFORE , in G.R. 152642 and 152710, the Court DISMISSES the petitions for
having become moot and academic.
In G.R. 167590, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila dated December 8, 2004 and DECLARES Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Republic Act 8042
valid and constitutional.
In G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 as well as in G.R. 167590, the Court HOLDS
the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 valid and
constitutional. The Court, however, RECONSIDERS and SETS ASIDE the portion of its
Decision in G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 that held intervenors Eufrocina Gumabay,
Elvira Taguiam, Lourdes Bonifacio, and Eddie De Guzman jointly and solidarily liable with
respondent Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion, Inc. to spouses Simplicio and Mila
Cuaresma for lack of a nding in those cases that such intervenors had a part in the act or
omission imputed to their corporation.
SO ORDERED.
ORDERED
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Villarama,
Jr., Perez, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., took no part due to prior participation in related issues in a former position.
Bersamin, J., took no part due to prior participation in the lower court.
Mendoza, J., took no part.

Footnotes

1.SEC. 29. COMPREHENSIVE DEREGULATION PLAN ON RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES. —

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com