Sto. Tomas v. Salac, G.R. No.

152642 152642 seeking to annul the RTC’s decision and have

the same enjoined pending action on the petition.
These consolidated cases pertain to the constitutionality
of certain provisions of Republic Act 8042, otherwise On April 17, 2002 the Philippine Association of Service
known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Exporters, Inc. intervened in the case before the Court,
Act of 1995. claiming that the RTC March 20, 2002 Decision gravely
affected them since it paralyzed the deployment abroad
The Facts and the Case of OFWs and performing artists. The Confederated
Association of Licensed Entertainment Agencies,
Incorporated (CALEA) intervened for the same purpose. 4

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 On May 23, 2002 the Court issued a TRO in the case,
5 

Government’s policies on overseas employment and enjoining the Quezon City RTC, Branch 96, from
establishes a higher standard of protection and enforcing its decision.
promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their
families, and overseas Filipinos in distress. In a parallel case, on February 12, 2002 respondents
Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. and
G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710 others (Arcophil, et al.) filed a petition for certiorari and
(Constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30, R.A. 8042) prohibition with application for TRO and preliminary
injunction against the DOLE Secretary, the POEA
Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General, before6 

Sections 29 and 30 of the Act commanded the

1 
the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 220, to enjoin the latter
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to begin from implementing the 2002 Rules and Regulations
deregulating within one year of its passage the business Governing the Recruitment and Employment of
of handling the recruitment and migration of overseas Overseas Workers and to cease and desist from issuing
Filipino workers and phase out within five years the other orders, circulars, and policies that tend to regulate
regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas the recruitment and placement of OFWs in violation of
Employment Administration (POEA). the policy of deregulation provided in Sections 29 and 30
of R.A. 8042.
On January 8, 2002 respondents Rey Salac, Willie D.
Espiritu, Mario Montenegro, Dodgie Belonio, Lolit On March 12, 2002 the Quezon City RTC rendered an
Salinel, and Buddy Bonnevie (Salac, et al.) filed a Order, granting the petition and enjoining the
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with government agencies involved from exercising
application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and regulatory functions over the recruitment and placement
preliminary injunction against petitioners, the DOLE of OFWs. This prompted the DOLE Secretary, the POEA
Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the Technical Administrator, and the TESDA Director-General to file
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) the present action in G.R. 152710. As in G.R. 152642,
Secretary-General before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) the Court issued on May 23, 2002 a TRO enjoining the
of Quezon City, Branch 96. 2
Quezon City RTC, Branch 220 from enforcing its
decision.
Salac, et al. sought to: 1) nullify DOLE Department Order
10 (DOLE DO 10) and POEA Memorandum Circular 15 On December 4, 2008, however, the Republic
(POEA MC 15); 2) prohibit the DOLE, POEA, and informed the Court that on April 10, 2007 former
7 

TESDA from implementing the same and from further President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A.
issuing rules and regulations that would regulate the 9422 which expressly repealed Sections 29 and 30 of
8 

recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers R.A. 8042 and adopted the policy of close government
(OFWs); and 3) also enjoin them to comply with the regulation of the recruitment and deployment of OFWs.
policy of deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and R.A. 9422 pertinently provides:
30 of Republic Act 8042.
SEC. 1. Section 23, paragraph (b.1) of Republic Act No.
On March 20, 2002 the Quezon City RTC granted Salac, 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and
et al.’s petition and ordered the government agencies Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" is hereby amended to
mentioned to deregulate the recruitment and placement read as follows:
of OFWs. The RTC also annulled DOLE DO 10, POEA
3 

MC 15, and all other orders, circulars and issuances that

are inconsistent with the policy of deregulation under (b.1) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration –
R.A. 8042. The Administration shall regulate private sector
participation in the recruitment and overseas placement
of workers by setting up a licensing and registration
Prompted by the RTC’s above actions, the government system. It shall also formulate and implement, in
officials concerned filed the present petition in G.R. coordination with appropriate entities concerned, when
necessary, a system for promoting and monitoring the
overseas employment of Filipino workers taking into amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower Philippines: Provided, That such non-license or non-
requirements. holder, who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be
In addition to its powers and functions, the administration deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the
shall inform migrant workers not only of their rights as following acts, whether committed by any person,
workers but also of their rights as human beings, instruct whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
and guide the workers how to assert their rights and authority:
provide the available mechanism to redress violation of
their rights. SEC. 7. Penalties. –

In the recruitment and placement of workers to service (a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall
the requirements for trained and competent Filipino suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6)
workers of foreign governments and their years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12)
instrumentalities, and such other employers as public years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand
interests may require, the administration shall deploy pesos (₱200,000.00) nor more than five hundred
only to countries where the Philippines has concluded thousand pesos (₱500,000.00).
bilateral labor agreements or arrangements: Provided,
That such countries shall guarantee to protect the rights (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less
of Filipino migrant workers; and: Provided, further, That than five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) nor
such countries shall observe and/or comply with the more than one million pesos (₱1,000,000.00) shall be
international laws and standards for migrant workers. imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage as defined herein.
SEC. 2. Section 29 of the same law is hereby repealed.
SEC. 3. Section 30 of the same law is also hereby Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be
repealed. imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than
eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-
On August 20, 2009 respondents Salac, et al. told the licensee or non-holder of authority. 10

Court in G.R. 152642 that they agree with the Republic’s

9 

view that the repeal of Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 Finally, Section 9 of R.A. 8042 allowed the filing of
renders the issues they raised by their action moot and criminal actions arising from "illegal recruitment" before
academic. The Court has no reason to disagree. the RTC of the province or city where the offense was
Consequently, the two cases, G.R. 152642 and 152710, committed or where the offended party actually resides
should be dismissed for being moot and academic. at the time of the commission of the offense.

G.R. 167590 The RTC of Manila declared Section 6 unconstitutional

after hearing on the ground that its definition of "illegal
(Constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042) recruitment" is vague as it fails to distinguish between
licensed and non-licensed recruiters and for that reason
11 

On August 21, 1995 respondent Philippine Association gives undue advantage to the non-licensed recruiters in
of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) filed a petition for violation of the right to equal protection of those that
declaratory relief and prohibition with prayer for issuance operate with government licenses or authorities.
of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC
of Manila, seeking to annul Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. But "illegal recruitment" as defined in Section 6 is clear
8042 for being unconstitutional. (PASEI also sought to and unambiguous and, contrary to the RTC’s finding,
annul a portion of Section 10 but the Court will take up actually makes a distinction between licensed and non-
this point later together with a related case.) licensed recruiters. By its terms, persons who engage in
"canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
Section 6 defines the crime of "illegal recruitment" and hiring, or procuring workers" without the appropriate
enumerates the acts constituting the same. Section 7 government license or authority are guilty of illegal
provides the penalties for prohibited acts. Thus: 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,
SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal
although with the appropriate government license or
recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
authority, are guilty of illegal recruitment only if they
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring
commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in Section
workers and includes referring, contract services,
6.
promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-
license or non-holder of authority contemplated under The Manila RTC also declared Section 7 unconstitutional
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as on the ground that its sweeping application of the
penalties failed to make any distinction as to the offense was committed or where the offended party
seriousness of the act committed for the application of actually resides at the time of the commission of the
the penalty imposed on such violation. As an example, offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal
said the trial court, the mere failure to render a report action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the
under Section 6(h) or obstructing the inspection by the exclusion of other courts: Provided, however, That the
Labor Department under Section 6(g) are penalized by aforestated provisions shall also apply to those criminal
imprisonment for six years and one day and a minimum actions that have already been filed in court at the time
fine of ₱200,000.00 but which could unreasonably go of the effectivity of this Act.
even as high as life imprisonment if committed by at
least three persons. But there is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in
Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of
Apparently, the Manila RTC did not agree that the law Section 6 of R.A. 8042 that differs from the venue
can impose such grave penalties upon what it believed established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Indeed,
were specific acts that were not as condemnable as the Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the latter Rules allows
others in the lists. But, in fixing uniform penalties for exceptions provided by laws. Thus:
each of the enumerated acts under Section 6, Congress
was within its prerogative to determine what individual SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.— (a)
acts are equally reprehensible, consistent with the State Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
policy of according full protection to labor, and deserving instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
of the same penalties. It is not within the power of the territory where the offense was committed or where any
Court to question the wisdom of this kind of choice. of its essential ingredients occurred. (Emphasis
Notably, this legislative policy has been further stressed supplied)
in July 2010 with the enactment of R.A. 10022 which 12 

increased even more the duration of the penalties of Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the rule on
imprisonment and the amounts of fine for the venue of criminal actions is, consistent with that law’s
commission of the acts listed under Section 7. declared policy of providing a criminal justice system
15 

that protects and serves the best interests of the victims

Obviously, in fixing such tough penalties, the law of illegal recruitment.
considered the unsettling fact that OFWs must work
outside the country’s borders and beyond its immediate G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79, and G.R. 184298-99
16  17

protection. The law must, therefore, make an effort to

somehow protect them from conscienceless individuals
within its jurisdiction who, fueled by greed, are willing to (Constitutionality of Section 10, last sentence of 2nd
ship them out without clear assurance that their paragraph)
contracted principals would treat such OFWs fairly and
humanely. G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 are consolidated
cases. Respondent spouses Simplicio and Mila
As the Court held in People v. Ventura, the State under
13  Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas) filed a claim for death and
its police power "may prescribe such regulations as in its insurance benefits and damages against petitioners
judgment will secure or tend to secure the general Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc. (Becmen)
welfare of the people, to protect them against the and White Falcon Services, Inc. (White Falcon) for the
consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of death of their daughter Jasmin Cuaresma while working
deception and fraud." Police power is "that inherent and as staff nurse in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all
things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the claim on the
society."
14 ground that the Cuaresmas had already received
insurance benefits arising from their daughter’s death
The Manila RTC also invalidated Section 9 of R.A. 8042 from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
on the ground that allowing the offended parties to file (OWWA). The LA also gave due credence to the findings
the criminal case in their place of residence would of the Saudi Arabian authorities that Jasmin committed
negate the general rule on venue of criminal cases which suicide.
is the place where the crime or any of its essential
elements were committed. Venue, said the RTC, is On appeal, however, the National Labor Relations
jurisdictional in penal laws and, allowing the filing of Commission (NLRC) found Becmen and White Falcon
criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended jointly and severally liable for Jasmin’s death and
parties violates their right to due process. Section 9 ordered them to pay the Cuaresmas the amount of
provides: US$113,000.00 as actual damages. The NLRC relied on
the Cabanatuan City Health Office’s autopsy finding that
SEC. 9. Venue. – A criminal action arising from illegal Jasmin died of criminal violence and rape.
recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the
Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
Becmen and White Falcon appealed the NLRC Decision under this section shall be joint and several. This
to the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 28, 2006 the CA
18 
provision shall be incorporated in the contract for
held Becmen and White Falcon jointly and severally overseas employment and shall be a condition
liable with their Saudi Arabian employer for actual precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be
damages, with Becmen having a right of reimbursement filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided
from White Falcon. Becmen and White Falcon appealed by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or
the CA Decision to this Court. damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the
On April 7, 2009 the Court found Jasmin’s death not corporate officers and directors and partners as the case
work-related or work-connected since her rape and may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable
death did not occur while she was on duty at the hospital with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid
or doing acts incidental to her employment. The Court claims and damages. (Emphasis supplied)
deleted the award of actual damages but ruled that
Becmen’s corporate directors and officers are solidarily But the Court has already held, pending adjudication of
liable with their company for its failure to investigate the this case, that the liability of corporate directors and
true nature of her death. Becmen and White Falcon officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and
abandoned their legal, moral, and social duty to assist solidarily liable with their company, there must be a
the Cuaresmas in obtaining justice for their daughter. finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of
Consequently, the Court held the foreign employer Rajab that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the
and Silsilah, White Falcon, Becmen, and the latter’s conduct of illegal activities. In the case of Becmen and
19 

corporate directors and officers jointly and severally White Falcon, while there is evidence that these
20 

liable to the Cuaresmas for: 1) P2,500,000.00 as moral companies were at fault in not investigating the cause of
damages; 2) P2,500,000.00 as exemplary damages; 3) Jasmin’s death, there is no mention of any evidence in
attorney’s fees of 10% of the total monetary award; and the case against them that intervenors Gumabay, et al.,
4) cost of suit. Becmen’s corporate officers and directors, were
personally involved in their company’s particular actions
On July 16, 2009 the corporate directors and officers of or omissions in Jasmin’s case.
Becmen, namely, Eufrocina Gumabay, Elvira Taguiam,
Lourdes Bonifacio and Eddie De Guzman (Gumabay, et As a final note, R.A. 8042 is a police power measure
al.) filed a motion for leave to Intervene. They questioned intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of
the constitutionality of the last sentence of the second OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and
paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042 which holds the abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work
corporate directors, officers and partners jointly and abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its
solidarily liable with their company for money claims filed favor the presumption of constitutionality. The Court
by OFWs against their employers and the recruitment cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws
firms. On September 9, 2009 the Court allowed the enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the
intervention and admitted Gumabay, et al.’s motion for absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the
reconsideration. statute is unconstitutional, the Court must uphold its
validity.
The key issue that Gumabay, et al. present is whether or
not the 2nd paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042, which WHEREFORE, in G.R. 152642 and 152710, the Court
holds the corporate directors, officers, and partners of DISMISSES the petitions for having become moot and
recruitment and placement agencies jointly and solidarily academic. 1âwphi1

liable for money claims and damages that may be

adjudged against the latter agencies, is unconstitutional. In G.R. 167590, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court ofManila dated December 8,
In G.R. 167590 (the PASEI case), the Quezon City RTC 2004 and DECLARES Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Republic
held as unconstitutional the last sentence of the 2nd Act 8042 valid and constitutional.
paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. 8042. It pointed out that,
absent sufficient proof that the corporate officers and In G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 as well as in
directors of the erring company had knowledge of and G.R. 167590, the Court HOLDS the last sentence of the
allowed the illegal recruitment, making them second paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act 8042
automatically liable would violate their right to due valid and constitutional. The Court, however,
process of law. RECONSIDERS and SETS ASIDE the portion of its
Decision in G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 that
The pertinent portion of Section 10 provides: held intervenors Eufrocina Gumabay, Elvira Taguiam,
Lourdes Bonifacio, and Eddie De Guzman jointly and
SEC. 10. Money Claims. – x x x solidarily liable with respondent Becmen Services
Exporter and Promotion, Inc. to spouses Simplicia and
Mila Cuaresma for lack of a finding in those cases that
The liability of the principal/employer and the
recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims
such intervenors had a part in the act or omission
imputed to their corporation. SO ORDERED.