You are on page 1of 5

STO. TOMAS V.

SALAC DIGEST
DECEMBER 21, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ

STO. TOMAS V. SALAC

GR No. 152642
Facts:
These consolidated cases pertain to the constitutionality of certain provisions of
R.A. No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
1. G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710
Respondents question the constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30, R.A. 8042
Sections 29 and 30 of the Act 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 five years the regulatory functions of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
*Sections 29 and 30 were repealed by RA 8042. Consequently, these 2 cases
were dismissed for being moot and academic.

1. G.R. 167590
Issue is on the constitutionality of Sections 6 (for being vague as it fails to
distinguish licensed & non-licensed recruiters), 7 (for being sweeping in its
application of penalties), and 9 (for allowing the offended parties to file the
criminal case in their place of residence instead of filing it at the place where the
crime or any of its essential elements were committed) of R.A. 8042.
Section 6 defines the crime of “illegal recruitment” and enumerates the acts
constituting the same. Section 7 provides the penalties for prohibited acts.
For Section 6 – Illegal recruitment, as defined, is clear and unambiguous and,
contrary to the RTC’s finding, 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.

For Section 7 – 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.

Section 9 of R.A. 8042 allowed the filing 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.
* There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an
alternative venue for violations of Section 6 of R.A. 8042 that differs from the
venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Rule 110 Sec. 15 (a) of
the Rules of Court allows exceptions. Thus:
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.— (a) Subject to existing 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.
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 of providing a criminal justice system
that protects and serves the best interests of the victims of illegal recruitment.
1. G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79, and G.R. 184298-99
(Constitutionality of Section 10, last sentence of 2nd paragraph on the liability of
the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency)
The liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make
them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding
that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company, such as
sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities (MAM Realty
Development Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 314 Phil. 838,
845 (1995).

685 SCRA 245 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, 9, 10,
29, and 30 of the Migrant Workers Act or R.A. No. 8042
This case is a consolidation of the following cases: G.R. No. 152642, G.R. No. 152710, G.R.
No. 167590, G.R. Nos. 182978-79, and G.R. Nos. 184298-99.
G.R. No. 152642 and G.R. No. 152710
In G.R. No. 152642, in 2002, Rey Salac et al, who are recruiters deploying workers abroad,
sought to enjoin the Secretary of Labor, Patricia Sto. Tomas, the POEA, and TESDA, from
regulating the activities of private recruiters. Salac et al invoked Sections 29 and 30 of the
Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers Act which provides that recruitment agency in the
Philippines shall be deregulated one year from the passage of the said law; that 5 years
thereafter, recruitment should be fully deregulated. RA 8042 was passed in 1995, hence,
Salac et al insisted that as early as 2000, the aforementioned government agencies should
have stopped issuing memorandums and circulars regulating the recruitment of workers
abroad.
Sto. Tomas then questioned the validity of Sections 29 and 30.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 29 and 30 are valid.
HELD: The issue became moot and academic. It appears that during the pendency of this
case in 2007, RA 9422 (An Act to Strengthen the Regulatory Functions of the POEA) was
passed which repealed Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042.
G.R. 167590
In this case, the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) questioned the
validity of the following provisions of RA 8042:
a. Section 6, which defines the term “illegal recruitment”. PASEI claims that the definition by
the law is vague as it fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters;
b. Section 7, which penalizes violations against RA 8042. PASEI argues that the penalties for
simple violations against RA 8042, i.e., mere failure to render report or obstructing inspection
are already punishable for at least 6 years and 1 day imprisonment an a fine of at least P200k.
PASEI argues that such is unreasonable;
c. Section 9, which allows the victims of illegal recruitment to have the option to either file the
criminal case where he or she resides or at the place where the crime was committed. PASEI
argues that this provision is void for being contrary to the Rules of Court which provides that
criminal cases must be prosecuted in the place where the crime or any of its essential
elements were committed;
d. Section 10, which provides that corporate officers and directors of a company found to be
in violation of RA 8042 shall be themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation
or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. PASEI claims that this automatic liability
imposed upon corporate officers and directors is void for being violative of due process.
RTC Judge Jose Paneda of Quezon City agreed with PASEI and he declared the said
provisions of RA 8042 as void. Secretary Sto. Tomas petitioned for the annulment of the RTC
judgment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 6, 7, 9, and 10 of RA 8042 are void.
HELD: No, they are valid provisions.
a. Section 6: The law clearly and unambiguously distinguished 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.
b. Section 7: The penalties are valid. Congress is well within its right to prescribed the said
penalties. Besides, it is not the duty of the courts to inquire into the wisdom behind the law.
c. Section 9: The Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 15(a) of Rule 110, itself,
provides that the rule on venue when it comes to criminal cases is subject to existing laws.
Therefore, there is nothing arbitrary when Congress provided an alternative venue for
violations of a special penal law like RA 8042.
d. Section 10: The liability of corporate officers and directors is not automatic. To make them
jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss
in directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal
activities.
G.R. 182978-79, and G.R. 184298-99
In this case, Jasmin Cuaresma, a nurse working in Saudi Arabia was found dead. Her parents
received insurance benefits from the OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare Administration).
But when they found out based on an autopsy conducted in the Philippines that Jasmin was
raped and thereafter killed, her parents (Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma) filed for death and
insurance benefits with damages from the recruitment and placement agency which handled
Jasmin (Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc.).
The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court ruled that since Becmen
was negligent in investigating the true cause of death of Jasmin ( a violation of RA 8042), it
shall be liable for damages. The Supreme Court also ruled that pursuant to Section 10 of RA
8042, the directors and officers of Becmen are themselves jointly and solidarily liable with
Becmen.
Eufrocina Gumabay and the other officers of Becmen filed a motion for leave to intervene.
They aver that Section 10 is invalid.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section is invalid.
HELD: No. As earlier discussed, Section 10 is valid. The liability of Gumabay et al is not
automatic. However, the SC reconsidered its earlier ruling that Gumabay et al are solidarily
and jointly liable with Becmen there being no evidence on record which shows that they were
personally involved in their company’s particular actions or omissions in Jasmin’s case.

You might also like