Executive Secretary vs.

CA
GR No. 131719
Topic: Standing
FACTS: The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 took effect on 15 July 1995
and its Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Act was published on April 1996.
However, even before the law took effect, the Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter,
Inc. (ARCO-Phil.) filed, on 17 July 1995, a petition for declaratory relief to declare some parts as
unconstitutional and prayed for a preliminary injunction enjoining herein petitioners from
implementing it.
On 1 August 1995, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order effective for a period of
only 20 days therefrom. After the Executive Secretary, et al. filed their comment on the petition,
the ARCO-Phil. filed an amended petition, the amendments consisting in the inclusion in the
caption thereof 11 other corporations which it alleged were its members and which it represented
in the suit, and a plea for a temporary restraining order.
Arco-Phil averred that the provisions of RA 8042 violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution
(i.e. discrimination against unskilled workers, discrimination against licensed and registered
recruiters, among others). The RTC eventually granted the writ so the ES filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals, asserting that Acro-Phil is not the real party-in-interest
as petitioner in the trial court, as it was inconceivable how a non-stock and non-profit
corporation, could sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the law. They argued
that if, at all, any damage would result in the implementation of the law, it is the licensed and
registered recruitment agencies and/or the unskilled Filipino migrant workers discriminated
against who would sustain the said injury or damage, not Acro-Phil.
The CA dismissed this, hence the present petition.
ISSUE: WON ACRO-Phil has locus standi
HELD: Only insofar as the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies impleaded in the
amended petitions but not for the unskilled workers it was claiming for. The modern view is that
an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal
identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its
workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action.
The Court note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, ACRO-Phil was organized for the
purposes inter alia of promoting and supporting the growth and development of the manpower
recruitment industry, both in the local and international levels; providing, creating and exploring
employment opportunities for the exclusive benefit of its general membership; enhancing and
promoting the general welfare and protection of Filipino workers; and, to act as the representative
of any individual, company, entity or association on matters related to the manpower recruitment
industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplish the purposes embodied
therein. ACRO-Phil is, thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its members, because it
and its members are in every practical sense identical.
However, with respect to the unskilled workers, the Court finds that ACRO-Phil cannot file the
petition on their behalf and that it even failed to implead such unskilled workers in their petition.