GROUP # ___________

Case No. Name of Assigned Case

Member/Student
1 Angeles L. Abecia
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs.
DELIA SADIOSA y CABENTA, ; G.R. No. 107084 May 15,
1998
2 Abejuela, Gladys
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs.
LANIE ORTIZ-MIYAKE, accused-appellant.; G.R. Nos.
115338-39 September 16, 1997
3 Abarra, Jason PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs.
OWEN MARCELO CAGALINGAN and BEATRIZ B.
CAGALINGAN; G.R. No. 198664

4 Empinado, Yen PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL MATEO Y JACINTO

AND VICENTA LAPIZ Y MEDINA, G.R. No. 198012, April 22,
2015
5 Naduma/Abecia
EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ELEAZAR
S. GRAN, respondents. EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc.
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 145587.
October 26, 2007.*

6 German, Glenn POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES, INC., vs.

TITO R. TAMALA, FELIPE S. SAURIN, JR., ARTEMIO A. BO-OC
and JOEL S. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 186475 June 26, 2013

7 Naduma, Leian Kae

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC.
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GERVACIO
ROSAROSO, and COURT OF APPEALS; G.R. No. 148893            
July 12, 2006
8 Pizzaro, Antonette SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMNT
AGENCY, INC., vs. JOY C. CABILES GR
NO. 170139. August 14, 2014

9 Sabanal , Darcy DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-
GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and ESSO
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., LTD. ; G.R. No. 110524 -
July 29, 2002

1
 10 Vecariato, Justy Lou G.R. No. 162419             July 10, 2007
PAUL V. SANTIAGO,  vs.
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., 

CASE NO. 1 (ABECIA)

G.R. No. 107084. May 15, 1998.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DELIA SADIOSA y CABENTA, accused-appellant.

People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 92, G.R. No. 107084 May 15, 1998

DOCTRINES

 Under the Code, the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are as
follows: “(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined
under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2)
accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit
and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the same against
three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

 A person who has committed illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code. he crime of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent
of the accused is necessary for conviction.

 There are at least four kinds of illegal recruitment under the law.

a) One is simple illegal recruitment committed by a licensee or holder of authority.

b) Any person “who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority” commits the second type
of illegal recruitment.
c) The third type of illegal recruitment refers to offenders who either commit the offense
alone or with another person against three or more persons individually or as a group. A
syndicate or a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one
another in carrying out the act circumscribed by the law commits the fourth type of illegal
recruitment by the law.

For the third and fourth types of illegal recruitment the law prescribes the penalty of life
imprisonment.

 To avoid any misconception and misinterpretation of the information, the prosecutor should
indicate in its caption, the offense he alleges in its body, though any such omission or lack of
skill of the prosecutor in crafting the information should not deprive the people of the right to
prosecute a crime with so grave a consequence against the economic life of the aggrieved
parties so long as he alleges the facts sufficient to constitute the offense.

2
  A dispositive portion of a decision stating that an accused was found “guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the charge in the information” is not in derogation of the constitutional
requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases
for the conclusions reached by the trial court where the “charge in the information” referred
to by the decision could only mean one specific offense and not to any other.

RELEVANT FACTS

Accused-appellant Delia Sadiosa was charged with “illegal recruitment”. She is not a duly
licensed job recruiter, and by means of false representations and fraudulent allegations to the effect
that she could secure employment as domestic helpers abroad for Benilda Sabado y Domingo, Marcela
Tabernero y Manzano, Erly Tuliao y Sabado and Cely Navarro y Manzano.

She assured the four that she could dispatch them to Kuwait4 and forthwith demanded
P8,000.00 from each of them for processing fee and P1,000.00 for passport (P1,500.00 from
complainant Cely Navarro).5 She assured the group that she would facilitate the processing of all the
necessary documents needed by them. She further promised them that upon payment of the required
fees, they would be able to leave for Kuwait immediately. The four give the money demanded of which
the latter issued a receipt. However, not one of them was able to leave for Kuwait.

When the four asked for the return of their money, the accused-appellant refused and ignored
their demand. The former then filed a complaint for illegal recruitment.

The accused-appellant resolutely denied having a hand in the illegal recruitment, claiming that
she merely received the money on behalf of one Mrs. Ganura10 who owned the recruitment agency
called Staff Organizers, Inc. She accepted the money in her capacity as an officer of the said recruitment
agency. She further claimed that although she was not listed in the POEA as an employee of the
recruitment agency of Mrs. Ganura, she had a special power of attorney issued by her employer to
receive payments from applicants.

LABOR RELATED ISSUES

1) Can the accused-appellant be charged with illegal recruitment?

2) Can a person convicted under the Labor Code may be convicted of offenses punishable by other
laws?

RULING

1) YES. The Court agrees with the trial court that the prosecution evidence has shown beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellant engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement activities.
Accused-appellant promised the four complainants’ employment as domestic helpers in Kuwait.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as referring to “any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad whether for
profit or not; provided that any person or entity which in any manner offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.” All

3
 the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, which we have enumerated
above, are present in this case.

The prosecution clearly established the fact that accused-appellant had no license to recruit
from the POEA. Yet, the latter entertained the four complainants when they applied, promised them
jobs as domestic helpers in Kuwait, and collected fees from them for processing travel documents
only to renege on her promise and fail to return the money she collected from complainants despite
several demands.

As with the trial court, this Court entertains serious doubts regarding accused-appellant’s claim
that she was only acting in behalf of a certain Mrs. Ganura. Accused-appellant failed to present
evidence to corroborate her testimony. Neither did she present Mrs. Ganura despite several
opportunities given her by the trial court.

For engaging in recruitment of the four complainants without first obtaining the necessary
license from the POEA, accused-appellant, therefore, is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, an
offense involving economic sabotage.

2) YES. It is apropos to underscore the firmly established jurisprudence that a person who has
committed illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code and estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.22 The crime of illegal
recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for
conviction.

In other words, a person convicted under the Labor Code may be convicted of offenses
punishable by other laws. However, any person or entity which in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.When the persons recruited are three or more, the crime becomes illegal recruitment in
large scale under Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code. In both cases, it is the lack of a necessary license or
permit that renders such recruitment activities unlawful and criminal.

In the case at bar, accused-appellant could have been validly charged separately with estafa
under the same set of facts in the illegal recruitment case, but she was fortunate enough not to
have been so charged. Nevertheless, there is no doubt from a reading of the information, that it
accurately and clearly avers all of the ingredients that constitute illegal recruitment in large scale.
The prosecutor simply captioned the information with the generic name of the offense.

4
CASE NO. 2 (ABEJUELA)
People vs Ortiz-Miyake
GR No 115338-39 September 16, 1997

CASE DOCTRINE
In illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is determinative. The number of
person proven victimized can distinguish simple illegal recruitment from illegal recruitment in large
scale.

RELEVANT FACTS
Lani Ortiz Miyake, who is not licensed nor authorized to recruit, was charged for illegal
recruitment in large scale for allegedly promising employment abroad to Rosamar del Rosario, Elenita
Marasigan, and Imelda Generillo and collecting fee therefor. However, in the presentation of evidence,
only Marasigan was proven victimized.

ISSUE:
Whether Ortiz-Miyake is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in large scale.

RULING:
No.
Illegal recruitment is large scale is committed where a person: (a) undertakes any recruitment
activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Articles 34 and 38 of
the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (c) offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a
group.
For insufficiency of evidence and in the absence of the third element of illegal recruitment in
large scale, particularly, that “the offense is committed against three or more persons,” the Court cannot
affirm the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court agrees with
the finding of the trial court that appellant illegally recruited Marasigan, for which she must be held
liable for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment.

5
CASE NO. 3 (ABARRA)
G.R. No. 198664
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
OWEN MARCELO CAGALINGAN and BEATRIZ B. CAGALINGAN, Accused-Appellants

CASE DOCTRINES

 Illegal recruitment is a crime committed by a person who, not having the valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers, undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement”
mentioned in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated in
Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 (Migrant Workers’ Act), against three (3) or more
persons, individually or as a group.

 The factual findings of the Court of Appeals (CA) are accepted because the Court is not a trier
of facts. Such findings, which affirmed those of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as the trial court,
are now even binding on us.

 The courts have generally viewed denial in criminal cases with considerable caution, if not
outright rejection. This dismissive judicial attitude comes from the recognition that denial is
inherently weak and unreliable by virtue of its being an excuse too easy and too convenient
for the guilty to make.

RELEVANT FACTS

 Accused-appellants Owen Marcelo Cagalingan (Owen) and Beatriz B. Cagalingan (Beatriz)

(accused spouses) were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale before the Regional Trial
Court of Cagayan de Oro City.

 That the accused representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire and
transport Filipino workers for employment in Macau, China, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a
fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement.

 Without first having secured or obtained the required license or authority from the government
agency.

 The spouses induced and succeeded in inducing the said Reynalyn Cagalingan to give and
deliver, as in fact the latter gave and deliver (sic), to said accused the amount of Php 40,000.00
on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the
same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the

6
 amount of Php 40,000.00 which amount once in their possession, with intent to defraud, they
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriated, misapplied and converted to their own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Reynalyn Cagalingan in the
aforesaid amount of Php 40,000.00, Philippine Currency.

ISSUE

Whether the court of appeals gravely erred in affirming the RTC decision finding the
accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to establish
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged.

RULING

The factual findings of the CA are accepted because the Court is not a trier of facts. Such
findings, which affirmed those of the RTC as the trial court, are now even binding on us. This is
because the RTC had the unique advantage to observe the witnesses’ demeanor while testifying,
and the personal opportunity to test the accuracy and reliability of their recollections of past
events, both of which are very decisive in a litigation like this criminal prosecution for the
serious crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale where the parties have disagreed
on the material facts.

CASE NO. 4 (EMPINADO)

G.R. No. 198012, April 22, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
v. ANGEL MATEO Y JACINTO AND VICENTA LAPIZ Y MEDINA, Accused-Appellants.

DOCTRINES

 The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused
did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers;
and, (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.
The elements are present in the case at bar.
 "The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness
stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge."
 Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition
of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not."
 The charge for estafa, "well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment
under the [law] may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315,
par. 2(a) of the [Revised Penal Code].

7
  The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation."

RELEVANT FACTS

 Sometime during the period from January to March 1998, the five private complainants, namely,
Abe] E. Balane (Abel), Emilio A. Cariaga (Emilio), Victorio D. Flordeliza (Victorio), Manuel Oledan
(Manuel) and Virgiiio N. Concepcion (Virgiiio), met appellants on separate occasions at Plaza
Ferguzon, Malate, Manila to apply for overseas employment.
 Appellant Mateo, representing himself to have a tie-up with some Japanese firms, promised
them employment in Japan as conversion mechanics, welders, or fitters for a fee.
 Appellants also promised that they could facilitate private complainants' employment as direct
hires and assured their departure within three weeks.
 However, after the private complainants paid the required fees ranging from P18,555.00 to
P25,000.00, appellants failed to secure any overseas employment for them.
 Appellants likewise failed to return private complainants' money.
 This prompted Manuel to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
where he was issued a Certification 3 stating that appellants are not licensed to recruit applicants
for overseas employment.
 Thereafter, the private complainants filed with the NBI their respective complaints and affidavit.
 NBI referred the case to the DOJ and found probable cause to the accused-appellants violation
of large scale illegal recruitment and estafa.
 The RTC found the accused guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment and estafa.
 The CA affirmed the lower courts decision.

ISSUES

 Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment?

 Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of estafa?

RULING

8
  Yes. The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused
did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and,
(3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. The
elements are present in the case at bar. "The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning
values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial
judge." Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the
definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not."

 the charge for estafa, "[w]ell-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment
under the [law] may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315,
par. 2(a) of the [Revised Penal Code]. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded
another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third
party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation." 17 All these elements are
likewise present in this case.

CASE NO. 5 (ABECIA/NADUMA)

G.R. No. 145587. October 26, 2007.*

EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

and ELEAZAR S. GRAN, respondents. EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission

CASE DOCTRINES

 The failure of the appellant to furnish a copy of the appeal to the adverse party is not fatal to

the appeal—it is merely a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and hence, not a jurisdictional

defect; The duty that is imposed on the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is to

require the appellant to comply with the rule that the opposing party should be provided with

a copy of the appeal memorandum.

 The abject failure of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to order the appellant to

furnish the appellee with the Appeal Memorandum constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

9
 The glaring failure of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to ensure that the

appellant should have furnished the appellee a copy of the Appeal Memorandum before

rendering judgment reversing the dismissal of the complaint of the former constitutes an

evasion of the pertinent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Rules and established

jurisprudence—worse, this failure deprived the latter of procedural due process guaranteed

by the Constitution which can serve as basis for the nullification of proceedings in the appeal

before the National Labor Relations Commission.

 In cases involving Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), the rights and obligations among and

between the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), the local recruiter/agent, and the foreign

employer/principal are governed by the employment contract.

 In termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that

the dismissal is for just and valid causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the

dismissal was not justified and therefore illegal—the employer is bound to adduce clear,

accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence to prove that the dismissal is valid and legal.

 An allegation of incompetence should have a factual foundation—incompetence may be

shown by weighing it against a standard, benchmark, or criterion.

 For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the following twin elements must

concur: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a

wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful,

made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to

discharge.

 The burden of proving that an Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) employment was validly and

legally terminated devolves not only upon the foreign-based employer but also on the

employment or recruitment agency for the latter is not only an agent of the former, but is also

10
 solidarily liable with the foreign principal for any claims or liabilities arising from the dismissal

of the worker.

 It is presumed that before the deployment of Overseas Filipino Worker’s (OFW’s), they were

subjected to trade tests required by law to be conducted by the recruiting agency to insure

employment of only technically qualified workers for the foreign principal; The purpose of the

trade test is to weed out incompetent applicants from the pool of available workers.

 Under the twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two (2) notices before their

employment could be terminated—(1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault,

and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being

terminated, and in between the first and second notice, the employees should be given a

hearing or opportunity to defend themselves personally or by counsel of their choice.

 In cases arising before the effectivity of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act on 25

August 1995, where the contract is for a fixed term and the employees are dismissed without

just cause, they are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired

portion of their contract, but for cases arising after the effectivity of the law, when the

termination of employment is without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or

contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with

interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his

employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term whichever

is less.

11
  In order to prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability of quitclaims and waivers of

employees under Philippine laws, said agreements should contain the following: 1. A fixed

amount as full and final compromise settlement; 2. The benefits of the employees if possible

with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the

fixed compromise amount; 3. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the

employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees—that by signing the

waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive the benefits

which are due them under the law; and 4. A statement that the employees signed and

executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of the document

and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress, intimidation, or

undue influence exerted on their person.

RELEVANT FACTS

Petitioner EDI, upon request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB), a company in Saudi

Arabia, sent to OAB resumes from which OAB can choose a computer specialist. Eleazar Gran was

selected. It was agreed that his monthly salary shall be $850.00. Five months into his service in Saudi

Arabia, Gran received a termination letter and right there and then was removed from his post. The

termination letter states that he was incompetent because he does not know the ACAD system which is

required in his line of work, that he failed to enrich his knowledge during his 5-month stay to prove his

competence, and that he is disobedient because he failed to submit the required daily reports to OAB.

Gran then signed a quitclaim whereby he declared that he is releasing OAB from any liability in exchange

of 2,948.00 Riyal.

When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against EDI and OAB. EDI in its

defense averred that the dismissal is valid because when Gran and OAB signed the employment

contract, both parties agreed that Saudi labor laws shall govern all matters relating to the termination of

12
Gran’s employment; that under Saudi labor laws, Gran’s termination due to incompetence and

insubordination is valid; that Gran’s insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the termination

letter Gran received. The labor arbiter dismissed the labor case but on appeal, the National Labor

Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the arbiter. The Court of Appeals likewise

affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Saudi labor laws should be applied in Gan’s case?

RULING

No, Philippine laws should apply. The specific Saudi labor laws were not proven in court. EDI did

not present proof as to the existence and the specific provisions of a foreign law. Hence, processual

presumption applies and Philippine labor laws shall be used.

Under our laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated upon just cause. The allegations

against him, at worst, shall only merit a suspension not a dismissal. His incompetence is not proven

because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the required trade test to prove his

competence. The presumption therefore is that he is competent and that it is upon OAB and EDI to

prove otherwise. No proof of his incompetence was ever adduced in court.

His alleged insubordination is likewise not proven. It was not proven that the submission of daily

track records is part of his job as a computer specialist. There was also a lack of due process. Under our

laws, Gran is entitled to the two-notice rule whereby prior to termination he should receive two notices.

In the case at bar, he only received one and he was immediately terminated on the same day he

received the notice.

13
 Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability. Philippine laws is again applied here

sans proof of Saudi laws. Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon and are strictly

examined. In this case, based on the circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the

quitclaim. The quitclaim is also void because his separation pay was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower

than the $850.00 monthly salary (3,190 Riyal).

CASE NO. 6 (GERMAN)

G.R. No. 186475 June 26, 2013

POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
TITO R. TAMALA, FELIPE S. SAURIN, JR., ARTEMIO A. BO-OC and JOEL S. FERNANDEZ,
Respondents.

CASE DOCTRINES

Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding of its
terms and with the payment of credible and reasonable consideration, the Court has no
option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and binding.

Section 10 (Money Claims) of R.A. No. 8042 applies only to cases of illegal dismissal or
dismissal without any just, authorized or valid cause and finds no application in cases where
the overseas Filipino worker was not illegally dismissed.

By law and subject to the State’s corollary right to review its determination, management has
the right to regulate the business and control its every aspect. Included in this management
right is the freedom to close or cease its operations for any reason, as long as it is done in
good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and procedural
requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.

The validity of the cessation of the business operations as a valid ground for the termination
of an overseas employment is subject to compliance with the following requisites:
The decision to close or cease operations must be bona fide in character;
Service of written notice on the affected employees and on the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) at least one (1) month prior to the effectivity of the termination; and
Payment to the affected employees of termination or separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.

14
Violation of the required statutory procedures/requisites in the termination of an overseas
employment does not affect the validity of the termination of employment. However, it
subjects the employer to the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages.

RELEVANT FACTS

The fishing operations for which the respondents were hired by Poseidon abruptly stopped and
did not resume. Before the respondents disembarked from the vessels, they executed an
agreement, together with their immediate employer on board the fishing vessels, regarding
their salaries which provided that they would get the full or 100% of their unpaid salaries for the
unexpired portion of their pre-terminated contract in accordance with Philippine laws.

However, Poseidon and the respondents’ immediate employer entered into another agreement
(letter of acceptance) reducing the previously agreed amount to 50% of the respondents’ unpaid
salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract. Upon arrival in Manila, the respondents
received the settlement pay under their letter of acceptance, signed a waiver and quitclaim and
the corresponding cash vouchers.

The respondents filed a complaint before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for illegal
termination of employment with prayer for the payment of their salaries for the unexpired
portion of their contracts. The respondents anchored their claim on their first agreement with
their immediate employer, and contended that their subsequent execution of the waiver and
quitclaim should not be given weight nor allowed to serve as a bar to their claim. The LA
dismissed the respondents’ complaint for lack of merit, declaring as valid and binding their
waivers and quitclaims. The LA explained that while quitclaims executed by employees are
generally frowned upon and do not bar them from recovering the full measure of what is legally
due, excepted from this rule are the waivers knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the
employees, such as the waivers assailed by the respondents.

The respondents appealed the LA’s decision before the NLRC which affirmed in toto the LA’s
decision. Respondents were prompted to file with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. In setting aside the NLRC’s ruling, the CA considered the waivers and
quitclaims invalid and highly suspicious. The CA noted that the respondents in fact questioned in
their pleadings the letter’s due execution. In contrast with the NLRC, the CA observed that the
respondents were coerced and unduly influenced into accepting the 50% settlement pay and
into signing the waivers and quitclaims because of their financial distress. The CA moreover
considered the amounts stated in the first agreement to be more reasonable and in keeping
with Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995.

Poseidon filed a petition before the Supreme Court after the CA denied its motion for
Reconsideration.

ISSUES

I. Whether the respondents’ waivers and quitclaims are valid and should bar their claim for
unpaid salaries; and
II. Whether Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 applies to the respondents’ claim.

RULINGS

15
I. The waivers and quitclaims signed by the respondents are valid and binding.

Generally, the Court looks with disfavor at quitclaims executed by employees for being contrary
to public policy. However, where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a
full understanding of its terms and with the payment of credible and reasonable consideration,
the Court has no option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and binding.

In the case at bar, the Court is sufficiently convinced that a valid transaction took place due to
the absence of any evidence showing that fraud, deception or misrepresentation attended the
execution of the waiver and quitclaim.

II. Section 10 (Money Claims) of R.A. No. 8042 applies only to cases of illegal dismissal or
dismissal without any just, authorized or valid cause and finds no application in cases where the
overseas Filipino worker was not illegally dismissed.

In the case at bar, the manner of dismissal was not a contested issue; the records clearly
showed that the respondents’ employment was terminated because Poseidon and their
immediate employer simply decided to stop their fishing operations in the exercise of their
management prerogative, which prerogative even our labor laws recognize. Hence, they were
not illegally dismissed.

In sum, since Poseidon and their immediate employer ceased its fishing operations in the valid
exercise of its management prerogative, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 finds no application.

16
CASE NO. 7 (NADUMA)
GR No. 148893
Skippers United Pacific v. NLRC,

DOCTRINE

The rule in labor cases is that the employer has onus probandi that the dismissal was for a just
cause; hence, substantial evidence in proving legality of an employee’s dismissal may be required in
labor cases. Failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and,
therefore, illegal. 

FACTS
Respondent Rosaroso was a Third Engineer with Nicolakis Shipping, S.A., a foreign firm. The
term of his employemnt contract was for one year. Barely a month after boarding the vessel,
respondent was ordered to disembark in Varna, Bulgaria, on August 7, 1997, dismissed, and repatriated
to the Philippines. Immediately after arriving in the Philippines, respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and monetary claims on August 18, 1997.
The grounds for respondent’s dismissal was not backed by verified affidavit on his lack of discipline,
irresponsibility, and lack of diligence. The labor arbiter then ruled that the respondent was illegally
dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and claimed that the grounds were
bereft of probative value and lacked verification by an oath and, therefore, lacks any guarantee of
trustworthiness.
Petition, upon review, claimed that the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter erred in not giving “full
evidentiary value” to the Chief Engineer’s report that claimed respondent was dismissed for just cause.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that petitioner illegally dismissed
the private respondent?

17
RULING
No. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were
affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality and are deemed
binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. A heavy burden rests
upon petitioner to convince the Court that it should take exception from such a settled rule. More
importantly, the finding that respondent was illegally dismissed is supported, not only by the evidence
on record, but by jurisprudence as well.
The rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for
a just cause; failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and,
therefore, illegal. The two-fold requirements for a valid dismissal are as follows: (1) dismissal must be for
a cause provided for in the Labor Code, which is substantive; and (2) the observance of notice and
hearing prior to the employee’s dismissal, which is procedural.
The only evidence relied upon by petitioner in justifying respondent’s dismissal is the Chief
Engineer’s Report dated September 10, 1997. The question that arises, therefore, is whether the Report
constitutes substantial evidence proving that respondent’s dismissal was for cause.
Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. As all three tribunals found, the Report cannot be given
any weight or credibility because it is uncorroborated, based purely on hearsay, and obviously merely an
afterthought. While rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative
bodies, petitioner should have offered additional proof to corroborate the statements described therein.

CASE NO. 8 (PIZARRO)

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMNT AGENCY, INC., vs. JOY C. CABILES

GR NO. 170139. August 14, 2014

CASE DOCTRINES

Employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an employee who is guilty of

acts that are inimical to the interest of the employer. The employers have the prerogative to impose

productivity and quality standards at work. They may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that the

employees comply with these standards.

18
 Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination.

They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and

without going through the proper procedure.

To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that:

1) the employer has set standards o conduct and workmanship against which employee will be

judged; 2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the

employee; 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee’s performance

assessment.

The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. The

employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable

cause. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that

the dismissal was illegal.

The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before

termination. One of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular act

19
that may cause his or her dismissal. The other notice must inform the employee of the employer’s

decision. Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given an opportunity to be

heard. A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal.

In RA No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of

1995, states that the overseas workers who were terminated without just, valid, or authorize cause

shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of 12percent per annum

plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract for three months for every year

of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

In Section 15 of RA No 8042 which states that the repatriation of the worker and the transport

of his or her personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or

deployed the worker overseas. All costs attendant to repatriation shall be borne by or charged to the

agency concerned and/or its principal.

The Labor Code also entitles the employee 10 10% of the amount of withheld wages as

attorney’s fees when the withholding was unlawful.

There is an implied stipulation in contracts between the placement agency and the oversees

workers that in case the overseas worker is adjudged as entitled to reimbursement of his or her

placement fees, the amount shall be subject to a 12% interest per annum.

In the case of overseas employment, either the local agency or the foreign employer

may be sued for all claims arising from the foreign employer’s labor law violations. The fundamental

effect of joint and several liability is that each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation. This

way, the overseas workers are assured that someone - the foreign employer’s local agent - may be

made to answer for violations that the foreign employer may have committed.

20
RELEVANT FACTS

Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is a recruitment and placement agency.

The respondent, Joy C. Cabiles submitted an application for a job as a quality control in Taiwan. Her

application was accepted and was later on asked to sign an employment contract for one-year with a

monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. She also alleged that the agency required her to pay a placement fee of

P70,000.00.

When Joy was deployed to work in Taiwan Wacoal on June 26, 1997, she was asked to

work as a cutter and not as a quality control. On July 14, 1997, Mr Huwang from Wacoal Thailand

informed Joy, without prior notice, taht she was terminated and that “she should immediately report to

their office to get her salary and passport.” She was asked to “prepare for immediate repatriation.” In

October, Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against Sameer and

Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally dismissed and that she asked for the return of the placement

fee, the ampunt for repatriation cost, payment of her salary as well as moral and exemplary damages.

Sameer alleged that the reason for Joy’s dismissal was due to her inefficiency, negligence and failure to

comply for work requirements.

Thereafter, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint. Joy appealed to the NLRC.

The NLRC ruled that Joy was illegally dismissed and reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to

show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. Sameer failed to

prove that there were just and valid causes for termination. The Commission denied the motion for

reconsideration filed by petitioner and caused the filing of a petition for certiorari to the Court of

Appeals. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC hence, this petition.

21
ISSUE

Whether the CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the NLRC finding respondent illegally dismissed

and awarding her 3 months’ worth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation,

attorney’s fees.

RULING

No.
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing Joy’s

dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law. Indeed, employers have

the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work. They may also impose reasonable

rules to ensure that the employees comply with these standards. Failure to comply may be a just cause

for their dismissal. Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an employee who

is guilty of acts that are inimical to the interest of the employer. While the law acknowledges the plight

and vulnerability of workers, it does not "authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer."

Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence.This prerogative, however,

should not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure."Workers are

entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from

employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and without going through the proper

procedure. By our laws, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be terminated for a just or

authorized cause and after compliance with procedural due process requirements. Petitioner’s

allegation that respondent was inefficient in her work and negligent in her duties, may, therefore,

constitute a just cause for termination under Article 282(b), but only if petitioner was able to prove it.

The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. "The employer must

affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause."Failure to

show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was

illegal. Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been dismissed illegally.

CASE NO. 9 (SABANAL)
G.R. No. 110524 - July 29, 2002
DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA, Petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and ESSO
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., LTD. respondents.

DOCTRINES

 Employment of seafarers are for a fixed period only. They cannot attain regularity of
employment.

 The filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal is proof enough of his desire to
return to work.

RELEVANT FACTS

Petitioners are seafarers. They applied for leave of absence. Subsequently, informing
respondents of their intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment
Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that they had already rendered more than twenty (20) years of
continuous service but denied petitioners request for optional retirement on the ground that he was
employed on a contractual basis. Supreme Court held that they are regular employees under the labor
code. Respondent & FAME filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that the employment is governed
by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen and such employment shall be for a
fixed period but in no case to exceed 12 months and any extension shall be subject to the mutual
consent of both parties.

ISSUE
Whether or not seafarers may be covered as regular employment

RULING
No. Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the POEA. The Standard
Employment Contract governing the employment of All Filipino seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels
of the POEA, particularly in Part I, Sec. C specifically provides that the contract of seamen shall be for a
fixed period. And in no case should the contract of seamen be longer than 12 months. Moreover, it is an
accepted maritime industry practice that employment of seafarers are for a fixed period only. From all
the foregoing, the court stated that petitioners are not considered regular or permanent employees
under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioners' employment has automatically ceased upon the
expiration of their contracts of enlistment (COE).
CASE NO. 10 ( VICARIATO)
G.R. No. 162419             July 10, 2007
PAUL V. SANTIAGO, petitioner,
vs.
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., respondent.

DOCTRINE
 Petitioner was not able to depart from the airport or seaport in the point of hire, the
employment contract did not commence, and no employer relationship was created between
the parties.
 Distinction must be made between the perfection of the employment contract and the
commencement of the employer employee relationship.
 Though the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Rules are silent as to the
payment of damages to the affected seafarer does not mean that the seafarer is precluded
from claiming the same.
 Despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the
respondent, the Court rules that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s complaint.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioner had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management, Inc. (respondent) for
about five (5) years.
 Petitioner was to be deployed on board the "MSV Seaspread" which was scheduled to leave...
the port of Manila for Canada on 13 February 1998. But petitioner was thus told that he would
not be leaving for Canada anymore, but he was reassured that he might be considered for
deployment at some future date.
 Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages, and attorney's fees against
respondent and its foreign principal, Cable and Wireless (Marine) Ltd
 Labor Arbiter Teresita Castillon-Lora, who ruled that the employment... contract remained valid
but had not commenced since petitioner was not deployed... respondent violated the rules and
regulations governing overseas employment when it did not deploy petitioner, causing
petitioner to suffer actual damages representing lost salary... income for nine (9) months and
fixed overtime fee, all amounting to US$7, 209.00.
  Petitioner additionally claims that he should be considered a regular employee, having worked
for five (5) years on board the same vessel owned by the same principal and manned by the
same local agent.
 Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC’s Decision, but his motion was denied for
lack of merit. He elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not there is an employee-employer between the petitioner and respondent?
2. Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case?
3. Whether or not the respondent is liable to pay petitioner damages for not deployment?

RULING
1. No, considering that petitioner was not able to depart from the airport or seaport in the point of
hire, the employment contract did not commence, and no employer-employee relationship was
created between the parties.

2. Yes, despite the absence of an employer employee relationship between petitioner and
respondent, the Court rules that the NLRC has jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint. The
jurisdiction of labor arbiters is not limited to claims arising from employer-employee
relationships. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), provides that: Sec.10.Money
Claims.—Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages. Since the present petition involves the employment contract entered
by petitioner for overseas employment, his claims are cognizable by the labor arbiters of the
NLRC.

3. The fact that the POEA Rules are silent as to the payment of damages to the affected seafarer
does not mean that the seafarer is precluded from claiming the same. The sanctions provided
for non-deployment do not end with the suspension or cancellation of license or fine and the
return of all documents at no cost to the worker. They do not forfend a seafarer from instituting
an action for damages against the employer or agency which has failed to deploy him.

Respondent is thus liable to pay petitioner actual damages in the form of the loss of nine (9)
months’ worth of salary as provided in the contract. He is not, however, entitled to overtime
pay.