199072783 labor-case1

of 17
Get Homework/Assignment Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
Online Tutoring
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION and
CRISPIN CHAN,
Petitioners,
- versus -
GREGORIO P. ROGELIO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 161787
Present:
CORONA,C.J., Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
April 27, 2011
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolve d in favor of the
laborer.

of 17
We re-affirm this principle, as we uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that reversed the uniform finding that
there existed no employment relationship between the petitioners, as employers, and the respondent, as e mployee, made by the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter (LA).
Petitioners Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC) and Crispin Chan assail the October 24, 2003
decision,[1]
whereby the CA reversed the decision dated January 28, 2000 of the NLRC that affirmed the decision of the LA
(dismissing the claim of the respondent for retirement benefits on the ground that he had not been employed by the petitioners but
by another employer).
Antecedents
On May 19, 1997, respondent Gregorio P. Rogelio (Rogelio) brought against Chan a complaint for retirement pay pursuant to
Republic Act No. 7641,[2]
in relation to Article 287 of theLabor Code, holiday and rest days premium pay, service incentive leave,
13th
month pay, cost of living allowances (COLA), underpayment of wages, and attorney’s fees. On January 20, 1998, Rogelio
amended his complaint to include MSDC as a co-respondent. His version follows.
Rogelio was first employed in 1949 by Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, MSDC’s predecessor, which engaged in the buying and selling
of copra in Ibajay, Aklan, with its main office being in Kalibo, Aklan. Masing Chan owned and managed Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, and
the Branch Manager in Ibajay was a certain So Na. In 1965, Masing Chan changed the business name of Pan Phil. Copra Dealer to
Yao Mun Tek, and appointed Jose Conanan Yap Branch Manager in Ibajay. In the 1970s, the business name of Yao Mun Tek was
changed to Aklan Lumber and General Merchandise, and Leon Chan became the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Finally, in 1984, Masing
Chan adopted the business name of Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC), appointing Wynne or Wayne Lim (Lim) as
the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Crispin Chan replaced his father, Masing Chan, in 1990 as the manager of the entire business.
In all that time, Rogelio worked as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch, along with twelve other employees. In January 1974,
Rogelio was reported for Social Security System (SSS) coverage. After paying contributions to the SSS for more than 10 years, he
became entitled to receive retirement benefits from the SSS. Thus, in 1991, he availed himself of the SSS retirement benefits , and in
order to facilitate the grant of such benefits, he entered into an internal arrangement with Chan and MSDC to the effect that MSDC
would issue a certification of his separation from employment notwithstanding that he would continue working as a laborer in the
Ibajay Branch.
The certification reads as follows:[3]
CRISPIN AMIGO CHAN – COPRA DEALER
IBAJAY, AKLAN
August 10, 1991
CERTIFICATION OF SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that my employee, GREGORIO P. ROGELIO bearing SSS ID No. 07-0495213-7 who was first
covered effective January, 1974 up to June 30, 1989 inclusive, is now officially separated from my employ effective
the 1st
of July, 1989.
Please be guided accordingly.
(SGD.) CRISPIN AMIGO CHAN
Proprietor
SSS ID No. 07-0595800-4
On March 17, 1997, Rogelio was paid his last salary. Lim, then the Ibajay Branch Manager, informed Rogelio that he was
deemed retired as of that date. Chan confirmed to Rogelio that he had already reached the compulsory retirement age when he went
to the main office in Kalibo to verify his status. Rogelio was then 67 years old.
Considering that Rogelio was supposedly receiving a daily salary of P70.00 until 1997, but did not receive any 13th
month
pay, service incentive leave, premium pay for holidays and rest days and COLA, and even any retirement benefit from MSDC upon
his retirement in March 1997, he commenced his claim for such pay and benefits.
In substantiation, Rogelio submitted the January 19, 1998 affidavits of his co-workers, namely: Domingo Guevarra,[4]
Juanito
Palomata,[5]
and Ambrosio Señeres,[6]
whereby they each declared under oath that Rogelio had already been working at the Ibajay
Branch by the time that MSDC’s predecessor had hired them in the 1950s to work in that branch; and that MSDC and Chan had
continuously employed them until their own retirements, that is, Guevarra in 1994, and Palomata and Señeres in 1997. They thereby
corroborated the history of MSDC and the names of the various Branch Managers as narrated by Rogelio, and confirmed that like
Rogelio, they did not receive any retirement benefits from Chan and MSDC upon their retirement.
In their defense, MSDC and Chan denied having engaged in copra buying in Ibajay, insisting that they did not ever register in
such business in any government agency. They asserted that Lim had not been their agent or employee, because he had been an
independent copra buyer. They averred, however, that Rogelio was their former employee, hired on January 3, 1977 and retired on
June 30, 1989;[7]
and that Rogelio was thereafter employed by Lim starting from July 1, 1989 until the filing of the complaint.

of 17
MSDC and Chan submitted the affidavit of Lim, whereby Lim stated that Rogelio was one of his employees from 1989 until the
termination of his services.[8]
They also submitted SSS Form R-1A, Lim’s SSS Report of Employee-Members (showing that Rogelio
and Palomata were reported as Lim’s employees);[9]
Lim’s application for registration as copra buyer;[10]
Chan’s affidavit;[11]
and the
affidavit of Guevarra[12]
and Señeres,[13]
whereby said affiants denied having executed or signed the January 19, 1998 affidavits
submitted by Rogelio.
In his affidavit, Guevarra recanted the statement attributed to him that he had been employed by Chan and MSDC, and
declared that he had been an employee of Lim. Likewise, Guevarra’s daughter executed an affidavit,[14]
averring that his father had
been an employee of Lim and that his father had not signed the affidavit dated January 19, 1998.
On April 5, 1999, the LA dismissed the complaint against Chan and MSDC, ruling thus:
From said evidence, it is our considered view that there exists no employer-employee relationship between
the parties effective July 1, 1989 up to the date of the filing of the instant complaint complainant was an employee
of Wynne O. Lim. Hence, his claim for retirement should have been filed against the latter for he admitted that he
was the employer of herein complainant in his sworn statement dated June 9, 1998.
Complainant’s claim for retirement benefits against herein respondents under RA No. 7641 has been barred
by prescription considering the fact that it partakes of the nature of a money claim which prescribed after the lapse
of three years after its accrual.
The rest of the claims are also dismissed for the same accrued during complainant’s employment with
Wynne O. Lim.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Rogelio appealed, but the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA on January 28, 2000, observing that there could be no double
retirement in the private sector; that with the double retirement, Rogelio would be thereby enriching himself at the expense of the
Government; and that having retired in 1991, Rogelio could not avail himself of the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 entitledAn
Act Amending Article 287 of Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The Labor Code Of The Philippines, By
Providing for Retirement Pay to Qualified Private Sector Employees in the Absence Of Any Retirement Plan in the Establishment,
which took effect only on January 7, 1993.[16]
The NLRC denied Rogelio’s motion for reconsideration.
Ruling of the CA
Rogelio commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in denying
to him the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, and in rejecting his money claims on the ground of prescription.
On October 24, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision,[17]
holding that Rogelio had substantially established that he had been
an employee of Chan and MSDC, and that the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 were apart from the retirement benefits that a
qualified employee could claim under the Social Security Law, conformably with the ruling in Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC(G.R. No.
110861, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 105).
The CA decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the public respondent NLRC is hereby VACATED and SET
ASIDE. This case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the retirement benefits of the
petitioner based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended, to be pegged at the minimum wage prevailing in
Ibajay, Aklan as of March 17, 1997, and attorney’s fees based on the same. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Chan and MSDC’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
Issues
In this appeal, Chan and MSDC contend that the CA erred: (a) in taking cognizance of Rogelio’s petition
for certiorari despite the decision of the NLRC having become final and executory almost two months before the petition was filed;
(b) in concluding that Rogelio had remained their employee from July 6, 1989 up to March 17, 1997; and (c) in awarding retirement
benefits and attorney’s fees to Rogelio.
Ruling
The petition for review is barren of merit.
I

of 17
Certiorari was timely commenced in the CA
Anent the first error, the Court finds that the CA did not err in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari of Rogelio.
Based on the records, Rogelio received the NLRC’s denial of his motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2003. He then
had 60 days from January 16, 2003, or until March 17, 2003, within which to file his petition for certiorari. It is without doubt,
therefore, that his filing was timely considering that the CA received his petition for certiorari at 2:44 o’clock in the afternoon of
March 17, 2003.
The petitioners’ insistence, that the issuance of the entry of judgment with respect to the NLRC’s decision precluded Rogelio
from filing a petition for certiorari, was unwarranted. It ought to be without debate that the finality of the NLRC’s decision was of no
consequence in the consideration of whether or not he could bring a special civil action for certiorari within the period of 60 days for
doing so under Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court, simply because the question being thereby raised was jurisdictional.
II
Respondent remained the petitioners’
employee despite his supposed separation
Did Rogelio remain the employee of the petitioners from July 6, 1989 up to March 17, 1997?
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the respondent in that
period was essentially a question of fact.[18]
In dealing with such question, substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion[19]
– is sufficient. Although no particular form of evidence is
required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be
admitted,[20]
a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.
Generally, the Court does not review errors that raise factual questions, primarily because the Court is not a trier of facts .
However, where, like now, there is a conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on the one hand, and
those of the CA, on the other hand,[21]
it is proper, in the exercise of our equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual
issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.
The CA delved on and resolved the issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and
the respondent thusly:
As to the factual issue, the petitioner’s evidence consists of his own statements and those of his alleged co -
worker from 1950 until 1997, Juanito Palomata, who unlike his former co-workers Domingo Guevarra and
Ambrosio Señeres, did not disown the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” he executed, in corroboration of petitioner’s
allegations; and the Certification dated August 10, 1991 stating that petitioner was first placed under coverage of
the SSS in January 1974 to June 30, 1989 and was separated from service effective July 1, 1989, a certification
executed by respondent Crispin Amigo Chan which, petitioner maintains, was only intended for his application for
retirement benefits with the SSS.
Private respondents’ evidence, on the other hand, consisted of respondent Crispin Amigo Chan’s counter
statements as well as documentary evidence consisting of (1) Wayne Lim’s Affidavit which petitioner acknowledged
in his Reply dated July 11, 1998, par. 8, admitting to being the employer of petitioner from July 1, 1989 until the
filing of the complaint; (2) Certification dated October 22, 1991 showing petitioner’s employment with respondents
to have been between January 3, 1977 until July 1, 1989; (3) Affidavits of Guevarra and Señeres disowning their
signatures in the affidavits submitted in evidence by the petitioner; (4) SSS report executed by Wayne Lim of his
initial list of employees as of July 1, 1989 which includes the petitioner. On appeal, the respondents further
submitted documentary evidence showing that Wayne Lim registered his business name on July 11, 1989 and
apparently went into business buying copra.
At this point, we should note the following factual discrepancies in the evidence on hand: First,
the respondents issued certificates stating the commencement of petitioner’s employment on different
dates, i.e. January 1974 and January 1977, although the earlier date referred only to the period when
petitioner was first placed under the coverage of the SSS, which need not necessarily refer to the
commencement of his employment. Secondly, while respondent Crispin Amigo Chan denied having ever
engaged in copra buying in Ibajay, the certificates he issued both dated in 1991 state otherwise, for he
declared himself as a “copra dealer” with address in Ibajay. Then there is the statement of the
petitioner that Wayne Lim was the respondents’ manager in their branch office in Ibajay since 1984, a
statement that respondents failed to disavow. Instead, respondents insisted on their non
sequitur argument that they had never engaged in copra buying activities in Ibajay, and that Wayne
Lim was in business all by himself in regard to such activity.
The denial on respondents’ part of their copra buying activities in Ibajay begs the obvious question: What
were petitioner and his witness Juanito Palomata then doing for respondents as laborers in Ibajay prior to July 1,
1989? Indeed, what did petitioner do for the respondents as the latter’s laborer prior to July 1, 1989, which
was different from what he did after said date? The records showed that he continued doing the same job, i.e. as
laborer and trusted employee tasked with the responsibility of getting money from the Kalibo office of respondents
which was used to buy copra and pay the employees’ salaries. He did not only continue doing the same thing but
he apparently did the same at or from the same place, i.e. the bodega in Ibajay, which his co-worker Palomata

of 17
believed to belong to the respondent Masing & Sons. Since respondents admitted to employing petitioner from
1977 to 1989, we have to conclude that, indeed, the bodega in Ibajay was owned by respondents at least prior
to July 1, 1989 since petitioner had consistently stated that he worked for the respondents continuously in their
branch office in Ibajay under different managers and nowhere else.
We believe that the respondents’ strongest evidence in regard to the alleged separation of
petitioner from service effective July 1, 1989 would be the affidavit of Wayne Lim, owning to being the
employer of petitioner since July 1, 1989 and the SSS report that he executed listing petitioner as one
of his employees since said date. But in light of the incontrovertible physical reality that petitioner and
his co-workers did go to work day in and day out for such a long period of time, doing the same thing
and in the same place, without apparent discontinuity, except on paper, these documents cannot be
taken at their face value. We note that Wayne Lim apparently inherited, at least on paper, ten (10)
employees of respondent Crispin Amigo Chan, including petitioner, all on the same day, i.e. on July 1,
1989. We note, too, that while there exists an initial report of employees to the SSS by Wayne Lim, no
other document apart from his affidavit and business registration was offered by respondents to
bolster their contention, irrespective of the fact that Wayne Lim was not a party respondent. What
were the circumstances underlying such alleged mass transfer of employment? Unfortunately, the
evidence for the respondents does not provide us with ready answers. We could conclude that
respondents sold their business in Ibajay and assets to Wayne Lim on July 1, 1989; however, as
pointed out above, respondent Crispin Amigo Chan himself said that he was a “copra dealer ” from
Ibajay in August and October of 1991. Whether or not he was registered as a copra buyer is
immaterial, given that he declared himself a “copra dealer” and had apparently engaged in the activity
of buying copra, as shown precisely by the employment of petitioner and Palomata. If Wayne Lim, from
being the respondents’ manager in Ibajay became an independent businessman and took over the
respondents’ business in Ibajay along with all their employees, why did not the respondents’ simply
state that fact for the record? More importantly, why did the petitioner and Palomata continue
believing that Wayne Lim was only the respondents’ manager? Given the long employment of petitioner
with the respondents, was it possible for him and his witness to make such mistake? We do not think
so. In case of doubt, the doubt is resolved in favor of labor, in favor of the safety and decent living for
the laborer as mandated by Article 1702 of the Civil Code. The reality of the petitioner’s toil speaks
louder than words. xxx[22]
We agree with the CA’s factual findings, because they were based on the evidence and records of the case submitted before
the LA. The CA essentially complied with the guidepost that the substantiality of evidence depends on both its quantitative and its
qualitative aspects.[23]
Indeed, the records substantially established that Chan and MSDC had employed Rogelio until 1997. In
contrast, Chan and MSDC failed to adduce credible substantiation of their averment that Rogelio had been Lim’s employee from July
1989 until 1997. Credible proof that could outweigh the showing by Rogelio to the contrary was demanded of Chan and MSDC to
establish the veracity of their allegation, for their mere allegation of Rogelio’s employment under Lim did not constitute
evidence,[24]
but they did not submit such proof, sadly failing to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative
allegation.[25]
In this regard, as we pointed out at the start, the doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of
the laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master.
III
Respondent entitled to retirement benefits
from the petitioners
Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, provides:
Article 287. Retirement. – Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the
collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have
earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements; Provided, however,
That an employee’s retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less
than those provided herein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees
in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond
sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least
five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to
at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months
being considered as one whole year.
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall
mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th
month pay and the cash equivalent of not
more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.
Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten (10) employees or
workers are exempted from the coverage of this provision.

of 17
Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions provided unde r
Article 288 of this Code.
Was Rogelio entitled to the retirement benefits under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641?
The CA held so in its decision, to wit:
Having reached the conclusion that petitioner was an employee of the respondents from 1950 to March 17,
1997, and considering his uncontroverted allegation that in the Ibajay branch office where he was assigned,
respondents employed no less than 12 workers at said later date, thus affording private respondents no relief from
the duty of providing retirement benefits to their employees, we see no reason why petitioner should not be
entitled to the retirement benefits as provided for under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended. The
beneficent provisions of said law, as applied in Oro Enterprises Inc. v. NLRC, is apart from the retirement benefits
that can be claimed by a qualified employee under the social security law. Attorney’s fees are also granted to the
petitioner. But the monetary benefits claimed by petitioner cannot be granted on the basis of the evidence at
hand.[26]
We concur with the CA’s holding. The third paragraph of the aforequoted provision of the Labor Code entitled Rogelio to
retirement benefits as a necessary consequence of the finding that Rogelio was an employee of MSDC and Chan. Indeed, there
should be little, if any, doubt that the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, which was enacted as a labor protection measure and as
a curative statute to respond, in part at least, to the financial well-being of workers during their twilight years soon following their
life of labor, can be extended not only from the date of its enactment but re troactively to the time the employment contracts
started.[27]
WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition for review on certiorari, and affirms the decision promulgated on October 24,
2003 in CA-G.R. SP No.75983.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CESAR C. LIRIO, doing business under the
name and style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX,
Petitioner,
- versus -
WILMER D. GENOVIA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 169757
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
PEREZ,*
and
MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
November 23, 2011
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88899 dated August 4,
2005 and its Resolution dated September 21, 2005, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the resolution of the NLRC, and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter
with modification, finding that respondent is an employee of petitioner, and that respondent was illegally dismissed and entitled to
the payment of backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
The facts are as follows:
On July 9, 2002, respondent Wilmer D. Genovia filed a complaint against petitioner Cesar Lirio and/or Celkor Ad Sonicmix
Recording Studio for illegal dismissal, non-payment of commission and award of moral and exemplary damages.

of 17
In his Position Paper,[1]
respondent Genovia alleged, among others, that on August 15, 2001, he was hired as studio
manager by petitioner Lirio, owner of Celkor Ad Sonicmix Recording Studio (Celkor). He was employed to manage and operate
Celkor and to promote and sell the recording studio's services to music enthusiasts and other prospective clients. He received a
monthly salary of P7,000.00. They also agreed that he was entitled to an additional commission of P100.00 per hour as recording
technician whenever a client uses the studio for recording, editing or any re lated work. He was made to report for work from
Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. On Saturdays, he was required to work half-day only, but most of the time, he still
rendered eight hours of work or more. All the employees of petitioner, including respondent, rendered overtime work almost
everyday, but petitioner never kept a daily time record to avoid paying the employees overtime pay.
Respondent stated that a few days after he started working as a studio manager, petitioner approached him and told him
about his project to produce an album for his 15-year-old daughter, Celine Mei Lirio, a former talent of ABS-CBN Star Records.
Petitioner asked respondent to compose and arrange songs for Celine and promised that he (Lirio) would draft a contract to assure
respondent of his compensation for such services. As agreed upon, the additional services that respondent would render includ ed
composing and arranging musical scores only, while the technical aspect in producing the album, such as digital editing, mixing and
sound engineering would be performed by respondent in his capacity as studio manager for which he was paid on a monthly
basis. Petitioner instructed respondent that his work on the album as composer and arranger would only be done during his spa re
time, since his other work as studio manager was the priority. Respondent then started working on the album.
Respondent alleged that before the end of September 2001, he reminded petitioner about his compensation as composer
and arranger of the album. Petitioner verbally assured him that he would be duly compensated. By mid-November 2001, respondent
finally finished the compositions and musical arrangements of the songs to be included in the album. Before the month ended, the
lead and back-up vocals in the ten (10) songs were finally recorded and completed. From December 2001 to January 2002,
respondent, in his capacity as studio manager, worked on digital editing, mixing and sound engineering of the vocal and
instrumental audio files.
Thereafter, respondent was tasked by petitioner to prepare official correspondence, establish contacts and negotiate with
various radio stations, malls, publishers, record companies and manufacturers, record bars and other outlets in preparation f or the
promotion of the said album. By early February 2002, the album was in its manufacturing stage. ELECTROMAT, manufacturer of CDs
and cassette tapes, was tapped to do the job. The carrier single of the album, which respondent composed and arranged, was fi nally
aired over the radio on February 22, 2002.
On February 26, 2002, respondent again reminded petitioner about the contract on his compensation as composer and
arranger of the album. Petitioner told respondent that since he was practically a nobody and had proven nothing yet in the music
industry, respondent did not deserve a high compensation, and he should be thankful that he was given a job to feed his famil y.
Petitioner informed respondent that he was entitled only to 20% of the net profit, and not of the gross sale s of the album, and that
the salaries he received and would continue to receive as studio manager of Celkor would be deducted from the said 20% net pr ofit
share. Respondent objected and insisted that he be properly compensated. On March 14, 2002, petitione r verbally terminated
respondent’s services, and he was instructed not to report for work.
Respondent asserts that he was illegally dismissed as he was terminated without any valid grounds, and no hearing was
conducted before he was terminated, in violation of his constitutional right to due process. Having worked for more than six months,
he was already a regular employee. Although he was a so called “studio manager,” he had no managerial powers, but was merely an
ordinary employee.
Respondent prayed for his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, or, in the alternative, that he be paid separation
pay, backwages and overtime pay; and that he be awarded unpaid commission in the amount of P2,000.00 for services rendered as
a studio technician as well as moral and exemplary damages.
Respondent’s evidence consisted of the Payroll dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002, which was certified correct by
petitioner,[2]
and Petty Cash Vouchers[3]
evidencing receipt of payroll payments by respondent from Celkor.
In defense, petitioner stated in his Position Paper[4]
that respondent was not hired as studio manager, composer, technician
or as an employee in any other capacity of Celkor. Respondent could not have been hired as a studio manager, since the recording
studio has no personnel except petitioner. Petitioner further claimed that his daughter Celine Mei Lirio, a former contract a rtist of
ABS-CBN Star Records, failed to come up with an album as the latter aborted its project to produce one. Thus, he decided to
produce an album for his daughter and established a recording studio, which he named Celkor Ad Sonicmix Recording Studio. He
looked for a composer/arranger who would compose the songs for the said album. In July 2001, Bob Santiago, his son-in-law,
introduced him to respondent, who claimed to be an amateur composer, an arranger with limited experience and musician without
any formal musical training. According to petitioner, respondent had no track record as a composer, and he was not known in the
field of music. Nevertheless, after some discussion, respondent verbally agreed with petitioner to co-produce the album based on the
following terms and conditions: (1) petitioner shall provide all the financing, equipment and recording studio; (2) Celine Mei Lirio
shall sing all the songs; (3) respondent shall act as composer and arranger of all the lyrics and the music of the five songs he
already composed and the revival songs; (4) petitioner shall have exclusive right to market the album; (5) petitioner was entitled to
60% of the net profit, while respondent and Celine Mei Lirio were each entitled to 20% of the net profit; and (6) respondent shall be
entitled to draw advances of P7,000.00 a month, which shall be deductible from his share of the net profits and only until such time
that the album has been produced.
According to petitioner, they arrived at the foregoing sharing of profits based on the mutual understanding that respondent
was just an amateur composer with no track record whatsoever in the music industry, had no definite source of income, had limited
experience as an arranger, had no knowledge of the use of sound mixers or digital arranger and that petitioner would help and
teach him how to use the studio equipment; that petitioner would shoulder all the expenses of production and provide the studio and

of 17
equipment as well as his knowledge in the use thereof; and Celine Mei Lirio would sing the songs. They embarked on the produc tion
of the album on or about the third week of August 2002.
Petitioner asserted that from the aforesaid terms and conditions, his relationship with respondent is one of an informal
partnership under Article 1767[5]
of the New Civil Code, since they agreed to contribute money, property or industry to a common
fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Petitioner had no control over the time and manner by wh ich
respondent composed or arranged the songs, except on the result thereof. Respondent reported to the recording studio between
10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Hence, petitioner contended that no employer-employee relationship existed between him and the
respondent, and there was no illegal dismissal to speak of.
On October 31, 2003, Labor Arbiter Renaldo O. Hernandez rendered a decision,[6]
finding that an employer-employee
relationship existed between petitioner and respondent, and that respondent was illegally dismissed. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find that respondents CELKOR AD SONICMIX RECORDING S TUDIO
and/ or CESAR C. LIRIO (Owner), have illegally dismissed complainant in his status as regular employee and,
consequently, ORDERING said respondents:
1) To pay him full backwages from date of illegal dismissal on March 14, 2002 until
finality of this decision and, in lieu of reinstatement, to [pay] his separation pay of one
(1) month pay per year of service reckoned from [the] date of hire on August 15, 2001
until finality of this decision, which as of date amounts to full backwages total of
145,778.6 (basic P7,000.00 x 19.6 mos.=P133,000.00 + 1/12 thereof as 13th
month
pay of P11,083.33 + SILP P7,000/32.62 days=P214.59/day x 5=P1,072.96 x 1.58
yrs.=P1,695.27); separation pay of P22,750.00 (P7,000.00 x 3.25 yrs.);
2) To pay complainant's unpaid commission of P2,000.00;
3) To pay him moral and exemplary damages in the combined amount of P75,000.00.
Other monetary claims of complainant are dismissed for lack of merit.[7]
The Labor Arbiter stated that petitioner’s denial of the employment relationship cannot overcome respondent’s positive
assertion and documentary evidence proving that petitioner hired respondent as his employee.[8]
Petitioner appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commissio n (NLRC).
In a Resolution7
dated October 14, 2004, the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The dispositive
portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision appealed from is
REVERSED and, hence, SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED dismissing the instant case for lack of merit. [9]
The NLRC stated that respondent failed to prove his employment tale with substantial evidence. Although the NLRC agreed
that respondent was able to prove that he received gross pay less deduction and net pay, with the corresponding Certification of
Correctness by petitioner, covering the period from July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002, the NLRC held that respondent failed to proved
with substantial evidence that he was selected and engaged by petitioner, that petitioner had the power to dismiss him, and that
they had the power to control him not only as to the result of his work, but also as to the means and methods of accomplishing his
work.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution9
dated December 14, 2004.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
On August 4, 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision[10]
reversing and setting aside the resolution of the NLRC, and
reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter, with modification in regard to the award of commission and damages. The Court of
Appeals deleted the award of commission, and moral and exemplary damages as the same were not substantiated. The dispositive
portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed resolutions dated October 14, 2004 and
December 14, 2004 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the decision dated October 31, 2003
of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED, with the modification that the awards of commission and damages
are deleted.[11]
(Emphasis supplied.)

of 17
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution[12]
dated
September 21, 2005.
Hence, petitioner Lirio filed this petition.
Petitioner states that respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which will
prosper only if there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
NLRC.[13]
However, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals decided the case not in accordance with law and applicable rulings
of this Court as petitioner could not find any portion in the Decision of the Court of Appeals ruling that the NLRC acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner submits that the Court
of Appeals could not review an error of judgment by the NLRC raised before it on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, petitioner contends that it was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to review the finding of
facts of the NLRC on whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Petitioner’s argument lacks merit.
It is noted that respondent correctly sought judicial review of the decision of the NLRC via a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court filed before the Court of Appeals in accordance with the decision of the Court in St. Martin Funeral Home
v. NLRC,[14]
which held:
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC
to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorariunder
Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in
strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. [15]
The Court of Appeals stated in its decision that the issue it had to resolve was “whether or not the public respondent
[NLRC] committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared that no employer-employee relationship exists between the
petitioner and the private respondents, since the petitioner failed to prove such fact by substantial evidence.”[16]
Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a special civil action
for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[17]
By grave abuse of discretion is meant
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the di scretion
was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.[18]
The Court of Appeals, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or
resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is ma terial to or
decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties.[19]
Necessarily,
the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capricio usly,
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record.[20]
Thus, contrary to the contention of
petitioner, the Court of Appeals can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the evidence of the parties to determine whether the
NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.[21]
Respondent raised before the Court of Appeals the following issues:
I. RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS EXISTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO THE FORMER, IN VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PROVISION OF
LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE.
II. RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
III. RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN DISREGARDING THE PETITIONER'S PAYROLL AND THE PETTY CASH VOUCHERS AS AN INDICIA OF
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.[22]
Between the documentary evidence presented by respondent and the mere allegation of petitioner without any proof by
way of any document evincing their alleged partnership agreement, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Labor Arbiter that
petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he had a partnership with respondent, citing the Labor Arbiter’s finding, th us:
In this case, complainant's evidence is substantial enough to prove the employment relationship that on
August 14, 2001, he was hired as 'Studio manager' by respondent Lirio to manage and operate the recording
studio and to promote and sell its services to music enthusiasts and clients, proven by his receipt for this purpose
from said respondent a fixed monthly compensation of P7,000.00, with commission of P100.00 per hour when
serving as recording technician, shown by the payroll from July 31, 2001-March 15, 2002. The said evidence points

of 17
to complainant's hiring as employee so that the case comes within the purview of our jurisdiction on labor disputes
between an employer and an employee. x x x.
Respondent Lirio's so-called existence of a partnership agreement was not substantiated and
his assertion thereto, in the face of complainant's evidence, constitute but a self-serving assertion,
without probative value, a mere invention to justify the illegal dismissal.
x x x x
Indeed, we find credible that what caused complainant's dismissal on March 14, 2002 was due to his
refusal to respondent's Lirio's insistences on merely giving him 20% based on net profit on sale of the album which
he composed and arranged during his free time and, moreover, that salaries which he received would be deducted
therefrom, which obviously, soured the relations from the point of view of responde nt Lirio.[23]
Hence, based on the finding above and the doctrine that “if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer
and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter,”[24]
the Court of Appeals reversed the resolution of the
NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification. Even if the Court of Appeals was remiss in not stating it in
definite terms, it is implied that the Court of Appeals found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that no employer-
employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent based on the evidence on record.
We now proceed to the main issue raised before this Court: Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals is in
accordance with law, or whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing and setting aside the decision of the NLRC, and
reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification.
In petitions for review, only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court. This rule, however, is not ironclad.[25]
Where
the issue is shrouded by a conflict of factual perceptions by the lower court or the lower administrative body, in this case, the NLRC,
this Court is constrained to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[26]
Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, it must first be established that an employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent.[27]
The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduc t.
The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done,
but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[28]
It is settled that no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.[29]
Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitte d.[30]
In this case, the documentary evidence presented by respondent to prove that he was an employee of petitioner are as
follows: (a) a document denominated as "payroll" (dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002) certified correct by petitioner,[31]
which
showed that respondent received a monthly salary of P7,000.00 (P3,500.00 every 15th
of the month and another P3,500.00 every
30th
of the month) with the corresponding deductions due to absences incurred by respondent; and (2) copies of petty cash
vouchers,[32]
showing the amounts he received and signed for in the payrolls.
The said documents showed that petitioner hired respondent as an employee and he was paid monthly wages
of P7,000.00. Petitioner wielded the power to dismiss as respondent stated that he was verbally dismissed by petitioner, and
respondent, thereafter, filed an action for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The power of control refers merely to the existence of
the power.[33]
It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient
that the former has a right to wield the power.[34]
Nevertheless, petitioner stated in his Position Paper that it was agreed that he
would help and teach respondent how to use the studio equipment. In such case, petitioner certainly had the power to check on the
progress and work of respondent.
On the other hand, petitioner failed to prove that his relationship with respondent was one of partnership. Such claim was
not supported by any written agreement. The Court notes that in the payroll dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002,[35]
there were
deductions from the wages of respondent for his absence from work, which negates petitioner’s claim that the wages paid were
advances for respondent’s work in the partnership. In Nicario v. National Labor Relations Commission,[36]
the Court held:
It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies
between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of
agreements and writing should be resolved in the former’s favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater
number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of
the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor. This rule should be applied in the case at bar, especially
since the evidence presented by the private respondent company is not convincing. x x x [37]
Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by the parties showed that
an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.

of 17
In termination cases, the burden is upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination was for lawf ul
cause and validly made.[38]
Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code[39]
puts the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for
a valid or authorized cause on the employer, without distinction whether the employer admits or does not admit the dismissal.[40]
For
an employee’s dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause, and (b) the employee must be afforded due
process.[41]
Procedural due process requires the employer to furnish an employee with two written notices before the latter is
dismissed: (1) the notice to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, which is the
equivalent of a charge; and (2) the notice informing the employee of his dismissal, to be issued after the employee has been given
reasonable opportunity to answer and to be heard on his defense.[42]
Petitioner failed to comply with these legal requirements;
hence, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that respondent was ille gally dismissed, and entitled to the
payment of backwages, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88899, dated August 4,
2005, and its Resolution dated September 21, 2005, areAFFIRMED.
No costs.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
A n act to institute the policies of overseas employment and establish a
higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant
workers, their families and overseas Filipinos in distress, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
P hilippines in C ongress assembled:
SEC . 1. SHORT T ITLE. - T his act shall be known and cited as the
"M igrant Workers and O verseas Filipinos A ct of 1995."
SEC . 2. DECLARATION O F POLICIES--
(a) In the pursuit of an independent foreign policy and while
considering national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest
and the right to self-determination paramount in its relations with
other states, the State shall, at all times, uphold the dignity of its
citizens whether in country or overseas, in general, and Filipino
migrant workers, in particular.
(b) T he State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality
of employment opportunities for all. T owards this end, the State shall
provide adequate and timely social, economic and legal services to
Filipino migrant workers.
(c) While recognizing the significant contribution of Filipino migrant
workers to the national economy through their foreign exchange
remittances, the State does not promote overseas employment as a
means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development.
T he existence of the overseas employment program rests solely on the
assurance that the dignity and fundamental human rights and
freedoms of the Filipino citizens shall not, at any time, be
compromised or violated. T he State, therefore, shall continuously
create local employment opportunities and promote the equitable
distribution of wealth and the benefits of development.
(d) T he State affirms the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men and the significant role of women in nation-building.
Recognizing the contribution of overseas migrant women workers and
their particular vulnerabilities, the State shall apply gender sensitive
criteria in the formulation and implementation of policies and programs
affecting migrant workers and the composition of bodies tasked for the
welfare of migrant workers.
(e) Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any persons by reason of
poverty. In this regard, it is imperative that an effective mechanism be
instituted to ensure that the rights and interest of distressed overseas

of 17
Filipinos, in general, and Filipino migrant workers, in particular,
documented or undocumented, are adequately protected and
safeguarded.
(f) T he right of Filipino migrant workers and all overseas Filipinos to
participate in the democratic decision-making processes of the State
and to be represented in institutions relevant to overseas employment
is recognized and guaranteed.
(g) T he State recognizes that the ultimate protection to all migrant
workers is the possession of skills. P ursuant to this and as soon as
practicable, the government shall deploy and/or allow the deployment
only to skilled Filipino workers.
(h) Non-governmental organizations, duly recognized as legitimate,
are partners of the State in the protection of Filipino migrant workers
and in the promotion of their welfare, the State shall cooperate with
them in a spirit of trust and mutual respect.
(I) Government fees and other administrative costs of recruitment,
introduction, placement and assistance to migrant workers shall be
rendered free without prejudice to the provision of Section 36 hereof.
Nonetheless, the deployment of Filipino overseas workers, whether
land-based or sea-based by local service contractors and manning
agencies employing them shall be encouraged. A ppropriate incentives
may be extended to them.
SEC . 3. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this A ct:
(a) "M igrant worker" refers to a person who is to be engaged, is
engaged or has been engaged in a renumerated activity in a state of
which he or she is not a legal resident to be used interchangeably with
overseas Filipino worker.
(b) "Gender-sensitivity" shall mean cognizance of the inequalities and
inequities prevalent in society between women and men and a
commitment to address issues with concern for the respective
interests of the sexes.
(c) "O verseas Filipinos" refers to dependents of migrant workers and
other Filipino nationals abroad who are in distress as mentioned in
Sections 24 and 26 of this Act.
I. DEPLOYMENT
SEC . 4. Deployment of M igrant Workers - T he State shall deploy
overseas Filipino workers only in countries where the rights of Filipino
migrant workers are protected. T he government recognizes any of the
following as guarantee on the part of the receiving country for the
protection and the rights of overseas Filipino workers:
(a) It has existing labor and social laws protecting the rights of
migrant workers;
(b) It is a signatory to multilateral conventions, declaration or
resolutions relating to the protection of migrant workers;
(c) It has concluded a bilateral agreement or arrangement with the
government protecting the rights of overseas Filipino workers; and
(d) It is taking positive, concrete measures to protect the rights of
migrant workers.
SEC . 5. T ERMINATION OR BAN ON DEPLOYMENT - Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 4 hereof, the government, in pursuit of the
national interest or when public welfare so requires, may, at any time,
terminate or impose a ban on the deployment of migrant workers.
II. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this A ct, illegal recruitment
shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for
profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of
authority contemplated under A rticle 13(f) of P residential Decree No.
442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor C ode of the
P hilippines. P rovided, 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 persons, whether a non-
licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
(a) T o charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than
the specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any
amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or
advance;
(b) T o furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in
relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) T o give any false notice, testimony, information or document or
commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a
license or authority under the Labor C ode;
(d) T o induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit
his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is
designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of
employment;
(e) T o influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not to
employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his
agency;
(f) T o engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs
harmful to public health or morality or to dignity of the R epublic of the
P hilippines;
(g) T o obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) T o fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
vacancies, remittances of foreign exchange earnings, separations from
jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be
required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) T o substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment
contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up
to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to
become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged
in travel agency or to be engaged directly on indirectly in the
management of a travel agency;
(k) T o withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers
before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than
those authorized under the Labor C ode and its implementing rules and
regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by
the Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take
place without the worker's fault. Illegal rec ruitment when committed
by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving
economic sabotage.

of 17
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by
a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with
one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
T he persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers
having control, management or direction of their business shall be
liable.
SEC. 7. PENALTIES -
(a) A ny 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 fine not less than two
hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00) nor more than five hundred
thousand pesos (P 500,000.00).
(b) T he penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five
hundred thousand pesos (P 500,000.00) nor more than one million
pesos (P 1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
P rovided, 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.
SEC . 8. P ROHIBITION ON OFFICIALS A ND EMPLOYEES. - O t shall be
unlawful for any official or employee of the Department of Labor and
Employment, the P hilippine Overseas Employment Administration, or
the O verseas Workers Welfare A dministration, or the Department of
Foreign A ffairs, or other government agencies involved in the
implementation of this A ct, or their relatives within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, to engage, directly or indirectly, in
the business of recruiting migrant workers as defined in this A ct. T he
penalties shall be imposed upon them.
SEC . 9. V ENUE. - A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as
defined herein shall be filed with the Regional T rial Court of the
province or city where the offense was committed or where the
offended party actually resides at the same time of the commission of
the offense: P rovided, T hat the court where the criminal action is first
filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
P rovided, however, T hat the aforestated provisions shall also apply to
those criminal actions that have already been filed in court at the time
of the effectivity of this A ct.
SEC . 10. M ONEY C LAIMS. - Botwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary, the Labor A rbiters of the National Labor Relations
C ommission (NLRC) shall have the priginal and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after 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.
T he liability of the principal/employer and the
recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section
shall be joint and several. T his provisions shall be incorporated in the
contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent
for its approval. T he performance bond to be filed by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to
the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being,
the corporate officers 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.
Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or
duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any
substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign
country of the said contract.
A ny compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary
agreement on money claims inclusive of damages under this section
shall be paid within four (4) months from the approval of the
settlement by the appropriate authority.
In case of termination of overseas employment without
just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the
workers 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.
Non-compliance with the mandatory periods for resolutions
of cases provided under this section shall subject the responsible
officials to any or all of the following penalties:
(a) T he s alary of any such official who fails to render his
decision or resolutions within the prescribed period shall be, or caused
to be, withheld until the said official complies therewith;
(b) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days; or
(c) Dismissal from the service with disqualifications to hold
any appointive public office for five (5) years.
P rovided, however, that the penalties herein provided shall
be without prejudice to any liability which any such official may have
incurred under other existing laws or rules and regulations as a
consequence of violating the provisions of this paragraph.
SEC. 11. M ANADATORY P ERIODS FOR RESOLUTION OF
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT CASES. - T he preliminary investigations of
cases under this Act shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of their filing. Where the preliminary
investigation is conducted by a prosecution officer and a prima facie
case is established, the corresponding information shall be filed in
court within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the
investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge
and a prima facie case is found to exist, prosecution officer within
forty-eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the records of the
case.
SEC. 12. P RESCRIPTIVE PERIODS. - Illegal recruitment
cases under this Act shall prescribe in five (5) years: P rovided,
however, T hat illegal recruitment cases involving economic sabotage
as defined herein shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.
SEC. 13. FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE, P REFERENTIAL
ENT ITLEMENT U NDER T HE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM. - A
mechanism for free legal assistance for victims of illegal recruitment
shall be es tablished within the Department of Labor and Employment
including its regional offices. Such mechanism must include
coordination and cooperation with the Department of Justice, the
Integrated Bar of the P hilippines, and other non-governmental
organizations and volunteer groups.
T he provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 to the contrary,
notwithstanding, any person who is a victim of illegal recruitment shall
be entitled to the Witness P rotection Program provided thereunder.
III. SERVICES
SEC. 14. T RAVEL ADVISORY/INFORMATION
DISSEMINATION. - T o give utmost priority to the establishment of
programs and services to prevent illegal recruitment, fraud, and
exploitation or abuse of Filipino migrant workers, all embassies and
cons ular offices, through the P hilippine O verseas Employment
A dministration (P OEA), shall issue travel advisories or disseminate
information on labor and employment conditions, migration realities
and other facts; and adherence of particular countries to international
standards on human and workers' rights which will adequately prepare
individuals into making informed and intelligent decisions about
overseas employment. Such advisory or information shall be published

of 17
in a newspaper of general circulation at least three (3) times in every
quarter.
SEC. 15. REPATRIATION OF WORKERS; EMERGENCY
REPATRIATION FUND. - T he repatriation of the worker and the
transport of his personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility
of the agency which recruited or deployed the worker overseas. A ll
costs attendant to repatriation shall be borne by or charged to the
agency concerned and/or its principal. Likewise, the repatriation of
remains and transport of the personal belongings of a deceased worker
and all costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the principal and/or
local agency. However, in cases where the termination of employment
is due solely to the fault of the worker, the principal/employer or
agency shall not in any manner be responsible for the repatriation of
the former and/or his belongings.
T he O verseas Workers Welfare Administration (O WWA), in
coordination ith appropriate international agencies, shall undertake the
repatriation of workers in cases of war, epidemic, disasters or
calamities, natural or man-made, and other similar events without
prejudice to reimbursement by the responsible principal or agency.
However, in cases where the principal or recruitment agency cannot be
identified, all costs attendant to repatriation shall be borne by the
O WWA .
For this purposes, there is hereby created and established
an emergency repatriation fund under the administration control and
supervision of the O WWA , initially to consist of one hundred million
pesos (P 100,000,000.00), inclusive of outstanding balances.
SEC. 16. M ANDATORY REPATRIATION O F U NDERAGE
M IGRANT WO RKERS. - U pon discovery or being informed of the
presence of migrant workers whose actual ages fall below the
minimum age requirement for overseas deployment, the responsible
officers in the foreign service shall without delay repatriate said
workers and advise the Department of Foreign A ffairs through the
fastest means of communication availavle of such discovery and other
relevant information.
SEC. 17. ESTABLISHMENT OF RE-PLACEMENT AND
M O NITORING C ENTER. - A replacement and monitoring center is
hereby created in the Department of Labor and Employment for
returning Filipino migrant workers which shall provide a mechanism for
their reintegration into the P hilippine society, serve as a promotion
house for their local employment, and tap their skills and potentials for
national development.
T he Department of Labor and Employment, the O verseas
Workers Welfare A dministration, and the P hilippine O verseas
Employment Administration shall, within ninety (90) days from the
effectivity of this A ct, formulate a program that would motivate
migrant workers to plan for productive options such as entry into
highly technical jobs or undertakings, livelihood and entrepreneurial
development, better wage employment, and investment of savings.
For this purpose, the T echnical Education and Skills
Development A uthority (T ESDA), the T echnology Livelihood Resource
C enter (T LRC), and other government agencies involved in training
and livelihood development shall give priority to return who had been
employed as domestic helpers and entertainers.
SEC. 18. FU NCTIONS OF T HE RE-PLACEMENT AND
M O NITORING C ENTER. - T he center shall provide the following service:
(a) Develop livelihood programs and projects for returning
Filipino migrant workers in coordination with the private sector;
(b) C oordinate with appropriate private and government
agencies the promotion, development, re-placement and the full
utilization of their potentials;
(c) Institute in cooperation with other government agencies
concerned, a computer-based information system on skilled Filipino
migrant workers which s hall be accessible to all local recruitment
agencies and employers, both public and private;
(d) P rovide a periodic study and assessment of job
opportunities for returning Filipino migrant workers.
SEC. 19. ESTABLISHMENT OF A M IGRANT WO RKERS AND
O T HER OVERSEAS FILIPINOS RESOURCE C ENTER. - Within the
premises and under the administrative jurisdiction of the P hilippine
Embassy in countries where there are large concentrations of Filipino
migrant workers, there shall be establish a M igrant Workers and O ther
O verseas Filipinos Resource Center with the following services:
(a) C ounseling and legal services;
(b) Welfare assistance including the procurement of medical
and hospitalization services;
(c) Information, advisory and programs to promote social
integration such as post-arrival orientation, settlement and community
networking services for social integration;
(d) Institute a scheme of registration of undocumented
workers to bring them within the purview of this A ct. For this purpose,
the C enter is enjoined to compel existing undocumented workers to
register with it within six (6) months from the effectivity of this A ct,
under pain of having his/her passport cancelled;
(e) Human resource development, such as training and
skills upgrading;
(f) Gender sensitive programs and activities to assist
particular needs of women migrant workers;
(g) O rientation program for returning workers and other
migrants; and
(h) M onitoring of daily situations, circumstances and
activities affecting migrant workers and other overseas Filipinos.
T he establishment and operations of the C enter shall be a
joint undertaking of the various government agencies. T he Center shall
be open for twenty-four (24) hours daily, including Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays, and shall be staffed by Foreign Service
personnel, service attaches or officers who represent other
organizations from the host countries. In countries categorized as
highly problematic by the Department of Foreign A ffairs and the
Department of Labor and Employment and where there is a
concentration of Filipino migrant workers, the government must
provide a lawyer and a social worker for the C enter. T he Labor A ttache
shall coordinate the operation of the C enter and shall keep the C hief of
M ission informed and updated on all matters affecting it.
T he C enter shall have a counterpart 24-hour information
and assistance center at the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure a
continuous network and coordinative mechanism at the home office.
SEC . 20. ESTABLISHMENT OF A SHARED GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR M IGRATION. - A n inter-agency committee
composed of the Department of Foreign Affairs and its attached
agency, the C ommission on Filipino Overseas, the Department of Labor
and Employment, the P hilippine Overseas Employment A dministration,
T he O verseas Workers Welfare A dministration, T he Department of
T ourism, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Immigration, the
National Bureau of Investigation, and the National Statistics Office
shall be established to implement a shared government information
system for migration. T he inter-agency committee shall initially make
available to itself the information contained in existing data
bases/files. T he second phase shall involve linkaging of computer
facilities in order to allow free-flow data exchanges and sharing among
concerned agencies.

of 17
T he inter-agency committee shall convene to identify
existing data bases which shall be declassified and shared among
member agencies. T hese shared data bases shall initially include, but
not limited to, the following information:
(a) M asterlists of departing/arriving Filipinos;
(b) Inventory of pending legal cases involving Filipino
migrant workers and other Filipino nationals, including those serving
prison terms;
(c) M asterlists of departing/arriving Filipinos;
(d) Statistical profile on Filipino migrant workers/overseas
Filipinos/Tourists;
(e) Blacklisted foreigners/undesirable aliens;
(f) Basic data on legal systems, immigration policies,
marriage laws and civil and criminal codes in receiving countries
particularly those with the large numbers of Filipinos;
(g) List of labor and other human rights instruments where
receiving countries are signatories;
(h) A tracking system of past and present gender
disaggregated cases involving male and female migrant workers; and
(I) Listing of overseas posts which may render assistance
to overseas Filipinos, in general, and migrant workers, in particular.
SEC . 21. M IGRANT WORKERS LOAN GUARANTEE FUND. -
In order to further prevent unscrupulous illegal recruiters from taking
advantage of workers seeking employment abroad, the O WWA , in
coordination with government financial institutions, shall institute
financing schemes that will expand the grant of pre-departure loan and
family assistance loan. For this purpose, a M igrant Workers Loan
Guarantee Fund is hereby created and the revolving amount of one
hundred million pesos (P 100,000,000.00) from the O WWA is set aside
as a guarantee fund in favor of participating government financial
institutions.
SEC . 22. RIGHTS AND ENFORCEMENT M ECHANISM UNDER
INT ERNATIONAL A ND REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SY STEMS. - T he
Department of Foreign A ffairs is mandated to undertake the necessary
initiative such as promotions, acceptance or adherence of countries
receiving Filipino workers to multilateral convention, declaration or
resolutions pertaining to the protection of migrant workers' rights. T he
Department of Foreign A ffairs is also mandated to make an
assessment of rights and avenues of redress under international and
regional human rights systems that are available to Filipino migrant
workers who are victims of abuse and violation and, as far as
practicable and through the Legal A ssistant for M igrant Workers A ffairs
created under this Act, pursue the same on behalf of the victim if it is
legally impossible to file individual complaints. If a complaints
machinery is available under international or regional systems, the
Department of Foreign A ffairs shall fully apprise the Filipino migrant
workers of the existence and effectiveness of such legal options.
IV. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
SEC . 23. RO LE OF GOVERNMENT A GENCIES. - T he
following government agencies shall perform the following to promote
the welfare and protect the rights of migrant workers and, as far as
applicable, all overseas Filipinos:
(a) Department of Foreign A ffairs. - T he Department,
through its home office or foreign posts, shall take priority action its
home office or foreign posts, shall take priority action or make
representation with the foreign authority concerned to protect the
rights of migrant workers and other overseas Filipinos and extend
immediate assistance including the repatriation of distressed or
beleaguered migrant workers and other overseas Filipinos;
(b) Department of Labor and Employment - T he
Department of Labor and Employment shall see to it that labor and
social welfare laws in the foreign countries are fairly applied to migrant
workers and whenever applicable, to other overseas Filipinos including
the grant of legal assistance and the referral to proper medical centers
or hospitals:
(b.1) P hilippine Overseas Employment Administration -
Subject to deregulation and phase out as provided under Sections 29
and 30 herein, the A dministration 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 employment of Filipino workers taking into
consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower requirements.
(b.2) O verseas Workers Welfare A dministration - T he
Welfare O fficer or in his absence, the coordinating officer shall provide
the Filipino migrant worker and his family all the assistance they may
need in the enforcement of contractual obligations by agencies or
entities and/or by their principals. In the performance of this functions,
he shall make representation and may call on the agencies or entities
concerned to conferences or conciliation meetings for the purpose of
settling the complaints or problems brought to his attention.
V. THE LEGAL ASSISTANT FOR MIGRANT WORKERS AFFAIRS
SEC . 24. LEGAL ASSISTANT FOR M IGRANT WO RKERS
A FFAIRS. - T here is hereby created the position of Legal Assistant for
M igrant Workers Affairs under the Department of Foreign A ffairs who
shall be primarily responsible for the provision and overall coordination
of all legal assistance services to be provided to Filipino migrant
workers as well as overseas Filipinos in distress. He shall have the
rank, salary and privileges equal to that of an undersecretary of said
Department.
T he said Legal A ssistant for M igrant Workers A ffairs shall
be appointed by the P resident and must be of proven competence in
the field of law with at least ten (1 0) years of experience as a legal
practitioner and must not have been a candidate to an elective office
in the last local or national elections.
A mong the functions and responsibilities of the aforesaid
Legal A ssistant are:
(a) T o issue the guidelines, procedures and criteria for the
provisions of legal assistance services to Filipino migrant workers;
(b) T o establish close linkages with the Department of
Labor and Employment, the P OEA, the O WWA and other government
agencies concerned, as well as with non-governmental organizations
assisting migrant workers, to ensure effective coordination and
cooperation in the provision of legal assistance to migrant workers;
(c) T o tap the assistance of reputable law firms and the
Integrated Bar of the P hilippines and other bar associations to
complement the government's efforts to provide legal assistance to
migrant workers;
(d) T o administer the legal assistance fund for migrant
workers established under Section 25 hereof and to authorize
disbursements there from in accordance with the purposes for which
the fund was set up; and
(e) T o keep and maintain the information system as
provided in Section 20.
T he legal A ssistant for M igrant Workers A ffairs shall have
authority to hire private lawyers, domestic or foreign, in order to assist
him in the effective discharge of the above functions.
SEC . 25. LEGAL A SSISTANCE FU ND - T here is hereby
established a legal assistance fund for migrant workers, herein after

of 17
referred to as Legal A ssistance fund, in the amount of O ne hundred
million pesos (P 100,000,000.00) to be constituted from the following
sources:
Fifty million pesos (P 50,000,000.00) from the C ontingency
Fund of the P resident;
T hirty million pesos (P 30,000,000.00) from the P residential
Social Fund; and
T wenty million pesos (P 20,000,000.00) from the Welfare
Fund for O verseas Workers established under Letter of Instruction No.
537, as amended by P residential Decree Nos. 1694 and 1809.
A ny balances of existing fund which have been set aside by
the government specifically as legal assistance or defense fund to help
migrant workers shall, upon effectivity of this A ct, to be turned over
to, and form part of, the Fund created under this Act.
SEC . 26. U SES OF THE LEGAL ASSISTANCE FUND. - T he
Legal A ssistance Fund created under the preceeding section shall be
used exclusively to provide legal services to migrant workers and
overseas Filipinos in distress in accordance witht the guidelines,
criteria and procedures promulgated in accordance with Section 24 (a)
hereof. T he expenditures to be charged against the Fund shall include
the fees for the foreign lawyers to be hired by the Legal A ssistance for
M igrant Workers Affairs to represent migrant workers facing charges
abroad, bail bonds to secure the temporary release of workers under
detention, court fees and charges and other litigation expenses.
VI. COUNTRY - TEAM APPROACH
SEC . 27. P RIORITY CONCERNS OF P HILIPPINE FOREIGN
SERVICE POSTS. - T he country team approach, as enunciated under
Executive O rder No. 74, series of 1993, shall be the mode under which
P hilippine embassies or their personnel will operate in the protection of
the Filipino migrant workers as well as in the promotion of their
welfare. T he protection of the Filipino migrant workers and the
promotion of their welfare, in particular, and the protection of the
dignity and fundamental rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizen
abroad, in general, shall be the highest priority concerns of the
Secretary of Foreign A ffairs and the P hilippine Foreign Service P osts.
SEC . 28. C OUNTRY-TEAM APPROACH. - U nder the country-
team approach, all officers, representatives and personnel of the
P hilippine government posted abroad regardless of their mother
agencies shall, on a per country basis, act as one country-team with a
mission under the leadership of the ambassador. In this regard, the
ambassador may recommend to the Secretary of the Department of
Foreign A ffairs the recall of officers, representatives and personnel of
the P hilippine government posted abroad for acts inimical to the
national interest such as, but not limited to, failure to provide the
necessary services to protect the rights of overseas Filipinos.
U pon receipt of the recommendation of the ambassador,
the Secretary of the Department of Foreign A ffairs shall, in the case of
officers, representatives and personnel of other departments, endorse
such recommendation to the department secretary concerned for
appropriate action. P ending investigation by an appropriate body in the
P hilippines, the person recommended for recall may be placed under
preventive suspension by the ambassador.
In host countries where there are P hilippine consulates,
such consulates shall also constitute part of the country-team under
the leadership of the ambassador.
In the implementation of the country-team approach,
visiting Philippine delegations shall be provided full support and
information.
VII. DEREGULATION AND PHASE-OUT
SEC. 29. COMPREHENSIVE DEREGULATION PLAN ON
REC RUITMENT ACTIVITIES. - P ursuant to a progressive policy of
deregulation whereby the migration of workers becomes strictly a
matter between the worker and his foreign employer, the DO LE within
one (1) year from the effectivity of this A ct, is hereby mandated to
formulate a five-year comprehensive deregulation plan on recruitment
activities taking into account labor market trends, economic conditions
of the country and emergency circumstances which may affect the
welfare of migrant workers.
SEC. 30. GRADUAL PHASE-OUT O F REGULATORY
FU NCTIONS. - Within a period of five (5) years from the effectivity of
this A ct, the DO LE shall phase out the regulatory functions of the POEA
pursuant to the objectives of deregulation.
V II. P ROFESSIONAL AND O THER HIGHLY-SKILLED FILIPINOS A BROAD
SEC. 31. INCENTIVES TO P ROFESSIONALS AND OTHER
HIGHLY-SKILLED FILIPINOS ABROAD. - P ursuant to the objective of
encouraging professionals and other highly-skilled Filipinos abroad
especially in the field of science and technology to participate in, and
contribute to national development, the government shall provide
proper and adequate incentives and programs so as to secure their
services in priority development areas of the public and private
sectors.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 32. P OEA AND OWWA BOARD; A DDITIONAL
M EM BERSHIPS. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,
the respective Boards of the P O EA and the O WWA shall, in addition to
their present composition, have three (3) members each who shall
come from the women, sea-based and land-based sectors,
respectively, to be appointed by the P resident in the same manner as
the other members.
SEC. 33. REPORT T O CONGRESS. - In order to inform the
P hilippine C ongress on the implementation of the policy enunciated in
Section 4 hereof, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the
Department of Labor and Employment shall submit to the said body a
semi-annual report of P hilippine foreign posts located in countries
hosting Filipino migrant workers. T he report shall not be limited to the
following information:
(a) M asterlist of Filipino migrant workers, and inventory of
pending cases involving them and other Filipino nationals including
those serving prison terms;
(b) Working conditions of Filipino migrant workers;
(c) P roblems encountered by the migrant workers,
specifically violations of their rights;
(d) Initiative/actions taken by the P hilippine foreign posts
to address the problems of Filipino migrant workers;
(e) C hanges in the laws and policies of host countries; and
(f) Status of negotiations on bilateral labor agreements
between the P hilippines and the host country.
A ny officer of the government who fails to report as stated
in the preceeding section shall be subjected to administrative penalty.
SEC. 34. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. - P ursuant to
Section 3(2), A rticle VI of the C onstitution and in line with the
objective of empowering overseas Filipinos to participate in the policy -
making process to address Filipino migrant concerns, two (2) sectoral
representatives for migrant workers in the House of Representatives
shall be appointed by the P resident from the ranks of migrant workers:
P rovided, that at least one (1) of the two (2) sectoral representatives
shall come from the women migrant workers sector: P rovided, further,

of 17
that all nominees must have at least two (2) years experience as a
migrant worker.
SEC. 35. EXEMPTION FROM T RAVEL TAX A ND AIRPORT
FEE. - A ll laws to the country notwithstanding, the migrant worker
shall be exempt from the payment of travel tax and airport fee upon
proper showing of proof of entitlement by the P OEA.
SEC. 36. NON-INCREASE OF FEES; A BOLITION OF
REPATRIATION BOND. - U pon approval of this A ct, all fees being
charged by any government office on migrant workers shall remain at
their present levels and the repatriation bond shall be established.
SEC. 37. T HE CONGRESSIONAL M IGRANT WORKERS
SC HOLARSHIP FUND. - T here is hereby created a C ongressional
M igrant Workers Scholarship Fund which shall benefit deserving
migrant workers and/or their immediate descendants below twenty -
one (21) years of age who intent to pursue courses or training
primarily in the field of science and technology. T he initial seed fund of
two hundred million pesos (P 200,000,000.00) shall be constituted
from the following sources:
(a) Fifty million pesos (P 50,000,000.00) from the
unexpected C ountrywide Development Fund for 1995 in equal sharing
by all members of C ongress; and
(b) T he remaining one hundred fifty million pesos
(P 150,000,000.00) shall be funded from the proceeds of Lotto.
T he C ongressional M igrant Workers Scholarship Fund as
herein created shall be administered by the DOLE in coordination with
the Department of Science and T echnology (DOST). T o carry out the
objectives of this section, the DO LE and the DO ST shall formulate the
necessary rules and regulations.
SEC. 38. A PPROPRIATION AND OTHER SOURCES OF
FU NDING. - T he amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this
A ct shall be provided for in the General A ppropriations A ct of the yea r
following its enactment into law and thereafter.
SEC. 39. M IGRANT WORKERS DAY. - T he day of signing by
the P resident of this A ct shall be designated as the M igrant Workers
Day and shall henceforth be commemorated as such annually.
SEC. 40. IMPLEMENTING RULES A ND REGULATIONS. - T he
departments and agencies charged with carrying out the provisions of
this A ct shall, within ninety (90) days after the effectivity of this Act,
formulate the necessary rules and regulations for its effective
implementation.
SEC. 41. REPEATING C LAUSE. - A ll laws, decrees, executive
orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 42. SEPARABILITY C LAUSE. - If, for any reason, any
section or provision of this A ct is held unconstitutional or invalid, the
other sections or provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 43. EFFECTIVITY C LAUSE. - T his Act shall take effect
after fifteen (15) days from its publication in the O fficial Gazette or in
at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation whichever
comes earlier.

199072783 labor-case1

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a 199072783 labor-case1

Semelhante a 199072783 labor-case1 (20)

Mais de homeworkping4

Mais de homeworkping4 (20)

Último

Último (20)

199072783 labor-case1