1. ESALYN CHAVEZ vs. HON.

EDNA BONTO-PEREZ
G.R. No. 109808 (March 1, 1995)
FACTS: Chavez is a dancer who was contracted by Centrum
Placement & Promotions Corporation to perform in Japan for
6 months. The contract was for $1.5k a month, which was
approved by POEA. After the approval of said contract,
Chavez entered into a side contract reducing her salary with
her Japanese employer through her local manager-agency
(Jaz Talents Promotion). The salary was reduced to $500 and
$750 was to go to Jaz Talents. In February 1991 (two years
after the expiration of her contract), Chavez sued Centrum
Placement and Jaz Talents for underpayment of wages before
the POEA.
The POEA ruled against her. POEA stated that the side
agreement entered into by Chavez with her Japanese
employer superseded the Standard Employment Contract;
that POEA had no knowledge of such side agreement being
entered into; that Chavez is barred by laches for sleeping on
her right for two years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Chavez is entitled to relief.
HELD:
Yes. The SC ruled that the managerial commission agreement
executed by Chavez to authorize her Japanese Employer to
deduct her salary is void because it is against our existing
laws, morals and public policy. It cannot supersede the
standard employment contract approved by the POEA with
the following stipulation appended thereto:
It is understood that the terms and conditions stated in this
Employment Contract are in conformance with the Standard
Employment Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the
POEA under Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. Any
alterations or changes made in any part of this contract
without prior approval by the POEA shall be null and void;
The side agreement which reduced Chavezs basic wage is
null and void for violating the POEAs minimum employment

standards, and for not having been approved by the POEA.

Here, both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents are solidarily
liable.
Laches does not apply in the case at bar. In this case, Chavez
filed her claim well within the three-year prescriptive period
for the filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the
Labor Code. For this reason, laches is not applicable.
2. JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and
KARY INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 120095 August 5, 1996
FACTS: Due to the death of one Maricris Sioson in 1991,
Cory banned the deployment of performing artists to Japan
and other destinations. This was relaxed however with the
introduction of the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council
which later proposed a plan to POEA to screen and train
performing artists seeking to go abroad. In pursuant to the
proposal POEA and the secretary of DOLE sought a 4 step
plan to realize the plan which included an Artists Record
Book which a performing artist must acquire prior to being
deployed abroad. The Federation of Talent Managers of the
Philippines assailed the validity of the said regulation as it
violated the right to travel, abridge existing contracts and
rights and deprives artists of their individual rights. JMM
intervened to bolster the cause of FETMOP. The lower court
ruled in favor of EIAC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation by EIAC is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the lower court. The
regulation is a valid exercise of police power. Police power
concerns government enactments which precisely interfere
with personal liberty or property in order to promote the
general welfare or the common good. As the assailed
Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, it follows that
the burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the
said order, particularly, its ARB requirement, does not
enhance the public welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or

unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists,

particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of
Department Order No. 3. Short of a total and absolute ban
against the deployment of performing artists to high risk
destinations, a measure which would only drive recruitment
further underground, the new scheme at the very least
rationalizes the method of screening performing artists by
requiring reasonable educational and artistic skills from them

and limits deployment to only those individuals adequately

prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment as
artists abroad. It cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at least
lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous individuals
and agencies.