Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Shipside Incorporated vs.

The Court of Appeals Doctrine:


352 SCRA 334, February 20, 2011
The ruling on money claims is distinct from administrative sanctions that may be imposed.
Doctrine:
Facts:
Prescription of action does not run against the State: it is not applicable to artificial bodies
created by the State for special purpose. Philsa is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas
employment. Private respondents were recruited and deployed in Saudi Arabia. While in Saudi
Facts: Arabia, private respondents were made to sign a second contract, reducing their benefits and
privileges. They refused to sign the third contract increasing their work hours. As a result, they
OCTs were issued in favor of Rafael Galvez over four parcels of land. Lots 1 and 4 were were terminated and repatriated to the Philippines.
conveyed by Galvez to Mamaril, who later sold the same Order declaring his OCT null and void.
Lepanto sold Lots 1 and 4 to herein petitioner. Upon their arrival, they demanded from Philsa the return of their placement fees and
payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract. Philsa refused, thus private
Galvez filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the Order declaring his OCT null and void. respondents filed a case before the POEA.
The motion was denied. On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the Republic and issued a writ of
execution. The order was not executed. After twenty-five long years, the Sol Gen filed a complaint On the aspects of the case involving money claims and illegal dismissal, a decision was
for revival of judgment and cancellation of titles. rendered in favor of the complainants (private respondents herein), which attained finality after the
petition to review on certiorari was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Issue:
In a separate Order, the POEA found the petitioner guilty of contract substitution and
Whether or not the Republic may still for revival of judgment. unlawful deduction.

Held: Issue:

NO. While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the same may not be Whether or not administrative sanction may still be imposed after the finality of a Decision
invoked by the government in this case since it is no longer interested in the subject matter. While of the NLRC involving money claims.
Camp Wallance may have belonged to the government at the time Galvez title was ordered
cancelled, the same no longer holds true today. Held:

RA 7277 created Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BSDA). With the transfer Yes. The Administrative sanctions may are distinct and separate from the money claims of
of Camp Wallance to the BCDA, the government has no longer a right or protect. the respondents, may still be properly imposed by the POEA.

The rule that prescription does not run against the State does not apply to corporations or As such, the fact that petitioner has been absolved by final judgment for the payment of
artificial bodies created by the State for special purposes, it being said that when the title of the the money claim does not mean that it is likewise absolved from the administrative sanctions
Republic has been divested, its grantees, although artificial bodies of its own creation, are in the which may be imposed as a result of the unlawful deduction or withholding of private respondents
same category as ordinary persons. salary. The POEA thus committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner
administratively liable of unlawful deduction/withholding of salary.

Republic vs. Express Telecommunication Co. Inc.


373 SCRA 316 January 15, 2002

Doctrine:
Philsa International Placement and Services Corp. vs. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and
Employment - 356 SCRA 174, April 4, 201
The NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Respondent Extelcom contends that the NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which were
(CPCN) for the installation, operation, and maintenance of communications facilities and services, filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register where the phrase on its own initiative
radio communications systems, telephone and telegraph systems. were deleted and since the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center.

Facts: Issue: WON the 1993 Revised Rules which was filed in the UP Law Center is the law in force and
effect in granting provisional authority.
In 1992, Bayantel filed an application with the NTC for a CPCN, to install , operate and
maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone System/ Service (CMTS) with prayer for Provision
Authority (PA). Hearings were conducted but because of unavailability of frequencies, the case Held: No. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the
was archived before Bayantel could complete the presentation of its evidence. rules with the UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect. The National
In1998, NTC re-allocated additional frequencies for CMTS service. Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules. Publication in the Official Gazette or a
Bayantel filed an ex-parte motion to revive. Extelcom filed its opposition. NTC issued an newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules and regulations
Order granting in favor of Bayantel a provisional authority to operate CMTS service can take effect.
The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Order of the NTC.
PHILSA International Placement & Services Corporation vs. Honorable Secretary of
Issue: Labor and Employment [G.R. No. 103144 April 4, 2001]
Post under case digests, labor law at Wednesday, March 28, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Whether or not the order of the NTC grating Bayantel a provisional authority to operate a Facts: Philsa is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas
CMTS is in substantial compliance with NTC Rules of Practice and Procedure. employment. Sometime in January 1985, private respondents, who were recruited by petitioner for
employment in Saudi Arabia, were required to pay placement fees in the amount of P5,000.00 for
Held: private respondent Rodrigo L. Mikin and P6,500.00 each for private respondents Vivencio A. de
Mesa and Cedric P. Leyson. After the execution of their respective work contracts, private
Yes. The NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificate of Public Convenience and respondents left for Saudi Arabia on January 29, 1985. They then began work for Al-Hejailan
Necessity (CPCN) for the installation, operation, and maintenance of communications facilities and Consultants A/E, the foreign principal of petitioner. While in Saudi Arabia, private respondents were
services, radio communications systems, telephone and telegraph systems. allegedly made to sign a second contract which changed some of the provisions of their original
contract resulting in the reduction of some of their benefits and privileges. They were again
In granting Bayantel the provisional authority to operate a CMTS, the NTC applied Rule 15 allegedly forced by their foreign employer to sign a third contract which increased their work hours
Section3 of its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, which provides: from 48 hours to 60 hours a week without any corresponding increase in their basic monthly
Section 3. Provisional Relief. --- Upon the filling of an application, complaint or petition or salary. When they refused to sign this third contract, the services of private respondents were
at any stage thereafter, the Board may grant on motion of the Pleader or on its own initiative, the terminated by Al-Hejailan and they were repatriated to the Philippines.
based on the pleading, together with the affidavits and supporting documents attached
thereto,XXX Upon their arrival in the Philippines, private respondents demanded from petitioner Philsa the
return of their placement fees and for the payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion of
The NTC is clothed with sufficient discretion to ac on matters solely within its competence. their contract. When petitioner refused, they filed a case before the POEA against petitioner Philsa
Clearly spelled out is the Need to Provide enhanced competition and the requirement for more and its foreign principal, Al-Hejailan. On the aspects of the case involving money claims arising
landlines and telecommunications facilities in unserved areas in the country. On both scores, from the employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal, the POEA rendered a decision dated
therefore, there was sufficient showing that the NTC acted well within its jurisdiction and in August 31, 1988 ordering respondent PHILSA to pay complainants, jointly and severally with its
pursuance of its avowed duties when it allowed the revived of Bayantels application. principal Al-Hejailan.

In a decision dated July 26, 1989 , the NLRC modified the appealed decision of the POEA
Adjudication Office by deleting the award of salary deductions and differentials. The awards to
Republic vs Extelcom, [373 SCRA 316; GR 147096, January 15, 2002] private respondents were deleted by the NLRC considering that these were not raised in the
complaint filed by private respondents. Private respondents then elevated the July 26, 1989
Posted by Pius Morados on November 9, 2011 decision of the NLRC to the Supreme Court in a petition for review for certiorari where it was
docketed as G.R. No. 89089. However, in a Resolution dated October 25, 1989, the petition was
dismissed outright for "insufficiency in form and substance, having failed to comply with the Rules
(Administrative Law, quasi-legislative power, proper procedure, filing and publication) of Court and Circular No. 1-88 requiring submission of a certified true copy of the questioned
resolution dated August 23, 1989.
Facts: National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) granted Bayantel the provisional authority
to operate a Cellular Mobile Telephone System/Service (CMTS) on its own initiative applying Rule Almost simultaneous with the promulgation of the August 31, 1988 decision of the POEA on private
15, Section 3 of its 1987 Rules of Practice and Procedures. respondents' money claims, the POEA issued a separate Order dated August 29, 1988 resolving
the recruitment violations aspect of private respondents' complaint. In this Order, the POEA found (2) No. The administrative circular under consideration is one of those issuances which should be
petitioner guilty of illegal exaction, contract substitution, and unlawful deduction. Under the POEA published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant
Rules and Regulations, the decision of the POEA thru the LRO suspending or canceling a license or to a valid delegation. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not
authority to act as a recruitment agency may be appealed to the Ministry (now Department) of as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and
Labor and Employment. Accordingly, after the denial of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner may not be enforced. The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group, namely
appealed the August 31, 1988 Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. However, in an private employment agencies or authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of our
Order dated September 13, 1991, public respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed ruling in Taada vs. Tuvera. In the case of Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres, the
in toto the assailed Order. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was likewise denied administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely
in an Order dated November 25, 1991. Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still
the Court ruled therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said circulars may not be enforced
Issues: or implemented.

(1) Whether or not the public respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with Our pronouncement in Taada vs. Tuvera is clear and categorical. Administrative rules and
grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner liable for illegal deductions/withholding of salaries regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to
for the supreme court itself has already absolved petitioner from this charge. a valid delegation. The only exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in
nature, or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the
(2) Whether or not the petitioner can be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.
Circular No. 11, Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of these
applicants, is void for lack of publication. exceptions.

Held:

(1) Petitioner is correct in stating that the July 26, 1989 Decision of the NLRC has attained finality
by reason of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari assailing the same. However, the said NLRC
Decision dealt only with the money claims of private respondents arising from employer-employee
relations and illegal dismissal and as such, it is only for the payment of the said money claims that
petitioner is absolved. The administrative sanctions, which are distinct and separate from the
money claims of private respondents, may still be properly imposed by the POEA. In fact, in the
August 31, 1988 Decision of the POEA dealing with the money claims of private respondents, the
POEA Adjudication Office precisely declared that "respondent's liability for said money claims is
without prejudice to and independent of its liabilities for the recruitment violations aspect of the
case which is the subject of a separate Order."

The fact that petitioner has been absolved by final judgment for the payment of the money claim
to private respondent de Mesa does not mean that it is likewise absolved from the administrative
sanctions which may be imposed as a result of the unlawful deduction or withholding of private
respondents' salary. The POEA thus committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner
administratively liable of one count of unlawful deduction/withholding of salary.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai