Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pre Employment
Pre Employment
A) REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
The POEA is already the Department of Migrant Workers pursuant to RA 11641. The
DMW is mandated to regulate the recruitment, employment, and deployment of OFWs.
Definitions:
ART. 36. Regulatory Power. – The Secretary of Labor shall have the
power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement
activities of all agencies within the coverage of this Title and is hereby
authorized to issue orders and promulgate rules and regulations to
carry out the objectives and implement the provisions of this Title.
1
C) ENTITIES PROHIBITED FROM RECRUITING
2
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers
before departure for monetary or financial considerations
3. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT [LABOR CODE AND THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1995 (RA 8042), AS AMENDED BY RA
10022]
A) ELEMENTS
RA 10022, which amended RA 8042 otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,” provides the following definition of illegal recruitment:
3
(i) To 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 or
indirectly in the management of travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from
applicant workers before departure for monetary
or financial considerations, or for any other
reasons, other than those authorized under the
Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker
without valid reason as determined by the
Department of Labor and Employment;
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the
worker 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
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in
large scale shall be considered an offense
involving economic sabotage; and
(n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage
a licensed recruitment/manning agency.
4
(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning agency to
engage in any kind of recruitment activity
including the processing of pending workers'
applications; and
(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign
principal/employer to pass on the overseas
Filipino worker or deduct from his or her salary
the payment of the cost of insurance fees,
premium or other insurance related charges, as
provided under the compulsory worker's
insurance coverage.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the
principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons,
the officers having ownership, control, management or direction of
their business who are responsible for the commission of the offense
and the responsible employees/agents thereof shall be liable.”
B) TYPES
4. Prohibited acts
Penalties:
1. Ordinary illegal recruitment - imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and
one (1) day but not more than twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) nor more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
Provided, 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.
3. Prohibited acts 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 of not less than Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00).
5
follows that one's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his
acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa. 1
2. In the same manner, a conviction for Illegal Recruitment does not automatically
result to a conviction for Estafa. The prosecution must still prove the elements of the
offense. Moreover, in Estafa through deceit or false pretenses, the fraud must have been
executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. In a case, the
accused and her agency had the qualifications and capacity to deploy workers abroad.
The offense she committed was in her failure to reimburse the documentation and
processing expenses incurred by the applicants when they were not deployed without
their fault. Unfortunately for accused, the acquittal for Estafa has no bearing on her
sentence as the penalty for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Section 7(b) is Life
Imprisonment.2
3. Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC provides for the following mode of committing Estafa:
The elements of Estafa by means of false pretenses or deceit were enumerated as follows:
(c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or
property; and
1
People of the Philippines vs. Espiritu and Mabborang (G.R. No. 226140, 26 February 2020).
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
6
to convince the victim, whom she only met at that time, that she was a legitimate
recruiter. Third, the victim relied on accused’s representations. He believed that she
could send him to Australia because of the pictures and testimonials she showed him.
He also relied on the fact that his aunt knew accused’s husband, a police officer, adding
to her trustworthiness. The accused banked on that trust to convince the victim to part
with his money and be "recruited" into overseas employment. The victim believed that
accused had the same ability to send him to Australia. He did not even ask for her
authority or check for himself with the POEA, relying instead on her word. This tells us
that he was fully convinced based on accused’s representations. Fourth, accused's
misrepresentation resulted in damage to victim. He paid the ₱80,000 down payment that
accused required of him as processing fee, but the purpose for which it was paid never
materialized. Likewise, said amount was never reimbursed to the victim despite his
demands for its return.4
A) SOLIDARY LIABILITY
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. x x x.”
2. The fundamental effect of joint and several liability is that "each of the debtors is
liable for the entire obligation." A final determination may, therefore, be achieved even if
only one of the joint and several debtors are impleaded in an action. Hence, in the case of
overseas employment, either the local agency or the foreign employer may be sued for all
claims arising from the foreign employer’s labor law violations. This way, the overseas
workers are assured that someone - the foreign employer’s local agent - may be made to
answer for violations that the foreign employer may have committed. The Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 ensures that overseas workers have recourse
in law despite the circumstances of their employment. By providing that the liability of
the foreign employer may be "enforced to the full extent" against the local agent, the
overseas worker is assured of immediate and sufficientpayment of what is due them. 5
The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent to the principal,
not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot,
therefore, be imputed to its agent. In a case where an agent deployed a migrant worker
4
People of the Philippines vs. Sison (G.R. No. 187160, 9 August 2017).
5
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles (G.R. No. 170139, 5 August 2014).
7
for a 12-month work abroad, it should not be imputed with knowledge of the principal’s
extension of said work for another 12 months.6
The clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"
under Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act is unconstitutional
for violating the equal protection and substantive due process clauses. The worker is
entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of his employment contract,
pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment of RA 8042.7
Section 10 of RA 8042 was amended in 2010 by RA 10022. But the amendment still
contained the provision that was declared unconstitutional, to wit:
When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution,
the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar
law or provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional
remains as such unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse
conclusion.8
6
Sunace International Management Services, Inc. vs. NLRC and Another (G.R. No. 161757, 25 January 2006).
7
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 167614, 24 March
2009).
8
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles (G.R. No. 170139, 5 August 2014).
8
Article 41. Prohibition against transfer of employment.
C. DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
9
(1) Deny membership to any individual because of such
individual’s age;
10
Sec. 6. Sheltered Employment - If suitable employment for disabled
persons cannot be found through open employment as provided in
the immediately preceding Section, the State shall endeavor to
provide it by means of sheltered employment. In the placement of
disabled persons in sheltered employment, it shall accord due regard
to the individual qualities, vocational goals and inclinations to
ensure a good working atmosphere and efficient production.
(b) Private entities that employ disabled persons who meet the
required skills or qualifications, either as regular employee,
apprentice or learner, shall be entitled to an additional deduction,
from their gross income, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total amount paid as salaries and wages to disabled persons:
Provided, however, That such entities present proof as certified by
the Department of Labor and Employment that disabled persons are
under their employ: Provided, further, That the disabled employee is
accredited with the Department of Labor and Employment and the
Department of Health as to his disability, skills and qualifications. (c)
Private entities that improve or modify their physical facilities in
order to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled persons
shall also be entitled to an additional deduction from their net
taxable income, equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the direct costs
of the improvements or modifications. This Section, however, does
not apply to improvements or modifications of facilities required
under Batas Pambansa Bilang 344.
11