Lawyerly

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,[82] this court ruled that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"[83] is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.[84]

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

In Serrano, we identified the classifications made by the reinstated clause. It distinguished between fixed-period overseas workers and fixed-period local workers.[106] It also distinguished between overseas workers with employment contracts of less than one year and overseas workers with employment contracts of at least one year.[107] Within the class of overseas workers with at least one-year employment contracts, there was a distinction between those with at least a year left in their contracts and those with less than a year left in their contracts when they were illegally dismissed.[108]

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

Under the Constitution, labor is afforded special protection.[110] Thus, this court in Serrano, "[i]mbued with the same sense of 'obligation to afford protection to labor,' . . . employ[ed] the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceive[d] in the subject clause a suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs."[111]

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

We also find that the classifications are not relevant to the purpose of the law, which is to "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."[124] Further, we find specious the argument that reducing the liability of placement agencies "redounds to the benefit of the [overseas] workers."[125]

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law be declared unconstitutional. Petitioner ALFI, in particular, argues that the government sponsored contraception program, the very essence of the RH Law, violates the right to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the State is mandated to protect and promote. Thus, ALFI prays that "the status quo ante the situation prior to the passage of the RH Law must be maintained."[73] It explains: x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and contraceptives per se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and Republic Act No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are prohibited unless dispensed by a prescription duly licensed by a physician. What the Petitioners find deplorable and repugnant under the RH Law is the role that the State and its agencies the entire bureaucracy, from the cabinet secretaries down to the barangay officials in the remotest areas of the country is made to play in the implementation of the contraception program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers' money. The State then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread dissemination of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning methods, devices and supplies.[74]

GR No. 178184

2014-01-29

GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Nevertheless, we cannot grant them their claims for holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and restday, overtime pay and service incentive leave pay. Respondents do not dispute petitioners' assertion that in computing respondents' salaries, petitioners use 365 days as divisor. In fact, this was the same divisor respondents used in computing their money claims against petitioners. Hence, they are paid all the days of the month, which already include the benefits they claim.[64] As for overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and restdays, no evidence was presented to prove that they rendered work in excess of the regular eight working hours a day or worked during holidays and restdays. In the absence of such proof, there could be no basis to award these benefits.[65]

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

R.A. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e, husband; former husband; or any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common child.[5] The law provides for protection orders from the barangay and the courts to prevent the commission of further acts of VAWC; and outlines the duties and responsibilities of barangay officials, law enforcers, prosecutors and court personnel, social workers, health care providers, and other local government officials in responding to complaints of VAWC or requests for assistance.

GR No. 170029

2012-11-21

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. MARICEL N. BAJARO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Court finds that a modification of the monetary award in the amount of NT$47,520.00 per respondent corresponding to three (3) months' worth of salaries granted by the Labor Arbiter is in order, conformably with the pronouncement in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.[20] (Serrano case) where the Court En Banc declared unconstitutional, for being violative of the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to equal protection and due process of the overseas workers, the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" found in Section 10 of R.A. 8042, which originally reads: 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.

GR No. 197528

2012-09-05

PERT v. ARMANDO A. VINUY A. LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ

BRION, J.

The respondents, on the other hand, moved for partial reconsideration, maintaining that their salaries should have covered the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, pursuant to the Court's ruling in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[13]

GR No. 175558

2012-02-08

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NATHANIEL DOZA

CARPIO, J.

The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the unexpired portion of the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, shall be awarded to the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal dismissal. However, in 24 March 2009, Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.,[58] the Court, in an En Banc Decision, declared unconstitutional the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" and awarded the entire unexpired portion of the employment contract to the overseas Filipino worker.

GR No. 171101

2011-07-05

HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

VELASCO JR., J.

The prohibition [against impairment of the obligation of contracts] is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II [of the Constitution] is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto. [101] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 171101

2011-07-05

HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

VELASCO JR., J.

The applicability of the operative fact doctrine to executive acts was further explicated by this Court in Rieta v. People, [164] thus: Petitioner contends that his arrest by virtue of Arrest Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) No. 4754 was invalid, as the law upon which it was predicated -- General Order No. 60, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos -- was subsequently declared by the Court, in Tañada v. Tuvera, 33 to have no force and effect. Thus, he asserts, any evidence obtained pursuant thereto is inadmissible in evidence.

GR No. 179532

2011-05-30

CLAUDIO S. YAP v. THENAMARIS SHIP'S MANAGEMENT

NACHURA, J.

In the meantime, while this case was pending before this Court, we declared as unconstitutional the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" provided in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[21] on March 24, 2009.

GR No. 182262

2011-04-13

ROMULO B. DELA ROSA v. MICHAELMAR PHILIPPINES

NACHURA, J.

Inc.[40] However, the payment of overtime pay, leave pay, and tanker allowance should be disallowed. Overtime is not automatically included in the computation of the monetary award, unless there is evidence that an employee performed work during those periods.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[122] summarizes the three tests employed in this jurisdiction as follows: There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality of a classification embodied in a law: a) the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest; b) the middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest; and c) strict judicial scrutiny in which a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. [Emphasis supplied]

GR No. 183626

2010-10-04

SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

NACHURA, J.

Even assuming, merely for argument's sake, that the ERC issuances violated the NEA and ADB covenant, the contract had to yield to the greater authority of the State's exercise of police power. It has long been settled that police power legislation, adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people prevail not only over future contracts but even over those already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public welfare.[22]

GR No. 177508

2009-08-07

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

There is no violation of the non-impairment clause. First, the non- impairment clause is limited in application to laws that derogate from prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties.[32] There is impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms of a contract between the parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties.[33]

	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,[82] this court ruled that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"[83] is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.[84]
	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
In Serrano, we identified the classifications made by the reinstated clause. It distinguished between fixed-period overseas workers and fixed-period local workers.[106] It also distinguished between overseas workers with employment contracts of less than one year and overseas workers with employment contracts of at least one year.[107] Within the class of overseas workers with at least one-year employment contracts, there was a distinction between those with at least a year left in their contracts and those with less than a year left in their contracts when they were illegally dismissed.[108]
	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
Under the Constitution, labor is afforded special protection.[110] Thus, this court in Serrano, "[i]mbued with the same sense of 'obligation to afford protection to labor,' . . . employ[ed] the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceive[d] in the subject clause a suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs."[111]
	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
We also find that the classifications are not relevant to the purpose of the law, which is to "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."[124] Further, we find specious the argument that reducing the liability of placement agencies "redounds to the benefit of the [overseas] workers."[125]
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law be declared unconstitutional. Petitioner ALFI, in particular, argues that the government sponsored contraception program, the very essence of the RH Law, violates the right to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the State is mandated to protect and promote. Thus, ALFI prays that "the status quo ante the situation prior to the passage of the RH Law must be maintained."[73] It explains: x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and contraceptives per se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and Republic Act No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are prohibited unless dispensed by a prescription duly licensed by a physician. What the Petitioners find deplorable and repugnant under the RH Law is the role that the State and its agencies the entire bureaucracy, from the cabinet secretaries down to the barangay officials in the remotest areas of the country is made to play in the implementation of the contraception program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers' money. The State then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread dissemination of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning methods, devices and supplies.[74]
	GR No. 178184 2014-01-29	GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Nevertheless, we cannot grant them their claims for holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and restday, overtime pay and service incentive leave pay. Respondents do not dispute petitioners' assertion that in computing respondents' salaries, petitioners use 365 days as divisor. In fact, this was the same divisor respondents used in computing their money claims against petitioners. Hence, they are paid all the days of the month, which already include the benefits they claim.[64] As for overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and restdays, no evidence was presented to prove that they rendered work in excess of the regular eight working hours a day or worked during holidays and restdays. In the absence of such proof, there could be no basis to award these benefits.[65]
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
R.A. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e, husband; former husband; or any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common child.[5] The law provides for protection orders from the barangay and the courts to prevent the commission of further acts of VAWC; and outlines the duties and responsibilities of barangay officials, law enforcers, prosecutors and court personnel, social workers, health care providers, and other local government officials in responding to complaints of VAWC or requests for assistance.
	GR No. 170029 2012-11-21	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. MARICEL N. BAJARO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Court finds that a modification of the monetary award in the amount of NT$47,520.00 per respondent corresponding to three (3) months' worth of salaries granted by the Labor Arbiter is in order, conformably with the pronouncement in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.[20] (Serrano case) where the Court En Banc declared unconstitutional, for being violative of the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to equal protection and due process of the overseas workers, the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" found in Section 10 of R.A. 8042, which originally reads: 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.
	GR No. 197528 2012-09-05	PERT v. ARMANDO A. VINUY A. LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ BRION, J.
The respondents, on the other hand, moved for partial reconsideration, maintaining that their salaries should have covered the unexpired portion of their employment contracts, pursuant to the Court's ruling in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[13]
	GR No. 175558 2012-02-08	SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NATHANIEL DOZA CARPIO, J.
The Migrant Workers Act provides that salaries for the unexpired portion of the employent contract or three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, shall be awarded to the overseas Filipino worker, in cases of illegal dismissal. However, in 24 March 2009, Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. Inc.,[58] the Court, in an En Banc Decision, declared unconstitutional the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" and awarded the entire unexpired portion of the employment contract to the overseas Filipino worker.
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
The prohibition [against impairment of the obligation of contracts] is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II [of the Constitution] is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto. [101] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
The applicability of the operative fact doctrine to executive acts was further explicated by this Court in Rieta v. People, [164] thus: Petitioner contends that his arrest by virtue of Arrest Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) No. 4754 was invalid, as the law upon which it was predicated -- General Order No. 60, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos -- was subsequently declared by the Court, in Tañada v. Tuvera, 33 to have no force and effect. Thus, he asserts, any evidence obtained pursuant thereto is inadmissible in evidence.
	GR No. 179532 2011-05-30	CLAUDIO S. YAP v. THENAMARIS SHIP'S MANAGEMENT NACHURA, J.
In the meantime, while this case was pending before this Court, we declared as unconstitutional the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" provided in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 in the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[21] on March 24, 2009.
	GR No. 182262 2011-04-13	ROMULO B. DELA ROSA v. MICHAELMAR PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
Inc.[40] However, the payment of overtime pay, leave pay, and tanker allowance should be disallowed. Overtime is not automatically included in the computation of the monetary award, unless there is evidence that an employee performed work during those periods.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.[122] summarizes the three tests employed in this jurisdiction as follows: There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality of a classification embodied in a law: a) the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest; b) the middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest; and c) strict judicial scrutiny in which a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. [Emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 183626 2010-10-04	SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
Even assuming, merely for argument's sake, that the ERC issuances violated the NEA and ADB covenant, the contract had to yield to the greater authority of the State's exercise of police power. It has long been settled that police power legislation, adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people prevail not only over future contracts but even over those already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public welfare.[22]
	GR No. 177508 2009-08-07	BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
There is no violation of the non-impairment clause. First, the non- impairment clause is limited in application to laws that derogate from prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties.[32] There is impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms of a contract between the parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties.[33]

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES