Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Caunca V Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Lorelei B Recuenco
    (1) An employment agency owned by Julia Salazar advanced payment to Estelita Flores for work as a maid but prevented her from transferring to another residence to repay the advance. (2) Bartolome Caunca filed a habeas corpus action on behalf of Estelita, arguing she was deprived of her liberty. (3) The court held that an employment agency has no power to restrict an employee's freedom of movement regardless of advances, as Estelita's freedom was deprived through moral compulsion to repay the agency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Caunca V Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Lorelei B Recuenco
    43 views1 page
    (1) An employment agency owned by Julia Salazar advanced payment to Estelita Flores for work as a maid but prevented her from transferring to another residence to repay the advance. (2) Bartolome Caunca filed a habeas corpus action on behalf of Estelita, arguing she was deprived of her liberty. (3) The court held that an employment agency has no power to restrict an employee's freedom of movement regardless of advances, as Estelita's freedom was deprived through moral compulsion to repay the agency.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    caunca v salazar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) An employment agency owned by Julia Salazar advanced payment to Estelita Flores for work as a maid but prevented her from transferring to another residence to repay the advance. (2) Bartolome Caunca filed a habeas corpus action on behalf of Estelita, arguing she was deprived of her liberty. (3) The court held that an employment agency has no power to restrict an employee's freedom of movement regardless of advances, as Estelita's freedom was deprived through moral compulsion to repay the agency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    Caunca V Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Lorelei B Recuenco
    (1) An employment agency owned by Julia Salazar advanced payment to Estelita Flores for work as a maid but prevented her from transferring to another residence to repay the advance. (2) Bartolome Caunca filed a habeas corpus action on behalf of Estelita, arguing she was deprived of her liberty. (3) The court held that an employment agency has no power to restrict an employee's freedom of movement regardless of advances, as Estelita's freedom was deprived through moral compulsion to repay the agency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

    Art 3, Sec. 18. (2)


    No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment
    for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
    CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR
    NO.L-2690; JANUARY 1, 1949
    PERFECTO, J.
    Facts:
    An action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita
    Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, owned by respondent Julia
    Salazar. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency, for
    her to work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence, which was
    disallowed by the employment agency. Flores was prevented to go with her cousin and was
    deprived of her liberty. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment, which was
    applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she
    could be allowed to leave.
    Issue: Whether or not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without
    returning the advance payment it gave.
    Held:
    No. An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective
    employee or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no
    physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less
    real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement, freedom to transfer from one place to
    another, freedom to choose ones residence. Freedom may be lost due to external moral
    compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary
    power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that
    may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual effect
    of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to
    the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by
    duress or physical coercion.

    You might also like