Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 532 views

    Caunca Vs Salazar

    Uploaded by

    AnnamaAnnama
    This document summarizes a 1949 Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the right to travel. The case involved an employment agency that advanced payment to a maid, Estelita Flores, but then prevented her from transferring to another residence until she repaid the agency. The court ruled that: 1) An employment agency has no power to curtail a maid's freedom of movement, regardless of any advance payment made. 2) Preventing an employee from transferring residences deprives them of their constitutional right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. 3) Maintaining an individual's liberty is more important than any business or financial interests.

    Copyright:

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

    Caunca Vs Salazar

    Uploaded by

    AnnamaAnnama
    532 views1 page
    This document summarizes a 1949 Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the right to travel. The case involved an employment agency that advanced payment to a maid, Estelita Flores, but then prevented her from transferring to another residence until she repaid the agency. The court ruled that: 1) An employment agency has no power to curtail a maid's freedom of movement, regardless of any advance payment made. 2) Preventing an employee from transferring residences deprives them of their constitutional right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. 3) Maintaining an individual's liberty is more important than any business or financial interests.

    Original Description:

    Caunca vs Salazar

    Original Title

    Caunca vs Salazar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a 1949 Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the right to travel. The case involved an employment agency that advanced payment to a maid, Estelita Flores, but then prevented her from transferring to another residence until she repaid the agency. The court ruled that: 1) An employment agency has no power to curtail a maid's freedom of movement, regardless of any advance payment made. 2) Preventing an employee from transferring residences deprives them of their constitutional right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. 3) Maintaining an individual's liberty is more important than any business or financial interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    532 views1 page

    Caunca Vs Salazar

    Uploaded by

    AnnamaAnnama
    This document summarizes a 1949 Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the right to travel. The case involved an employment agency that advanced payment to a maid, Estelita Flores, but then prevented her from transferring to another residence until she repaid the agency. The court ruled that: 1) An employment agency has no power to curtail a maid's freedom of movement, regardless of any advance payment made. 2) Preventing an employee from transferring residences deprives them of their constitutional right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. 3) Maintaining an individual's liberty is more important than any business or financial interests.

    Copyright:

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

    CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851; NO.

    L-2690; 1 JAN 1949]


    RIGHT TO TRAVEL
    Section 6, Art. III. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not
    be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
    interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
    Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
    1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
    2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside
    Limitations

    Liberty of Abode upon lawful order of the court

    Right to Travel national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law

    Facts: This is 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
    Julia Salazar, respondent herein. 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. Further she was
    detained and her liberty was restrained. 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: 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.

    Summary Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another residence even if she had not paid yet the amount
    advances by an employment agency:
    Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental human freedom.
    Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual inseparable from the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc. belong
    to the ephemeral and perishable.

    You might also like