Justin Dominic P.

Manaog Labor Law 1 Block C September 7, 2020

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon

Issue: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor may validly issue a Department Order for the
temporary suspension of deployment of female domestic helpers and other females with similar
skills.

Complainant’s Argument: Petitioner argues that the Department Order issued is discriminatory
since it only applies to “female contract workers.” Also, it is contended that the Department
Order was passed without prior consultations in violation of Section 3, of Article XIII, of the
constitution providing for worker participation “in policy and decision-making processes
affecting and benefits as may be provided by law.”

Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argues that the Department Order is a valid exercise of
Police Power. Police Power has been defined as the “state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.”

Instruction Learned / Court Decision: The court ruled that the Department Order is a valid
exercise of Police Power and is not discriminatory against “female contract workers”. They
provided that classification is allowed in the constitution as long as “(1) such classifications rest
on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not
confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class.”
The court also ruled that the constitutional guaranty on worker participation must submit to the
demands and necessities of the State’s power of regulation.

Ratio: "Protection to labor does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What concerns
the Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, just, and
humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to strange lands
because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. Under these circumstances, the
Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates have adequate protection,
personally and economically, while away from home. In this case, the Government has evidence,
an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such protection,
and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban on deployment.”
Justin Dominic P. Manaog Labor Law 1 Block C September 7, 2020

Dee Chua & Sons, Inc. v. CIR

Issue: Whether or not the CIR may regulate an employer’s selection of employees and restrict
the number of aliens that may be employed in any business, occupation, trade or profession of
any kind.

Complainant’s Argument: The petitioner argues that the CIR may not question their selection of
employees and restrict the number of aliens that they may employ since it is a denial of the equal
protection of the laws.

Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argues that the right to hire labor is not absolute. The
power to make regulations may be exercised by the law-making body or delegated to the courts
or administrative agencies provided it should be affected with public interest and reasonable
under the circumstances.

Instruction Learned / Court Decision: The order is valid and “does not constitute an unlawful
intrusion into the sphere of legislation, by attempting to lay down a public policy of the state or
to settle a political question.” Firstly, the order falls within the CIR’s legitimate scope of
jurisdiction and the order does not formulate a policy and is not political in character. “The
requirement that majority of the laborers to be employed should be Filipinos is certain not
arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust. The petitioner's right to employ labor or to make contract with
respect thereto is not unreasonably curtailed and its interest is not jeopardized.”

Ratio: “We should not close without adverting to the fact that the petitioner does not so much as
pretend that the hiring of additional laborers is its prerogative as a matter of right. It seems to be
conceded that during the pendency of the dispute the petitioner could employ temporary laborers
only with the permission of the Court of Industrial Relations. The granting of the application thus
lies within the sound judgment of the court, and if the court could turn it down entirely, as we
think it could, its authority to quality the permission should be undeniable, provided only that the
qualification is not arbitrary, against law, morals, or established public policy, which it is not; it
is an expedient and emergency step designed to relieve petitioner's own difficulties. Also
important to remember is that it is not compulsory on petitioner's part to take advantage of the
order. Being a permute petitioner is the sole judge of whether it should take the order as it is, or
leave it if it does not suit its interest to hire new laborers other than Chinese.”
Justin Dominic P. Manaog Labor Law 1 Block C September 7, 2020

US vs. Molina
G.R. No. L-9878; December 24, 1914
Johnson, J.

Issue: Whether or not an examination manual prescribing the rules for conducting examinations
approved by the Secretary of Commerce and Police may be given the force of law.

Complainant’s Argument: Petitioner argues that the examination manual issued is not valid since
it was not issued by a legislative body and does not carry the force of law.

Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argues that as long as the regulations issued relate solely to
carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid.

Instruction Learned / Court Decision: The court ruled that regulations adopted under legislative
authority by a particular department must coincide with the provisions of the law and the sole
purpose must be to carry into effect its general provision. As long as these requirements are met
the regulations are considered valid.

Ratio: In many cases, “it becomes impracticable for the legislative department of the
Government to provide general regulations for the various and varying details for the
management of a particular department of the Government. It therefore becomes convenient for
the legislative department of the Government, by law, in a most general way, to provide for the
conduct, control, and management of the work of the particular department of the Government;
to authorize certain persons, in charge of the management, control, and direction of the particular
department, to adopt certain rules and regulations providing for the detail of the management and
control of such department. Such regulations have uniformly been held to have the force of law,
whenever they are found to be in consonance and in harmony with the general purposes and
objects of the law.”
Justin Dominic P. Manaog Labor Law 1 Block C September 7, 2020

Tañada v. Tuvera
G.R. No. L-9878; April 24, 1985
Escolin, J.

Issue: Whether or not publication of a law is a requirement sine qua non in order for it to be
valid.

Complainant’s Argument: Petitioner contends that in order for a law to be valid, it must first be
published in the Official Gazette

Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argues that under article 2 of the Civil Code which states
that “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided…” means that “publication in the Official
Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves
provide for their own effectivity dates.”

Instruction Learned / Court Decision: The court ruled that laws must be published, in the Official
Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation, whether or not the law provides for its date of
effectivity.

Ratio: The objective of such requirement is “to give the general public adequate notice of the
various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non
excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the
transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.”
Justin Dominic P. Manaog Labor Law 1 Block C September 7, 2020

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres

Issue: Whether or not Department Order No. 16, Series of 1991 issued by DOLE, temporary
suspending the recruitment by private employment agencies of “Filipino domestic helpers going
to Hong Kong” and Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1991 issued by POEA, providing
Guidelines on the Government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong
Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino
domestic helpers which were not published is valid.

Complainant’s argument: Petitioner argues that the above-stated Department Order and Circular
is not valid since (1) it is in excess of the rule-making authority of the respondents; (2) The
assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the Constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and
oppressive; and (3) the requirements of publication and filing with the National Administrative
Register were not complied with.

Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argues that the issued Circulars are a valid exercise of
police power.

Instruction Learned / Court Ruling: Court ruled that there is no merit to the petitioner’s first 2
arguments. Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and
regulate recruitment and placement activities. Also, by virtue of Executive Order No. 797, the
POEA was given the authority to take over the functions of the Overseas Employment
Development Board, the National Seamen Board and the overseas employment functions of the
Bureau of Employment Services.

The court thus ruled that “nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for
lack of power publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Register as
required in Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4,
Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987”

Ratio: The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers given to administrative bodies is not
unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive. It is noteworthy that the assailed circulars do not
prohibit the petitioner from engaging in the recruitment and deployment of Filipino landbased
workers for overseas employment.

“Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. (p. 447.) Interpretative regulations
and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative
Justin Dominic P. Manaog Labor Law 1 Block C September 7, 2020

agency and not the public, need not be published.” (Tañada v. Tuvera G.R. No. L-63915; April
24, 1985)

Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano

Issue: Whether or not Department Order No. 9 which was issued by the Secretary of Labor
dispensing of the requirement to submit books of account in order to register a labor organization
is valid.

Complainant’s Argument: Petitioner contends that the Department Order issued is contrary to
public policy since it is contrary to the ruling issued by the Supreme Court in Protection
Technology, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor (G.R. No. 11721, March 1, 1995) and Progressive
Development Corp. v. Secretary of Labor (G.R. No. 96425, February 4, 1992) and that the
Department Order is contrary to Articles 241 (H) and (J) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

Respondent’s Argument: The respondent argues that “With the issuance of Department Order
No. 09 amending the rules implementing Book V of the Code, the requirement on books of
account no longer exists.”

Instruction Learned / Court Ruling: Under Article 234 of the Labor Code, it no longer requires
the submission of books of account in order for a labor organization to be registered as a
legitimate labor organization. Such requirement can only be found in Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code which was amended by Department Order No. 9.
Progressive and Protection Technology are not to be deemed as laws on the registration of
unions. They merely interpret and apply the implementing rules of the Labor Code as to
registration of unions. Since the same has already been amended the doctrines stated therein are
therefore, no longer applicable. Department Order No. 9 only dispenses with books of account as
a requirement for registration of a local or chapter of a national union or federation. As provided
by Article 241 (h) and (j), a labor organization must still maintain books of account, but it need
not submit the same as a requirement for registration.
Ratio: “Under the law, the Secretary is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the Labor Code.” Article 5 of the Labor Code provides that "[t]he Department of
Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this
Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations."