SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

*
G.R. No. 103144. April 4, 2001.

PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and SERVICES

CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY
OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, VIVENCIO DE MESA,
RODRIGO MIKIN and CEDRIC LEYSON, respondents.

Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Illegal Exaction; The question

of whether a certain person charged applicants with placement fees
in excess of that allowed by law is clearly a question of fact which is
for the POEA,

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

175

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 175

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.

Secretary of Labor and Employment

as trier of facts, to determine.·With respect to the first ground,

petitioner would want us to overturn the findings of the POEA,
subsequently affirmed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Employment, that it is guilty of illegal exaction committed by
collecting placement fees in excess of the amounts allowed by law.
This issue, however, is a question of fact which cannot be raised in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As we have previously held: „It
should be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court. An extraordinary remedy, its use is available only and
restrictively in truly exceptional cases wherein the action of an
inferior court, board or officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial
acts is challenged for being wholly void on grounds of jurisdiction.
The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of
jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 1 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It does not include

correction of public respondent NLRCÊs evaluation of the evidence
and factual findings based thereon, which are generally accorded
not only great respect but even finality.‰ The question of whether or
not petitioner charged private respondents placement fees in excess
of that allowed by law is clearly a question of fact which is for public
respondent POEA, as a trier of facts, to determine. As stated above,
the settled rule is that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies
like the POEA, which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded
not only respect, but at times even finality if such findings are
supported by substantial evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Publication of Laws; Administrative Law;
Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of
1983, has not yet been published or filed with the National
Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and may not be
enforced.·POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must
likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never published or
filed with the National Administrative Register. POEA
Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983 provides for the
applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees for
private employment agencies or authority holders. Under the said
Order, the maximum amount which may be collected from
prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00. The said
circular was apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of
Article 32 of the Labor Code which provides, as follows: „Article 32.
Fees to be paid by workers.·Any person applying with a private fee-
charging employment agency for employment assistance shall not
be charged any fee until he has obtained employment through its
efforts or has actually commenced employment. Such fee shall be
always covered with the approved receipt clearly showing the
amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a schedule of
allowable fees.‰ (italics

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.

Secretary of Labor and Employment

supplied) It is thus clear that the administrative circular under

consideration is one of those issuances which should be published
for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Considering that POEA
Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as yet been
published or filed with the National Administrative Register, the
same is ineffective and may not be enforced.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An Administrative Circular
that was never filed with the National Administrative Register
cannot be used as basis for the imposition of administrative

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 2 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

sanctions.·The Office of the Solicitor General argues however that

the imposition of administrative sanctions on petitioner was based
not on the questioned administrative circular but on Article 32 and
Article 34 (a) of the Labor Code. The argument is not meritorious.
The said articles of the Labor Code were never cited, much less
discussed, in the body of the questioned Orders of the POEA and
Secretary of Labor and Employment. In fact, the said Orders were
consistent in mentioning that petitionerÊs violation of
Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 was the basis for the
imposition of administrative sanctions against petitioner.
Furthermore, even assuming that petitioner was held liable under
the said provisions of the Labor Code, Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the
Laber Code presupposes the promulgation of a valid schedule of fees
by the Department of Labor and Employment. Considering that, as,
previously discussed, Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983
embodying such a schedule of fees never took effect, there is thus no
basis for the imposition of the administrative sanctions against
petitioner. Moreover, under Book VI, Chapter II, Section 3 of the
Administrative Code of 1987, „(r)ules in force on the date of the
effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months
from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction
against any party or persons.‰ Considering that POEA
Administrative Circular No. 2 was never filed with the National
Administrative Register, the same cannot be used as basis for the
imposition of administrative sanctions against petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The fact that POEA
Administrative Circular No. 2 is addressed only to a specified group,
namely private employment agencies or authority holders, does not
take it away from the ambit of the ruling in Tañada v. Tuvera, 136
SCRA 27, which is clear and categorical·administrative rules and
regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.·The fact
that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group, namely
private employment agencies or authority holders, does not take it
away from the ambit of our ruling in Tañada vs. Tuvera. In the case
of Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres, the
administrative

177

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 177

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.

Secretary of Labor and Employment

circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller

group, namely Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the
recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still the Court ruled
therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said circulars may
not be enforced or implemented. Our pronouncement in Tañada vs.
Tuvera is clear and categorical. Administrative rules and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 3 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or

implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only
exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in
nature, or those so-called letters of instructions issued by
administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.
Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not been shown to
fall under any of these exceptions.
Same; Suspension or Cancellation of License; Findings of the
POEA regarding alleged contract substitution constitute question of
fact which may not be disturbed if supported by substantial
evidence.·With respect to the second ground, petitioner would
want us to review the findings of fact of the POEA regarding the
two counts of alleged contract substitution. Again, this is a question
of fact which may not be disturbed if the same is supported by
substantial evidence. A reading of the August 29, 1988 Order of the
POEA shows that, indeed, the ruling that petitioner is guilty of two
(2) counts of prohibited contract substitution is supported by
substantial evidence.
Same; Same; Administrative sanctions, which are distinct and
separate from the money claims, may still be properly imposed by the
POEA despite findings in another case absolving the recruitment
agency from the money claims; The fact that the claim for salary
deduction was not raised by complainants in their complaint will
not bar the POEA from holding petitioner liable for illegal deduction
or withholding of salaries as a ground for the suspension or
cancellation of a recruitment agencyÊs license.·Petitioner is correct
in stating that the July 26, 1989 Decision of the NLRC has attained
finality by reason of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari
assailing the same. However, the said NLRC Decision dealt only
with the money claims of private respondents arising from
employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal and as such, it is
only for the payment of the said money claims that petitioner is
absolved. The administrative sanctions, which are distinct and
separate from the money claims of private respondents, may still be
properly imposed by the POEA. In fact, in the August 31, 1988
Decision of the POEA dealing with the money claims of private
respondents, the POEA Adjudication Office precisely declared that
„respondentÊs liability for said money claims is without prejudice to
and independent of its liabilities for the recruitment violations
aspect of

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.

Secretary of Labor and Employment

the case which is the subject of a separate Order.‰ The NLRC Decision

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 4 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

absolving petitioner from paying private respondent de MesaÊs

claim for salary deduction based its ruling on a finding that the said
money claim was not raised in the complaint. While there may be
questions regarding such finding of the NLRC, the finality of the
said NLRC Decision prevents us from modifying or reviewing the
same. But the fact that the claim for salary deduction was not
raised by private respondents in their complaint will not bar the
POEA from holding petitioner liable for illegal deduction or
withholding of salaries as a ground for the suspension or
cancellation of petitionerÊs license.
Same; Same; Under the POEA Rules and Regulations, the
POEA, on its own initiative, may conduct the necessary proceeding
for the suspension or cancellation of the license of any private
placement agency on any of the grounds mentioned therein.·Under
the POEA Rules and Regulations, the POEA, on its own initiative,
may conduct the necessary proceeding for the suspension or
cancellation of the license of any private placement agency on any of
the grounds mentioned therein. As such, even without a written
complaint from an aggrieved party, the POEA can initiate
proceedings against an erring private placement agency and, if the
result of its investigation so warrants, impose the corresponding
administrative sanction thereof. Moreover, the POEA, in an
investigation of an employer-employee relationship case, may still
hold a respondent liable for administrative sanctions if, in the
course of its investigation, violations of recruitment regulations are
uncovered. It is thus clear that even if recruitment violations were
not included in a complaint for money claims initiated by a private
complainant, the POEA, under its rules, may still take cognizance
of the same and impose administrative sanctions if the evidence so
warrants.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Ramon U. Umpil for petitioner.
Esteban M. Mendoza for private respondents.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari from the Order dated

November 25, 1991 issued by public respondent Secretary
of Labor and Employment. The November 25, 1991 Order
affirmed in toto the

179

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 179

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

August 29, 1988 Order of the Philippine Overseas

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 5 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

Employment Administration (hereinafter the „POEA‰)

which found petitioner liable for three (3) counts of illegal
exaction, two (2) counts of contract substitution and one
count of withholding or unlawful deduction from salaries of
workers in POEA Case No. (L) 85-05-0370.
Petitioner Philsa International Placement and Services
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as „Philsa‰) is a
domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of
workers for overseas employment. Sometime in January
1985, private respondents, who were recruited by
petitioner for employment in Saudi Arabia, were required
to pay placement fees in the amount of P5,000.00 for
private respondent Rodrigo L. Mikin and P6,500.00 each
for private
1
respondents Vivencio A. de Mesa and Cedric P.
Leyson.
After the execution of their respective work contracts,
private respondents left for Saudi Arabia on January 29,
1985. They then began work for Al-Hejailan Consultants
A/E, the foreign principal of petitioner.
While in Saudi Arabia, private respondents were
allegedly made to sign a second contract on February 4,
1985 which changed some of the provisions of their original
contract resulting
2
in the reduction of some of their benefits
and privileges. On April 1, 1985, their foreign employer
allegedly forced them to sign a third contract which
increased their work hours from 48 hours to 60 hours a
week without any corresponding increase in their basic
monthly salary. When they refused to sign this third
contract, the services of private respondents were
terminated by3
Al-Hejailan and they were repatriated to the
Philippines.
Upon their arrival in the Philippines, private
respondents demanded from petitioner Philsa the return of
their placement fees and for the payment of their salaries
for the unexpired portion of their contract. When petitioner
refused, they filed a case before the POEA against
petitioner Philsa and its foreign principal, Al-Hejailan,
with the following causes of action:

________________

1 Rollo, p. 24.
2 Rollo, p. 25.
3 Ibid.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

1. Illegal dismissal;

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 6 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

2. Payment of salary differentials;

3. Illegal deduction/withholding of salaries;
4. Illegal exactions/refund of placement fees; and
4
5. Contract substitution.

The case was docketed as POEA Case No. (L) 85-05-0370.

Under the rules of the POEA dated May 21, 1985,
complaints involving employer-employee relations arising
out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas employment, including money claims,
are adjudicated by the WorkersÊ Assistance and
Adjudication Office (hereinafter
5
the „WAAO‰) thru the
POEA Hearing Officers. On the other hand, complaints
involving recruitment violations warranting suspension or
cancellation of the license of recruiting agencies are
cognizable by the POEA thru its Licensing 6
and
Recruitment Office (hereinafter the „LRO‰). In cases
where a complaint partakes of the nature of both an
employer-employee relationship case and a recruitment
regulation case, the POEA Hearing Officer shall act as
representative of both the WAAO and the LRO and both
cases shall be heard simultaneously. In such cases, the
Hearing Officer shall submit two 7 separate
recommendations for the two aspects of the case.
In the case at bench, the first two causes of action were
in the nature of money claims arising from the employer-
employee relations and were properly cognizable by the
WAAO. The last two causes of action were in the nature of
recruitment violations and may be investigated by the
LRO. The third cause of action, illegal
deduction/withholding of salary, is both a money claim and
a violation of recruitment regulations and is thus under the
investigatory jurisdiction of both the WAAO and the LRO.
Several hearings were conducted before the POEA
Hearing Officer on the two aspects of private respondentsÊ
complaint. During these hearings, private respondents
supported their complaint with

________________

4 Rollo, p. 87.
5 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book VI, Rule II, Sections 2 and 4.
6 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book II, Rule VI, Section 3.
7 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book VI, Rule VI, Section 1.

181

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 181

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

the presentation of both documentary and testimonial

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 7 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

evidence. When it was its turn to present its evidence,

petitioner failed to do so and consequently, private
respondents filed a motion
8
to decide the case on the basis of
the evidence on record.
On the aspects of the case involving money claims
arising from the employer-employee relations and illegal
dismissal,
9
the POEA rendered a decision dated August 31,
1988, the dispositive portion of which reads:

„CONFORMABLY TO THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby,

rendered ordering respondent PHILSA INTERNATIONAL
PLACEMENT AND SERVICE CORPORATION to pay
complainants, jointly and severally with its principal Al-Hejailan,
the following amounts, to wit:

1. TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE

SAUDI RIYALS (SR2,225.00) to each complainant,
representing the refund of their unpaid separation pay;
2. ONE THOUSAND SAUDI RIYALS (SR1,000.00) for V.A. de
Mesa alone, representing the salary deduction from his
March salary;
3. TWO THOUSAND SAUDI RIYALS (SR2,000.00) each for
R.I. Mikin and C.A.P. Leyson only, representing their
differential pay for the months of February and March,
1985; and
4. Five percent (5%) of the total awards as and by way of
attorneyÊs fees.

All payments of the abovestated awards shall be made in

Philippine Currency equivalent to the prevailing exchange rate
according to the Central Bank at the time of payment.
All other claims of complainants as well as the counterclaims of
respondent are dismissed for lack of merit.
10
SO ORDERED.‰

Under the Rules and Regulations of the POEA, the decision

of the POEA-Adjudication Office on matters involving
money claims arising from the employer-employee
relationship of overseas Filipino workers may be appealed
to the National Labor Relations

________________

8 Rollo, p. 144.
9 Annex „A‰ of Petition; Rollo, pp. 24-31.
10 Rollo, p. 31.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 8 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

11
Commission (hereinafter the „NLRC‰). Thus, as both felt
aggrieved by the said POEA Decision, petitioner and
private respondents filed separate appeals from the August
31, 1988 POEA Decision to the NLRC.12
In a decision dated July 26, 1989, the NLRC modified
the appealed decision of the POEA Adjudication Office by
deleting the award of salary deductions and differentials.
These awards to private respondents were deleted by the
NLRC considering that these were not raised in the
complaint filed by private respondents. The NLRC likewise
stated that there was nothing in the text of the decision
which would justify the award.
Private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but the same was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution
dated October 25, 1989.
Private respondents then elevated the July 26, 1989
decision of the NLRC to the Supreme Court in a petition for
review for certiorari where it was docketed as G.R. No.
89089. However, in a Resolution dated October 25, 1989,
the petition was dismissed outright for „insufficiency in
form and substance, having failed to comply with the Rules
of Court and Circular No. 1-88 requiring submission of a
certified true copy
13
of the questioned resolution dated
August 23, 1989.‰
Almost simultaneous with the promulgation of the
August 31, 1988 decision of the POEA on private
respondentsÊ money claims, the 14
POEA issued a separate
Order dated August 29, 1988 resolving the recruitment
violations aspect of private respondentsÊ complaint. In this
Order, the POEA found petitioner guilty of illegal exaction,
contract substitution, and unlawful deduction. The
dispositive portion of this August 29, 1988 POEA Order
reads:

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office finds herein

respondent PHILSA International Placement and Services
Corporation liable for three (3) counts of illegal exaction, two (2)
counts of contract

________________

11 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book VI, Rule V, Section 2.

12 Annex „B‰ of Petition; Rollo, pp. 32-38.
13 Annex „F‰ of Comment of Private Respondents; Rollo, pp. 188-189.
14 Annex „C‰ of Petition; Rollo, pp. 39-46.

183

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 183

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.
Secretary of Labor and Employment

substitution and one count of withholding or unlawful deduction

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 9 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

from salaries of workers.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to refund the
placement fees in the amount of P2,500.00 to Rodrigo L. Mikin,
P4,000.00. each, to Vivencio A. de Mesa and Cedric A.P. Leyson plus
restitution of the salaries withheld in the amount of SR1,000.00 to
Vivencio A. de Mesa.
Moreover, respondentÊs license is hereby suspended for eight (8)
months to take effect immediately and to remain as such until full
refund and restitution of the above-stated amounts have been
effected or in lieu thereof, it is fined the amount of SIXTY
THOUSAND (P60,000.00) PESOS plus restitution.
SO ORDERED.‰

In line with this August 29, 1988 Order, petitioner

deposited the check equivalent to the claims of private
respondents and paid the corresponding fine under protest.
From the said Order, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was subsequently denied in an
Order dated October 10, 1989.
Under the POEA Rules and Regulations, the decision of
the POEA thru the LRO suspending or canceling a license
or authority to act as a recruitment agency may be
appealed to the
15
Ministry (now Department) of Labor and
Employment. Accordingly, after the denial of its motion
for reconsideration, petitioner appealed the August 21,
1988 Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
16
However, in an Order dated September 13, 1991, public
respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed
in toto the assailed Order. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but this was likewise denied in an Order
dated November 25, 1991.
Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari where
petitioner raises the following grounds for the reversal of
the questioned Orders:

I.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN

EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN HOLDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS. THE

________________

15 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book II, Rule VI, Section 18.
16 Annex „D‰ of Petition, Rollo, pp. 47-51.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.
Secretary of Labor and Employment

FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. AND IN ANY

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 10 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

EVENT, THE LAW ON WHICH THE CONVICTION IS BASED IS

VOID.

II.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN

EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN PENALIZING PETITIONER WITH CONTRACT
SUBSTITUTION. IN THE PREMISES, THE CONTRACT
SUBSTITUTION IS VALID AS IT IMPROVED THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTSÊ EMPLOYMENT.

III.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN

EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN HOLDING PETITIONER LIABLE FOR
ILLEGAL DEDUCTIONS/WITHHOLDING OF SALARIES. FOR
THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF HAS ALREADY ABSOLVED
PETITIONER FROM THIS CHARGE.

With respect to the first ground, petitioner would want us

to overturn the findings of the POEA, subsequently
affirmed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment, that it is guilty of illegal exaction committed
by collecting placement fees in excess of the amounts
allowed by law. This issue, however, is a question of fact
which cannot
17
be raised in a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. As we have previously held:

„It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court. An extraordinary remedy, its use is available only and
restrictively in truly exceptional cases wherein the action of an
inferior court, board or officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial
acts is challenged for being wholly void on grounds of jurisdiction.
The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of
jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It does not include
correction of public respondent NLRCÊs evaluation of the

________________

17 Building Care Corp. vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 666 (1997).

185

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 185

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.
Secretary of Labor and Employment

evidence and factual findings based thereon, which are generally

18
accorded not only great respect but even finality.‰

The question of whether or not petitioner charged private

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 11 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

respondents placement fees in excess of that allowed by law

is clearly a question of fact which is for public respondent
POEA, as a trier of facts, to determine. As stated above, the
settled rule is that the factual findings of quasi-judicial
agencies like the POEA, which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters,
are generally accordjed not only respect, but at times even
finality if
19
such findings are supported by substantial
evidence.
On this point, we have carefully examined the records of
the case and it is clear that the ruling of public respondent
POEA that petitioner is guilty of illegal exaction is
supported by substantial evidence. Aside from the
testimonial evidence offered by private respondents, they
also presented documentary evidence consisting of receipts
issued by a duly authorized representative of petitioner
which show the payment of amounts in excess of those
allowed by the POEA. In contrast, petitioner did not
present any evidence whatsoever to rebut the claims of
private respondents despite the many opportunities for
them to do so.
Petitioner insists, however, that it cannot be held liable
for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. II,
Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which
may be collected from applicants, is void for lack of
publication.
There is merit in the argument.
20
In Tañada vs. Tuvera, the Court held, as follows:

„We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local

application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication
unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

________________

18 Flores vs. NLRC, 253 SCRA 494 (1996).

19 San Miguel Corp. vs. Ernesto Javate, et al., 205 SCRA 469 (1992);
GRF Shipping Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, 190 SCRA 418 (1990).
20 136 SCRA 27 (1985).

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders

promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers
whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at
present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative
rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 12 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency
and the public, need not be published. Neither is publication
required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the
administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.‰

Applying this doctrine, we have previously declared as

having no force and effect the following administrative
issuances: a) Rules and Regulations issued by the Joint
Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment
Accreditation Committee regarding the accreditation
21
of
hospitals, medical clinics and laboratories; b) Letter of
Instruction No. 416 ordering the suspension of payments
due and payable by distressed22
copper mining companies to
the national government; c) Memorandum Circulars
issued by the POEA regulating
23
the recruitment of domestic
helpers to Hong Kong; d) Administrative Order No.
SOCPEC 89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International
Trading Corporation regulating applications
24
for
importation from the PeopleÊs Republic of China; and e)
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 issued by the
Department of Budget and Management discontinuing the
payment of other allowances and 25 fringe benefits to
government officials and employees. In all these cited
cases, the administrative issuances questioned therein
were uniformly struck down as they were not

________________

21 Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment

Accreditation Committee vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 263 (1991).
22 Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 726 (1992).
23 Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres, 212 SCRA 298
(1992).
24 Philippine International Trading Corporation vs. Angeles, 263
SCRA 421 (1996).
25 De Jesus vs. Commission on Audit, 294 SCRA 152 (1998).

187

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 187

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

published or filed with the National Administrative 26

Register as required by the Administrative Code of 1987.
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must
likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never
published or filed with the National Administrative
Register.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 13 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

POEA Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983

provides for the applicable schedule of placement and
documentation fees for private employment agencies or
authority holders. Under the said Order, the maximum
amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino
overseas workers is P2,500.00. The said circular was
apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of
Article 32 of the Labor Code which provides, as follows:

„Article 32. Fees to be paid by workers.·Any person applying with a

private fee-charging employment agency for employment assistance
shall not be charged any fee until he has obtained employment
through its efforts or has actually commenced employment. Such
fee shall be always covered with the approved receipt clearly
showing the amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate
a schedule of allowable fees.‰ (italics supplied)

It is thus clear that the administrative circular under

consideration is one of those issuances which should be
published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce
and implement
27
an existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation. Considering that POEA Administrative
Circular No. 2, Series, of 1983 has not as yet been
published or filed with the National Administrative
Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced.
The Office of the Solicitor General argues however that
the imposition of administrative sanctions on petitioner
was based not on the questioned28administrative circular
but on Article 32 and Article 34 (a) of the Labor Code.

________________

26 Administrative Code of 1987, Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 3.

27 Philippine International Trading Corporation vs. Angeles, supra.
28 „Labor Code. Article 34. Prohibited Practices.·It shall be unlawful
for any individual, entity, licensee or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount greater than
that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

The argument is not meritorious. The said articles of the

Labor Code were never cited, much less discussed, in the
body of the questioned Orders of the POEA and Secretary
of Labor and Employment. In fact, the said Orders were
consistent in mentioning that petitionerÊs violation of
Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 was the basis
for the imposition of administrative sanctions against
petitioner. Furthermore, even assuming that petitioner was

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 14 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

held liable under the said provisions of the Labor Code,

Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code presupposes the
promulgation of a valid schedule of fees by the Department
of Labor and Employment. Considering that, as, previously
discussed, Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983
embodying such a schedule of fees never took effect, there
is thus no basis for the imposition of the administrative
sanctions against petitioner. Moreover, under Book VI,
Chapter II, Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987,
„(r)ules in force on the date of the effectivity of this Code
which are not filed within three (3) months from that date
shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against
any party or persons.‰ Considering that POEA
Administrative Circular No. 2 was never filed with the
National Administrative Register, the same cannot be used
as basis for the imposition of administrative sanctions
against petitioner.
The Office of the Solicitor General likewise argues that
the questioned administrative circular is not among those
requiring publication contemplated by Tañada vs. Tuvera
as it is addressed only to a specific group of persons and not
to the general public.
Again, there is no merit in this argument.
The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a
specified group, namely private employment agencies or
authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of
our ruling in Tañada vs. Tuvera. In the case of29 Phil.
Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres, the
administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed
to an even smaller group, namely Philippine and Hong
Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for
Hong

________________

Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than

actually received by him as a loan or advance.‰
29 212 SCRA 298 (1992).

189

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 189

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Kong, and still the Court ruled therein that, for lack of
proper publication, the said circulars may not be enforced
or implemented.
Our pronouncement in Tañada vs. Tuvera is clear and
categorical. Administrative rules and regulations must be
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 15 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely

internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions
issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules
and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties. Administrative Circular No. 2,
Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of
these exceptions.
In this regard, the Solicitor GeneralÊs reliance on30 the
case of Yaokasin vs. Commissioner of Customs is
misplaced. In the said case, the validity of certain Customs
Memorandum Orders were upheld despite their lack of
publication as they were addressed to a particular class of
persons, the customs collectors, who were also, the
subordinates of the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs. As such, the said Memorandum Orders clearly
fall under one of the exceptions to the publication
requirement, namely those dealing with instructions from
an administrative superior to a subordinate regarding the
performance of their duties, a circumstance which does not
obtain in the case at bench.
With respect to the second ground, petitioner would
want us to review the findings of fact of the POEA
regarding the two counts of alleged contract substitution.
Again, this is a question of fact which may not be disturbed
if the same is supported by substantial evidence. A reading
of the August 29, 1988 Order of the POEA shows that,
indeed, the ruling that petitioner is guilty of two (2) counts
of prohibited contract substitution is supported by
substantial evidence. Thus:

„2. As admitted by respondent, there was definitely a contract of

substitution in the first count. The first contract was duly approved
by the Administration and, therefore, the parties are bound by the
terms and condition thereof until its expiration. The mere intention
of respondents to increase the number of hours of work, even if
there was a corresponding

________________

30 180 SCRA 599 (1989).

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation vs.
Secretary of Labor and Employment

increase in wage is clear violation of the contract as approved by the

Administration, and notwithstanding the same, the amendment is
evidently contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy
and hence, must be shunned (Art. 1306, Civil Code of the
Philippines, Book III, Title I, Chapter 1, Article 83, Labor Code of
the Philippines, as amended). Moreover, it would appear that the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 16 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

proposed salary increase corresponding to the increase in number of

work bonus may just have been a ploy as complainant were (sic)
thereafter not paid at the increased rate.
As to contract substitution in the second part, a third contract
was emphatically intended by respondent to be signed by
complainants which, however, was not consummated due to the
adamant refusal of complainants to sign thereon. Mere intention of
the respondent to commit contract substitution for a second time
should not be left unpunished. It is the duty of this Office to repress
such acts by teaching agencies a lesson to avoid repetition of the
31
same violation.‰

With respect to the third ground, petitioner argues that the

public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
holding petitioner liable for illegal deductions/withholding
of salaries considering that the Supreme Court itself has
already absolved petitioner from this charge. Petitioner
premises its argument on the fact that the July 26, 1989
Decision of the NLRC absolving it from private respondent
de MesaÊs claim for salary deduction has already attained
finality by reason of the dismissal of private respondentsÊ
petition for certiorari of the said NLRC decision by the
Supreme Court.
Petitioner is correct in stating that the July 26, 1989
Decision of the NLRC has attained finality by reason of the
dismissal of the petition for certiorari assailing the same.
However, the said NLRC Decision dealt only with the
money claims of private respondents arising from
employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal and as
such, it is only for the payment of the said money claims
that petitioner is absolved. The administrative sanctions,
which are distinct and separate from the money claims of
private respondents, may still be properly imposed by the
POEA. In fact, in the August 31, 1988 Decision of the
POEA dealing with the money claims of private
respondents, the POEA Adjudication Office pre-

________________

31 Rollo, p. 44.

191

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 191

Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

cisely declared that „respondentÊs liability for said money

claims is without prejudice to and independent of its
liabilities for the recruitment violations 32aspect of the case
which is the subject of a separate Order.‰
The NLRC Decision absolving petitioner from paying

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 17 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

private respondent de MesaÊs claim for salary deduction

based its ruling on a finding33that the said money claim was
not raised in the complaint. While there may be questions
regarding such finding of the NLRC, the finality of the said
NLRC Decision prevents us from modifying or reviewing
the same. But the fact that the claim for salary deduction
was not raised by private respondents in their complaint
will not bar the POEA from holding petitioner liable for
illegal deduction or withholding of salaries as a ground for
the suspension or cancellation of petitionerÊs license.
Under the POEA Rules and Regulations, the POEA, on
its own initiative, may conduct the necessary proceeding
for the suspension or cancellation of the license of any
private placement
34
agency on any of the grounds mentioned
therein. As such, even without a written complaint from
an aggrieved party, the POEA can initiate proceedings
against an erring private placement agency and, if the
result of its investigation so warrants, impose the
corresponding administrative sanction thereof. Moreover,
the POEA, in an investigation of an employer-employee
relationship case, may still hold a respondent liable for
administrative sanctions if, in the course of its
investigation,
35
violations of recruitment regulations are
uncovered. It is thus clear that even if recruitment
violations were not included in a complaint for money
claims initiated by a private complainant, the POEA, under
its rules, may still take cognizance of the same and impose
administrative sanctions if the evidence so warrants.
As such, the fact that petitioner has been absolved by
final judgment for the payment of the money claim to
private respondent de Mesa does not mean that it is
likewise absolved from the

________________

32 Rollo, p. 30.
33 Rollo, p. 37.
34 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book II, Rule VI, Section 3.
35 POEA Rules and Reg. (1985), Book VI, Rule VI, Section 1.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philsa international Placement and Services Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

administrative sanctions which may be imposed as a result

of the unlawful deduction or withholding of private
respondentsÊ salary. The POEA thus committed no grave
abuse of discretion in finding petitioner administratively
liable of one count of unlawful deduction/withholding of
salary.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 18 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

To summarize, petitioner should be absolved from the

three (3) counts of exaction as POEA Administrative
Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 could not be the basis of
administrative sanctions against petitioner for lack of
publication. However, we affirm the ruling of the POEA
and the Secretary of Labor and Employment that petitioner
should be held administratively liable for two (2) counts of
contract substitution and one (1) count of withholding or
unlawful deduction of salary. Under the applicable
schedule of penalties imposed by the POEA, the penalty for
each count of contract substitution is suspension of license
for two (2) months or a fine of P10,000.00 while the penalty
for withholding or unlawful deduction of salaries is
suspension of license for two (2) months or fine equal to the
salary withheld but not less than P10,000.00 36
plus
restitution of the amount in both instances. Applying the
said schedule on the instant case, the license of petitioner
should be suspended for six (6) months or, in lieu thereof, it
should be ordered to pay fine in the amount of P30,000.00.
Petitioner should likewise pay the amount of SR1,000.00 to
private respondent Vivencio A. de Mesa as restitution for
the amount withheld from his salary.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 13,
1991 and November 25, 1991 Orders of public respondent
Secretary of Labor and Employment are hereby
MODIFIED. As modified, the license of petitioner Philsa
International Placement and Services Corporation is
hereby suspended for six (6) months or, in lieu thereof, it is
hereby ordered to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as fine.
Petitioner is likewise ordered to pay the amount of
SR1,000.00 to private respondent Vivencio A. de Mesa. All
other monetary awards are deleted.
SO ORDERED.

________________

36 Rollo, p. 45.

193

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 193

Pilipinas Loan Company, Inc. vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban and Sandoval-

Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Orders modified, license of petitioner suspended for 6

months or in lieu thereof a fine of P30,000.

Notes.·It is incorrect to maintain that to be liable for

illegal recruitment, one must represent himself/herself to
the victims as a duly-licensed recruiter. (People vs.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 19 of 20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356 7/21/20, 3:00 PM

Cabacang, 246 SCRA 530 [1995])

Recruitment of persons for overseas employment
without the necessary recruiting permit or authority from
the POEA constitutes illegal recruitment and where some
other crimes or felonies are committed in the process,
conviction under the Labor Code does not preclude
punishment under other statutes. (People vs. Calonzo, 262
SCRA 534 [1996])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001737022cc62e80948b1003600fb002c009e/p/APR404/?username=Guest Page 20 of 20