G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, as Secretary of the Department of Labor & Employment, and JOSE N. SARMIENTO, as Administrator of the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), is the largest national organization of private employment and recruitment agencies licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On June 1, 1991, DOLE Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued Department Order No. 16, Series of 1991, temporarily suspending the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong effective July 1, 1991, and vesting the DOLE, through the POEA, with the task of processing and deploying such workers. This order was issued due to published stories about abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids in Hong Kong. Pursuant to this, the POEA issued Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1991 (dated July 10, 1991), providing guidelines for the government processing and deployment of domestic helpers to Hong Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment agencies. Subsequently, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 37, Series of 1991 (dated August 1, 1991) was issued, setting deadlines for processing existing contracts and requiring accreditation under the new scheme. On September 2, 1991, PASEI filed a petition for prohibition to annul these circulars and enjoin their implementation, arguing that the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion, that the circulars are unconstitutional, unreasonable, and oppressive, and that the requirements of publication and filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register were not complied with.

ISSUE

Whether the implementation of DOLE Department Order No. 16, Series of 1991, and POEA Memorandum Circulars Nos. 30 and 37, Series of 1991, should be suspended due to non-compliance with statutory publication and filing requirements.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the writ of prohibition. The Court held that while the respondents acted within their quasi-legislative and regulatory powers under Article 36 of the Labor Code to restrict and regulate recruitment activities for the protection of public welfare, the assailed administrative issuances could not be enforced and implemented due to lack of proper publication. The Court emphasized that administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation, as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code, and Sections 3 and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. Since the circulars were not published in accordance with law, their implementation was SUSPENDED pending compliance with these statutory requirements. The Court did not find merit in PASEI’s first two grounds, upholding the respondents’ regulatory authority, but ruled in favor of PASEI on the procedural ground of non-publication.