G.R. No. 152642 , G.R. No. 152710, G.R. No. 167590, G.R. Nos. 182978-79 & G.R. Nos. 184298-99 November 13, 2012
HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. REY SALAC, ET AL., Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

These consolidated cases challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. In G.R. Nos. 152642 and 152710, private respondents, including recruitment agencies and individuals, filed petitions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) assailing the continued regulatory functions of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). They argued that Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 mandated a comprehensive deregulation plan and the gradual phase-out of the POEA’s regulatory functions within five years from the law’s effectivity. The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondents, ordering the government to deregulate and annulling related administrative issuances.
In G.R. No. 167590, the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) challenged the constitutionality of Section 7 of R.A. 8042, which penalizes illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale as economic sabotage. PASEI contended that the provision was void for vagueness. The other consolidated cases, G.R. Nos. 182978-79 and 184298-99, involved claims for damages arising from the death of an overseas worker, which raised issues about the applicable provisions of R.A. 8042.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 (on deregulation) are constitutional; (2) Whether Section 7 of R.A. 8042 (on illegal recruitment as economic sabotage) is void for vagueness; and (3) What provisions govern the award of damages in cases involving overseas workers.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions regarding the deregulation provisions as moot and academic. The Court noted that during the pendency of the cases, Congress enacted R.A. No. 9422 in 2007, which expressly repealed Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042. The new law adopted a policy of close government regulation over the recruitment and deployment of overseas workers. Since the challenged provisions had been legislatively repealed, there was no longer any justiciable controversy for the Court to resolve on their constitutionality.
Regarding the challenge to Section 7, the Court upheld its constitutionality. The provision defining illegal recruitment as economic sabotage when committed by a syndicate or in large scale is not vague. The terms “syndicate” and “large scale” are sufficiently defined by the law itself and are understandable within the context of established legal principles. The law provides ascertainable standards, and the offense is described with sufficient precision to inform the public of what acts are prohibited and to guide enforcement authorities.
On the matter of damages, the Court ruled that for incidents occurring before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10022 (which amended R.A. 8042) in 2010, the applicable law is Section 10 of the original R.A. 8042. This provision allows for the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, in cases of contract violations or unlawful acts by recruitment agencies, without requiring proof of bad faith. The grant of such damages is justified by the state’s policy of affording greater protection to overseas workers