JURISPRUDENCE

PEOPLE V CASIO

Since there are a number of Filipinos who are OFWs, there have been a number of cases and
jurisprudence which discuss their rights. In the case of People v. Casio1 The victim, who is a
minor, worked as a house helper in Mandaue City. She was subjected to trafficking. She was
offered to work as a prostitute, which she then accepted. She even recalled that her first
customer gave her P200.00 plus a P500.00 tip. She then transferred to another place, where
she knew that accused. The accused contended that the victim admitted that she worked as a
prostitute. Thus, it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers. Still, it was held by
the Supreme Court that under Section 3(a) of Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003 or the
Republic Act No. 9208, trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives
consent. Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring,
or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or,
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.The recruitment, transportation,
transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered
as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph. Further, the Court discussed the need of the adoption of RA 9208: At present, Mr.
President, the relevant laws to the trafficking issue are the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act
No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act, Republic Act No. 6955 or the Mail-
Order Bride Act, and Republic Act No. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act. These laws address
issues such as illegal recruitment, prostitution, falsification of public documents and the mail-
order bride scheme. These laws do not respond to the issue of recruiting, harboring or
transporting persons resulting in prostitution, forced labor, slavery and slavery-like practices.
They only address to one or some elements of trafficking independent of their results or
consequences.

SERRANO V GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

The second case is a labor case about a seafarer who was constructively dismissed2. Serrano
was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc, under a POEA 12 month contract. He was
supposed to be a Chief Officer, but was hired as a Second officer of the ship with diminution of
pay with the promise that he would be promoted by the end of the year. Gallant did not fulfill
their promise and Serrano was repatriated back to the Philippines only serving two months.
Now, the petitioner is questioning the constitutionality of Section 10 of RA 8042 or the Migrant
Workers Act of 1995, which provides: Sec. 10. Money Claims. — . . . In case of termination of
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the
workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve
percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract
or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. The Court
declared that the above provision is unconstitutional because it violated the right to equal
protection of OFWs. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also opined in this case that the

1 People v. Casio, G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014.

2 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009.
said clause is to protect or mitigate the effects of illegal dismissal cases on local placement
agencies. However, the Court ruled that: There can never be a justification for any form of
government action that alleviates the burden of one sector, but imposes the same burden on
another sector, especially when the favored sector is composed of private businesses such as
placement agencies, while the disadvantaged sector is composed of OFWs whose protection no
less than the Constitution commands. This case also distinguished and discussed why migrant
workers should be given different treatment due to reasonable distinction between a migrant
worker and a local worker. OFWs are contractual employees who can never acquire regular
employment status, unlike local workers who are or can become regular employees.