Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SANTOSA B. DATUMAN v. FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 169247 2014-06-02	MA. CONSOLACION M. NAHAS v. JUANITA L. OLARTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a fmal note, it is worth stating that recruitment agencies, as part of their bounden duty to protect the welfare of the Filipino workers sent abroad from whom they take their profit,[33] should in conscience not add to the misery of maltreated and abused Filipino workers by denying them the reparation to which they are entitled. Instead, they must "faithfully comply with their government prescribed responsibilities"[34] and be the first to ensure the welfare of the very people upon whose patronage their industry thrives.[35]
	GR No. 178551 2010-10-11	ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION v. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The imposition of joint and solidary liability is in line with the policy of the state to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class.[9] Verily, to allow petitioners to simply invoke the immunity from suit of its foreign principal or to wait for the judicial determination of the foreign principal's liability before petitioner can be held liable renders the law on joint and solidary liability inutile.
	GR No. 179177 2009-07-23	CARLOS N. NISDA v. SEA SERVE MARITIME AGENCY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Placewell International Services Corporation v. Camote,[78] we held that the subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with the foreign employer is void, simply because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. The subsequent agreement cannot supersede the terms of the standard employment contract approved by the POEA. Republic Act No. 8042, commonly known as the Migrant Workers Act of 1995, expressly prohibits the substitution or alteration, to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time of the actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same, without the approval of DOLE.[79] Since the second employment contract petitioner Nisda signed with respondent ADAMS was void for not having been sanctioned by the POEA, then petitioner Nisda's employment with respondent ADAMS was still governed by his POEA-SEC until his repatriation to the Philippines on 17 July 2002.