Case Digest (G.R. No. 81510)
Facts:
Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Hortencia Salazar was the subject of an administrative complaint for alleged illegal recruitment filed by Rosalie Tesoro with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on October 21, 1987. The complaint alleged that Salazar withheld a PECC card and prevented the complainant from leaving for Japan.
On November 3, 1987, Atty. Ferdinand Marquez, to whom the complaint was assigned, sent petitioner a telegram directing her to appear before the POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit on November 6, 1987. On the same day, Tomas D. Achacoso, Administrator of POEA, issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 ordering closure of Salazar’s recruitment agency at 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, and seizure of documents and paraphernalia, citing that she had no license and was committing acts prohibited under Article 34 in relation to Article 38 of the Labor Code.
On January 26, 1988, POEA Director on Licensing Atty. Estelita B. Espiritu designated Atty. Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara and Atty. Ernesto Vistro to implement the closure order. With assistance from Mandaluyong policemen and media, the team entered the premises (a dance studio) after obtaining voluntary entry from a Mrs. Flora Salazar, found performers inside, and confiscated assorted costumes which were receipted by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.
Petitioner, through counsel, demanded return of the seized personal properties in a January 28, 1988 letter, alleging violations of due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Constitution, and threatened civil and criminal action if the items were not returned. Before POEA answered, petitioner filed a petition on February 2, 1988 seeking prohibition; POEA concurrently filed a criminal complaint against her with the Pasig Provincial Fiscal (docketed IS-88-836). Although the acts were already accomplished (making prohibition technically late), the Court treated the petition as one for certiorari because of grave public interest.
The sole issue framed for resolution was whether the POEA (or the Secretary of Labor) may validly issue warrants of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue warrants of search and seizure or arrest under Article 38(c) of the Labor Code?
- If not, was Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 validly issued in this case, or did it amount to a proscribed general warrant in ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)