Case Summary (G.R. No. 81510)
Key Dates
• October 21, 1987 – Tesoro files sworn complaint with POEA
• November 3, 1987 – Marquez issues a summons by telegram; Achacoso issues Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205
• January 26, 1988 – POEA enforcement team executes the closure and seizure at Salazar’s premises
• January 28, 1988 – Salazar’s counsel demands immediate return of seized personal property
• February 2, 1988 – Petitioner files a petition for prohibition (treated as certiorari) before the Supreme Court; POEA files a criminal complaint against Salazar
• March 14, 1990 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 2: “No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge…”
• Labor Code, Article 38(c) (as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1920 and 2018)
• Presidential Decree No. 1693 (original amendment to Article 38)
• Decrees Nos. 1920 and 2018 (expanding powers of the Minister of Labor)
Factual Background
Rosalie Tesoro alleged that upon return from Japan, her former manager, Hortencia Salazar, wrongfully withheld her PECC Card, prevented her redeployment, and committed illegal recruitment. Complaining parties swore that Salazar’s conduct constituted unauthorized recruitment for overseas employment.
Closure and Seizure Order
On November 3, 1987, after confirming that Salazar lacked any POEA license, Administrator Achacoso, under PD 1920 and Executive Order 1022, issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205. The order directed closure of Salazar’s recruitment agency at Mandaluyong premises and seizure of documents and paraphernalia “used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment.”
Execution of the Closure Order
On January 26, 1988, a POEA team—comprising Atty. Marquez, two other counsel, Mandaluyong policemen, and media representatives—entered Salazar’s dance studio at her residence. They seized costumes and other items, documented by receipts signed by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar. No judicial warrant was presented; entry was based solely on the departmental closure order.
Petition for Return of Seized Properties
By letter dated January 28, 1988, Salazar’s counsel demanded the immediate return of personal properties valued at ₱10,000, asserting violations of due process (Article III, Section 1, Constitution), protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2), and penal provisions on violation of domicile and robbery (RPC Arts. 293 and 128). The letter warned of civil and criminal action if the items were not restored within twenty-four hours.
Procedural Posture and Issue
On February 2, 1988, Salazar filed a petition for prohibition. Recognizing that prohibition was technically moot, the Court treated the petition as one for certiorari due to the grave public interest. The sole issue: whether the POEA—or the Secretary of Labor—may validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38(c) of the Labor Code, absent judicial involvement.
Constitutional Requirement for Warrants under the 1987 Constitution
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that only a judge, upon personal examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses, may issue warrants of arrest or search. The provision rejects any delegation to “other responsible officer,” distinguishing from the 1973 Constitution’s broader language.
Statutory and Decree-Based Powers under Article 38, Labor Code
Under the 1973 Constitution, PD 1693 (1978) authorized the Labor Minister merely to recommend arrests. PD 1920 (1984) and PD 2018 (1986) incrementally vested the Minister—and by succession the Secretary—powers to order arrest, detention, closure of establishments, search of premises, and seizure of materials used in illegal recruitment. These provisions were codified in Article 38(c) of the Labor Code.
Unconstitutionality of Executive Warrant Powers
The Court held that, under the 1987 Constitution, the Secretary of Labor or the POEA Administrator, not being a judge, cannot validly issue warrants of arrest or search. To allow such administrative issuance would contravene the constitutional scheme, which reserves the determination of probable cause and issuance of warrants to the judiciary. Consequently, Article 38(c) o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 81510)
Facts of the Case
- On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro filed a sworn statement with the POEA accusing Hortencia Salazar of withholding her PECC card and engaging in illegal recruitment.
- Tesoro alleged that after nine months in the Philippines post-deployment to Japan, Salazar refused to return her PECC card, preventing her transfer to another company.
- On November 3, 1987, Atty. Ferdinand Marquez of the POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit directed Salazar to appear for a hearing by telegram.
- The same day, Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 against Salazar’s alleged unlicensed recruitment agency located at 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong.
Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205
- Declared the closure of Salazar’s recruitment agency for lack of a valid license under P.D. 1920 and E.O. 1022.
- Ordered seizure of documents and paraphernalia “used or intended to be used as means of committing illegal recruitment.”
- Noted Salazar’s acts as violations of Article 34 in relation to Article 38 of the Labor Code.
- Stated that the order was “without prejudice to criminal prosecution under existing laws.”
Implementation of the Order
- On January 26, 1988, POEA Director on Licensing Atty. Estelita B. Espiritu formed an implementation team including Atty. Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara, and Atty. Ernesto Vistro.
- Assisted by Mandaluyong police officers and two media representatives, the team entered Salazar’s premises at 615 R.O. Santos St., finding Hannalie Dance Studio in operation.
- Mrs. Flora Salazar granted access but produced no valid accreditation or credentials.
- Inside, twelve performers were rehearsing and about twenty more awaited audition. Assorted costumes were seized and receipted by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan.
Procedural Challenges by the Petitioner
- On January 28, 1988, counsel for Salazar demanded the immediate return of seized properties, arguing:
- Violation of due process (no prior notice or hearing) under Art