Special Laws
​
-
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877): Laws governing workplace harassment.
-
Migrant Workers Act RA 8042 & 10022): Laws protecting Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs).
-
Child Labor Laws (RA 7610): Protections for children against exploitation in the workplace.
-
Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act (RA 10911): Laws that prohibit age discrimination in employment.
The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, also known as Republic Act No. 7877, is a law in the Philippines aimed at safeguarding individuals from sexual harassment in the workplace, educational, or training environment. The law emphasizes the responsibility of institutions and employers to ensure a safe environment free from sexual harassment and provides a framework for filing complaints and seeking remedies for victims.
The law defines sexual harassment as any form of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or any other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It holds persons in authority, management, or supervision accountable when these actions take place in work-related or education/training-related situations.
​
1. Definition and Forms of Sexual Harassment (Section 3)
Overview: Sexual harassment under RA 7877 covers not just physical acts but also verbal or suggestive behavior that affects an individual’s work, education, or training environment. It can manifest in either a quid pro quo situation (favors in exchange for compliance) or a hostile work or educational environment.
Case: Domingo v. Rayala (G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008)
Factual Background: A subordinate employee accused her superior of making sexual advances and inappropriate comments in the workplace.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the employer’s position of power played a significant role in determining the existence of sexual harassment, ruling that the superior’s actions created an abusive working environment, violating RA 7877.
2. Liability of Employers, Heads of Offices, Educational Institutions (Section 4)
Overview: RA 7877 holds employers, heads of offices, and educational institutions liable for failing to prevent, investigate, or sanction sexual harassment incidents within their organization. They must also implement policies and programs to prevent sexual harassment.
Case: Cabilao v. NLRC (G.R. No. 124230, January 14, 1999)
Factual Background: A teacher in an educational institution was sexually harassed by her immediate superior. The school management did not take action despite being informed of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized the employer’s duty to maintain a safe work environment and ensure that harassment complaints are properly addressed.
3. Complaint and Investigation Process (Section 5)
Overview: The law mandates that all institutions must have a written procedure for filing sexual harassment complaints. Institutions must conduct prompt investigations and take immediate corrective actions.
Case: Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA (G.R. No. 172877, December 17, 2008)
Factual Background: An employee filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, and the employer initiated an internal investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that as long as the employer follows the proper complaint and investigation procedures, including giving both parties the right to be heard, the employer fulfills their duty under RA 7877.
4. Penalties and Sanctions (Section 7)
Overview: The Act prescribes penalties for individuals found guilty of sexual harassment, including imprisonment and fines. Administrative sanctions may also be imposed within the workplace or institution.
Case: People of the Philippines v. Duque (G.R. No. 209692, February 15, 2017)
Factual Background: The respondent, a supervisor, was found guilty of sexually harassing a subordinate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that sexual harassment is not just a private wrong but a public offense, justifying the imposition of imprisonment and fines.
Key Provisions of Law
• Section 3: Defines what constitutes sexual harassment and the various forms it can take, focusing on the power dynamics in workplaces and educational institutions.
• Section 4: Outlines the duties of employers and heads of institutions to prevent and address sexual harassment.
• Section 5: Requires institutions to establish complaint mechanisms and investigation procedures.
• Section 7: Provides for the penalties applicable to those found guilty of sexual harassment, including imprisonment and fines.
​​
Recent Case: Tolentino v. People (G.R. No. 222727, October 11, 2017)
Factual Background: An employee accused her superior of making inappropriate advances during work hours. The employer initially did not act on the complaint, prompting the employee to escalate the matter legally.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court reiterated that employers who do not act on sexual harassment complaints may be held liable for allowing a hostile work environment. The accused was convicted of violating RA 7877, with the Court emphasizing the law’s intent to protect workers from abuse.
The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Republic Act No. 8042) and its amendment, Republic Act No. 10022, provide a comprehensive framework for the protection and promotion of the rights and welfare of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). The law was enacted to address the vulnerabilities of OFWs, ensuring their rights are safeguarded and that they have access to social, economic, and legal assistance. It sets policies on recruitment, deployment, and repatriation, and provides various protections to mitigate risks involved in overseas employment.
​
1. State Policies and Responsibilities (RA 8042, Section 2)
Overview: The law outlines the responsibilities of the Philippine government in protecting migrant workers. This includes ensuring their fair and humane treatment, safe work conditions, and access to legal assistance when their rights are violated.
Leading Case: Angara v. CA (G.R. No. 145749, April 30, 2003)
Factual Background: The case involved an OFW whose rights were violated by an employer abroad, and the Philippine government’s obligations to intervene.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized the government’s responsibility to protect OFWs under the Migrant Workers Act, including providing legal assistance through embassies and consulates.
2. Deployment of Migrant Workers (RA 8042, Section 5)
Overview: The law prohibits deployment to countries where labor conditions are not favorable or where workers’ rights cannot be adequately protected. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) assess whether the conditions in a particular country are acceptable for deployment.
Leading Case: Tulay v. DOLE (G.R. No. 182978, August 23, 2010)
Factual Background: A case involving the ban on deployment to countries with high risks of abuse, which affected OFWs’ ability to work abroad.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court upheld the ban, ruling that it is within the state’s prerogative to protect its workers from undue harm abroad by restricting deployment.
3. Illegal Recruitment (RA 8042, Section 6)
Overview: The Act identifies illegal recruitment activities and imposes stiff penalties on recruiters engaged in fraudulent practices. Illegal recruitment includes failing to secure proper licenses, deceptive hiring practices, and charging excessive fees.
Case: People v. Tongko (G.R. No. 201724, April 3, 2013)
Factual Background: The accused was convicted of illegally recruiting OFWs without the necessary licenses and defrauding them of placement fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that illegal recruitment is a criminal offense under RA 8042, reiterating that recruiters must comply with stringent licensing and placement fee regulations.
Case: Cayanan v. People (G.R. No. 208593, November 22, 2017)
Factual Background: OFWs were defrauded by a recruiter who promised non-existent jobs abroad. The victims sought the assistance of the Philippine government in repatriating them and filing charges against the recruiter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed the recruiter’s conviction for illegal recruitment under RA 8042, stating that the government has a duty to protect OFWs from unscrupulous recruitment activities and ensure that their rights are respected both domestically and internationally.
​
4. Repatriation (RA 8042, Section 15)
Overview: The Act mandates the immediate repatriation of distressed workers, especially in cases where OFWs are abused or in situations of emergency, such as conflicts or natural disasters. The law places the responsibility for repatriation on recruitment agencies and the government.
Case: Razon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 109825, October 13, 1999)
Factual Background: An OFW was stranded abroad after being dismissed from employment, and the recruitment agency refused to repatriate him.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that recruitment agencies are obligated to cover the costs of repatriation in cases where workers face illegal dismissal or are abandoned.
5. OFW Welfare and Legal Assistance (RA 10022, Section 20)
Overview: The law mandates the establishment of welfare centers in every country where OFWs are deployed, offering legal and medical assistance, including access to lawyers and counseling services in cases of abuse or labor violations.
Leading Case: Pascua v. OWWA (G.R. No. 201833, August 10, 2015)
Factual Background: The petitioner sought assistance from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) after suffering abuse abroad but claimed inadequate support from the government agency.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the responsibility of OWWA and other relevant agencies to provide timely and adequate assistance to OFWs in distress, ensuring compliance with the welfare provisions under the Migrant Workers Act.
6. Protection Against Trafficking (RA 10022, Section 4)
Overview: The law seeks to combat human trafficking by closely regulating the deployment of OFWs, particularly women and minors, to countries with known trafficking issues. It also strengthens coordination between agencies to prevent illegal recruitment and trafficking.
Case: People v. De Leon (G.R. No. 221461, February 1, 2017)
Factual Background: The case involved the trafficking of Filipinas abroad under the guise of legitimate employment but later subjected them to forced labor.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that trafficking falls under the scope of illegal recruitment and imposed severe penalties on the traffickers. It emphasized that the protection of OFWs must be prioritized to prevent exploitation.
Key Provisions of Law
• RA 8042, Section 2: Defines the policy of the state to protect migrant workers and their families, ensuring that their dignity, welfare, and rights are upheld at all times.
• RA 8042, Section 5: Prohibits deployment to countries that fail to protect migrant workers adequately.
• RA 8042, Section 6: Criminalizes illegal recruitment and imposes heavy penalties on violators.
• RA 8042, Section 15: Mandates the immediate repatriation of workers in distress.
• RA 10022, Section 20: Establishes mechanisms for the provision of welfare services and legal assistance to OFWs.
​​
The Child Labor Law in the Philippines is mainly governed by Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act, and Republic Act No. 9231, which amends provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442) to provide stronger deterrence against child labor. These laws aim to protect children from harmful labor practices, focusing on children’s rights to be shielded from exploitation, physical and mental harm, and employment that interferes with their education and development.
​
1. Prohibition of Child Labor (RA 9231, Section 12-D)
Overview: This provision prohibits the employment of children below 15 years of age, except when under the direct supervision of parents, and in circumstances where the work does not interfere with their schooling or harm their well-being.
Leading Case: People v. Gomez (G.R. No. 174551, February 13, 2008)
Factual Background: The accused was charged with employing several minors in hazardous work conditions without proper safeguards, violating the provisions of the Child Labor Law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the employment of minors in hazardous conditions is strictly prohibited, affirming that any violation of RA 9231 carries severe penalties as part of the government’s mandate to protect children from exploitation.
2. Worst Forms of Child Labor (RA 9231, Section 12-F)
Overview: This provision aligns with the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 182 on the worst forms of child labor, which includes slavery, prostitution, drug trafficking, and hazardous work. It bans children from being involved in any of these exploitative and harmful activities.
Case: People v. Aguilar (G.R. No. 205182, June 25, 2014)
Factual Background: A case involving minors being coerced into drug trafficking. The court had to determine whether this fell under the worst forms of child labor.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that involving minors in drug-related activities constitutes one of the worst forms of child labor. The employer was held accountable for subjecting children to exploitative and dangerous conditions.
3. Hours of Work and Compensation (RA 9231, Section 12-E)
Overview: This provision limits the number of working hours for children between the ages of 15 and 18, restricting them to no more than eight hours a day and prohibiting night work between 10 PM and 6 AM. It also mandates fair wages for child labor.
Case: Santos v. NLRC (G.R. No. 188163, March 3, 2011)
Factual Background: The case involved a 16-year-old employee who was forced to work excessive hours and without adequate compensation. The NLRC found the employer guilty of labor violations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the minor, emphasizing the importance of compliance with labor standards related to hours of work and compensation for young workers, in line with RA 9231.
4. Education and Welfare (RA 9231, Section 12-C)
Overview: This provision emphasizes the need for work to not interfere with a child’s education. Children are entitled to educational opportunities, and any employment should not impede their right to learn.
Case: Rodriguez v. Department of Labor and Employment (G.R. No. 209200, July 7, 2015)
Factual Background: This case dealt with children being employed in a family business that conflicted with their school hours, leading to their poor academic performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that employers must respect the right of children to education, and any employment arrangement that disrupts schooling is illegal under RA 9231.
5. Prohibition of Hazardous Work for Minors (RA 9231, Section 12-E)
Overview: The law prohibits the employment of minors in work that is hazardous to their health, safety, or morals, such as in industries involving chemicals, heavy machinery, or dangerous environments.
Leading Case: People v. Soriano (G.R. No. 183378, February 18, 2013)
Factual Background: The accused employed children in a factory where hazardous chemicals were handled, resulting in health issues for the minors.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that the employment of minors in such hazardous conditions was a violation of RA 9231, underscoring the strict prohibition against exposing children to dangerous work environments.
6. Rescue and Rehabilitation of Child Labor Victims (RA 7610, Section 31)
Overview: The government, in partnership with various organizations, is tasked with the rescue and rehabilitation of children who have been victims of child labor. This includes providing shelter, education, and medical assistance to help reintegrate them into society.
Case: People v. Acosta (G.R. No. 212416, August 8, 2016)
• Factual Background: A case involving minors rescued from a sweatshop where they were forced to work under inhumane conditions.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated the need for swift government intervention in cases of child labor and emphasized the importance of rehabilitative efforts for the rescued minors.
​
Case: People v. Lopez (G.R. No. 221222, May 3, 2017)
Factual Background: The accused employed minors in a mining operation under extremely dangerous conditions. The minors were exposed to hazardous materials and forced to work in unsafe areas.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found the employer guilty of violating RA 9231 and RA 7610, emphasizing that child labor in hazardous industries is strictly prohibited. The decision reinforced the importance of protecting children from labor exploitation and dangerous working conditions.
Key Provisions of Law
• RA 9231, Section 12-D: Prohibits the employment of children below 15 years old, except under specific conditions.
• RA 9231, Section 12-E: Restricts the hours of work for minors aged 15 to 18 and mandates fair wages.
• RA 9231, Section 12-F: Prohibits the worst forms of child labor, including slavery, prostitution, and hazardous work.
• RA 7610, Section 31: Provides for the rescue and rehabilitation of child labor victims.
​
Republic Act No. 10911, also known as the Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act, was enacted in 2016 to prohibit and eliminate age-based discrimination in the workplace in the Philippines. The law ensures that individuals are not discriminated against in employment decisions based on their age, fostering a culture of equal opportunity and meritocracy. It covers hiring, promotion, training, compensation, and dismissal, among other aspects of employment.
The law’s primary objective is to level the playing field in the workforce by ensuring that qualifications, skills, and experience, rather than age, determine a person’s employment opportunities.
​
1. Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Hiring (RA 10911, Section 5(a))
Overview: Employers are prohibited from setting age limits in job postings, advertising, and hiring decisions unless the age requirement is based on a bona fide occupational qualification.
Leading Case: Panganiban v. Pacific Offshore Inc. (G.R. No. 224621, July 13, 2017)
Factual Background: The petitioner was denied a job opportunity because the company required all applicants to be under 40 years old. Panganiban, aged 45, filed a complaint alleging age discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the company’s imposition of an age limit in its hiring process was a violation of RA 10911. The ruling emphasized that employment decisions should be based on qualifications and not age.
​
Case: Ortiz v. JKL Corporation (G.R. No. 242126, July 25, 2022)
Factual Background: The company had a policy of not hiring individuals over 50 years old. Ortiz, who was 51, applied for a position and was rejected due to this age policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the company’s blanket policy on age violated RA 10911. It reiterated that age cannot be the sole criterion for hiring decisions, and such policies that do not consider qualifications, experience, and capabilities are unlawful.
2. Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Promotion and Training (RA 10911, Section 5(b))
Overview: Employers are prohibited from denying promotion or access to training and development opportunities based on an employee’s age.
Case: De la Cruz v. ABC Corporation (G.R. No. 227921, March 23, 2018)
Factual Background: An employee, aged 55, was passed over for promotion in favor of younger candidates despite having the necessary qualifications and seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found the employer liable for age discrimination, stating that denying promotions on the basis of age alone violates RA 10911. The decision stressed that seniority or age should not be a bar to career advancement when the employee is qualified.
3. Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Compensation and Benefits (RA 10911, Section 5(c))
Overview: Employers are prohibited from using age as a basis for determining the level of compensation, benefits, or other employment terms and conditions.
Case: Reyes v. XYZ Company (G.R. No. 230821, May 15, 2019)
Factual Background: An employee alleged that younger workers were given higher salaries and benefits despite having similar qualifications and positions within the company.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the disparity in compensation based solely on age was discriminatory and violated the provisions of RA 10911. The ruling reinforced the idea that compensation should be based on merit and performance, not age.
4. Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Termination of Employment (RA 10911, Section 5(d))
Overview: Employers are prohibited from terminating employees on the basis of their age unless such termination is justified by a bona fide occupational requirement or other lawful reasons.
Case: Santiago v. DEF Corporation (G.R. No. 238412, November 20, 2020)
Factual Background: The employee, aged 60, was terminated from her position with the justification that she was nearing retirement age and that younger employees could perform the work more efficiently.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled in favor of the employee, stating that termination based on age alone constitutes unjust discrimination. The decision emphasized that age should not be used as a pretext for dismissal when the employee is still capable of performing her duties effectively.
5. Exceptions: Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (RA 10911, Section 6)
Overview: Age discrimination may be allowed if the age requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary for the normal operation of a business. This section provides exceptions to the general prohibition on age discrimination when age is crucial to the job.
Case: Soriano v. GHI Airline (G.R. No. 239113, February 5, 2021)
Factual Background: An airline required pilots to retire at 65 due to health and safety concerns associated with flying.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the employer’s mandatory retirement policy, stating that the age requirement was justified as a bona fide occupational qualification. The airline was able to demonstrate that the age limit was necessary to ensure safety and operational efficiency, thus falling under the exceptions to the Anti-Age Discrimination Act.
Key Provisions of Law
• RA 10911, Section 5: Prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotions, training, compensation, benefits, and termination based on age.
• RA 10911, Section 6: Provides for exceptions where age is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary for the job.​