OFW Legal Rights: Contracts, Dismissal, Disability, Recruitment

The Labor Code defines recruitment broadly, whether or not the recruiter earns money:

For jobs abroad, Section 6 of RA 8042, as rewritten by RA 10022, makes these acts illegal recruitment when done by a person or entity without a license or authority. Some acts are illegal recruitment even when a licensed agency does them, such as charging more than the allowed fees, giving false information, substituting an approved contract to the worker's prejudice, failing to deploy a worker without valid reason, and failing to reimburse the worker's expenses when deployment does not happen through no fault of the worker. See Illegal recruitment: what it is and the penalties.

The Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) has absorbed the powers of the former POEA under RA 11641. It publishes the list of licensed agencies with their license status: our guide to checking an agency explains how to read it, and the DMW agency list shows the data. The list shows license status only; it does not say whether a particular offer or fee is lawful.

Under Section 7 of RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022:

Any aggrieved person may start the criminal action (Section 6). It is filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually lived at the time (Section 9). It prescribes in five years, or twenty years when it involves economic sabotage (Section 12). The same facts may also support an estafa case, but each crime must be proven on its own.

Trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, is recruiting or moving people by force, fraud, deception or by taking advantage of their vulnerability, for exploitation such as forced labor or prostitution. For people looking for work abroad, the acts the law punishes include job offers that hide the real work, fake or fraudulently acquired travel documents, debts that must be "worked off" and the recruitment of minors. The worker's consent does not matter: RA 10364 says the victim's consent to the intended exploitation is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court said the same in People v. Casio (2014). In People v. Lalli (2011), one scheme led to convictions for both illegal recruitment and trafficking.

Trafficking is punished by 20 years in prison and a fine of ₱1,000,000 to ₱2,000,000, and qualified trafficking, for example by a syndicate or in large scale, by life imprisonment and a fine of ₱2,000,000 to ₱5,000,000 (Section 10, as amended). The 2022 implementing rules list where a report may be made, including the police, the barangay and the 1343 Actionline. See Human trafficking: warning signs for OFWs.

Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022 and as quoted by the Supreme Court in Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower (2019), gives an OFW whose employment is ended without just, valid or authorized cause:

• the salary for the unexpired portion of the contract; and
• a full refund of the placement fee and of any unauthorized deductions, with interest. In Sameer and Aldovino, the Court ordered 12% interest a year, as the law then provided.

The same section added "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less." That cap is void. In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime (2009), the full Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Congress put the same clause back in RA 10022, and in Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles (2014) the Court struck it down again. See OFW illegally dismissed: salary for the unexpired contract.

As quoted in Aldovino, the foreign employer and the Philippine agency are jointly and severally liable, so the worker may collect from the agency in the Philippines, and the agency's corporate officers and directors are liable with it.

Not always. In Aldovino (2019), workers sent home from Taiwan because their employer no longer wanted them had signed a compromise agreement and quitclaims right after the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that these did not stop them from suing, found the dismissal illegal and awarded salary for the whole unexpired contract. Whether a quitclaim holds depends on its terms, the amount paid and how it was signed. See You signed a quitclaim: can you still file a case? and quitclaim.

Seafarers usually claim disability benefits under their employment contract as well as the law. In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services (2008), the Supreme Court said these claims are governed "not only by medical findings but, by law and by contract." It read the Labor Code articles on disability, now [Article 198 [192]](/law/labor-code/article-198) and the articles around it, together with the POEA standard contract.

In Elburg Shipmanagement v. Quiogue (2015), the Court set four rules:

1. The company-designated physician must give a final assessment within 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him.
2. Without a final assessment within 120 days and without a justifiable reason, the disability becomes permanent and total.
3. With a sufficient justification, such as further treatment, the period extends to 240 days. The employer must prove the justification.
4. Without a final assessment within 240 days, the disability becomes permanent and total, whatever the justification.

Vergara also describes what happens when the seafarer's own doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician: a third doctor may be jointly chosen, and that doctor's decision binds both sides. See Seafarer disability claims: the 120 and 240-day rules.

As quoted in Aldovino, Section 10 of RA 8042 gives the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims of workers deployed overseas, including damages. The labor jurisdiction rules are in [Article 224 [217]](/law/labor-code/article-224). Under the 2010 DOLE rules on the Single Entry Approach, OFW cases are among the issues that go through conciliation first, as [Article 234 [228]](/law/labor-code/article-234) requires for labor disputes. See How to file a labor complaint.

Money claims from employment must be filed within three years: see How long do I have to file a claim for unpaid wages? and the labor claim deadlines table. An illegal recruitment case has its own periods of five and twenty years, set by Section 12 of RA 8042.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Rodel posts online that he can get factory jobs in Taiwan for a ₱30,000 processing fee and collects from four people. He has no license. Promising jobs abroad for a fee without a license, against three or more persons, can be illegal recruitment in large scale, which the law treats as an offense involving economic sabotage.

Marites has eight months left on a two-year contract when her foreign employer sends her home without a valid cause. Following Serrano and Sameer, she may claim her salary for all eight months, not a three-month cap, plus a refund of her placement fee, and she may pursue the claim against the Philippine agency.

Joel, a seafarer, is repatriated for treatment. The company-designated physician never issues a final assessment, and nine months pass. Under Elburg rule 4, once 240 days pass without an assessment, his disability is deemed permanent and total.

Get legal help if you were dismissed abroad, if your agency asks you to sign a quitclaim or a settlement, if a company doctor's assessment is late or disputed, or if you paid a recruiter and were not deployed. Deadlines apply, and the documents (contract, receipts, medical reports, dates of repatriation) decide most cases. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines. For benefits and documents, see the guides on OWWA membership and SSS for OFWs.