There are very few cases decided by the Supreme Court concerning violations of the administrative regulatory regime governing overseas employment committed by recruitment agencies. Most of these cases are resolved at the POEA or NLRC levels only, or are dropped or dismissed due to amicable settlements or execution of a release/waiver/quitclaims by the complaining OFWs. In one study, it was found that based on records of the NLRC, an average of 73.22% of total money claims filed during 2015-2017 were disposed through settlements and not through decisions on the merits of the cases.9 For this reason, the analysis of labor migration cases decided by the Supreme Court, although substantial in scope, may not capture all the major gaps in labor rights and human rights protection under the existing regulatory regime on overseas employment. This study relied mainly on the published copies of the decisions of the Supreme Court accessed through the Supreme Court website10 and other online law libraries. While most of the information or data necessary for this study are available in the published case decisions, some of the reported decisions of the Supreme Court did not contain all the data required for this study. For instance, not all the Supreme Court decisions indicated the date of filing of the OFW’s complaint before the NLRC. In those cases where the date of filing of the complaint was disclosed in the decision, the actual dates indicated were used. For those cases where the dates of filing of the complaint before the NLRC were not indicated, this study assumed that the date of filing is four (4) months prior to the date of promulgation of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The reason for this assumption is that the Labor Arbiter is required under the law to hear and decide the case within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint.11 If the mandatory thirty (30) day period for mediation-conciliation under the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) is considered, the case is expected to be at the Labor Arbiter level for at least four (4) months. The date of filing of the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court is also not usually indicated in the reported Supreme Court decisions. Thus, for the purpose of computing the period of time that the case may be considered to be at the level of the Supreme Court, the period measured was counted from the date of the promulgation of the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying the motion for reconsideration filed, up to the date of promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court. In real life, an allowance should also be made for the period of time it took for the decision of the Court of Appeals to be received by the counsels on record of the parties and the reglementary period allowed for a party to file before the Supreme Court the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Likewise, the reported decisions of the Supreme Court did not indicate the dates when the cases were submitted for decision or resolution before the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme making it impossible to determine, on the basis of the published copies of the Supreme Court decision alone, whether or not the tribunal or the court 9 10 11 Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines, “Migrant Domestic Workers’ Access to Justice 2018” centerformigrantadvocacy.com/migrant-domestic-workers-access-to-justice-2018/ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ Section 10 of R. A. 8042, as amended. 7