Narita Rabe vs. Delsa Flores

(Most of the Senator judges cited the case of the court interpreter Delsa Flores who  was dismissed from service in an en banc decision by the Supreme Court dated May 14, 1997with her retirement benefits and leave credits forfeited and was also blocked from being employed by any government agency and corporation. But it was not just about the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) that Flores violated. She was dismissed for dishonesty, for still collecting from the Municipal Government when she was already employed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 4. Here is the full text of the decision).

EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-97-1247.  May 14, 1997.]
(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. 1 No. 95-71-P)
NARITA RABE, complainant, vs. DELSA M. FLORES, Interpreter III, RTC, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao, respondent.
Edgar D. Rabor for complainant.

SYLLABUS
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; MISCONDUCT; STEALING; CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY DIRE FINANCIAL NEED AND FORGETFULNESS. — Respondent's overriding need for money from the municipal government, aggravated by the alleged delay in the processing of her initial salary from the Court, does not justify receipt of a salary not due her. If poverty and pressing financial need could justify stealing, the government would have been bankrupt long ago. A public servant should never expect to become wealthy in government. And if respondent was just driven by dire pecuniary need, respondent should have returned the salary she had obtained from the Municipal Government of Panabo as soon as she obtained her salary from the court. However, she returned the money only after receipt of the Court's Resolution saying that she forgot all about it. Forgetfulness or failure to remember is never a rational or acceptable explanation.

2. ID.; ID.; COURT PERSONNEL; PROPER DECORUM; VIOLATED IN CASE AT BAR. — It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration that a "(p)ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives." We have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary. Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency. Respondent's malfeasance is a clear contravention of the constitutional dictum that the State shall "maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption."

3. ID.; ID.; DISHONESTY; PROPER PENALTY IS DISMISSAL. — Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense. For respondent's dishonesty in receiving and keeping what she was not lawfully entitled to, this Court has the duty to impose on her the penalty prescribed by law; dismissal.

4. ID.; ID.; REPUBLIC ACT 6713; OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE BUSINESS INTEREST; CASE AT BAR. — Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the "obligation"' of an employee to submit a sworn statement, as the "public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that "(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him." In the present case, the failure of respondent to disclose her business interest which she herself admitted is inexcusable and is a clear violation of Republic Act No. 6713. We do not find her administratively liable, however, for failure to divest herself of the said interest. The requirement for public officers, in general, to divest themselves of business interests upon assumption of a public office is prompted by the need to avoid conflict of interests. In the absence of any showing that a business interest will result in a conflict of interest, divestment of the same is unnecessary. In the present case, it seems a bit far-fetched to imagine that there is a conflict of interest because an Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court has a stall in the market. A court, generally, is not engaged in the regulation of a public market, nor does it concern itself with the activities thereof. While respondent may not be compelled to divest herself of her business interest, she had the legal obligation of divulging it.

D E C I S I O N
Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ ., concur.

PER CURIAM p:

In an administrative complaint for "Conduct Unbecoming a Government Employee, Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service and Abuse of Authority" dated August 18, 1995, Complainant Narita Rabe, 2 by counsel, charged Respondent Delsa M. Flores, Interpreter III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao, as follows: 3
"(Mrs.) Flores took advantage of her position as a court employee by claiming a stall at the extension of the Public Public (sic) Market when she is (sic) not a member of our client's association and was never a party to Civil Case No. 89-23. She herself knows (sic) that the stalls in the said area had already been awarded to our client's members pursuant to the decision of the court on October 30, 1991. Worse, she took the law into her hands when she destroyed the stall of our client and brought the materials to the police station of Panabo, Davao."

After respondent filed her answer, the Court issued a Resolution dated January 17, 1996, absolving her of the charge. In the same resolution, however, the Court required respondent to explain why she should not be administratively dealt with for the following: 4
". . . a) why she obtained a certification dated June 18, 1991 issued by Atty. Victor R. Ginete, Clerk of Court, same court, that she started performing her duties as (an) interpreter on May 16, 1991 when (1) according to a certification dated June 17, 1991 issued by Mr. Jose B. Avenido, Municipal Treasurer, Panabo Davao, she was employed in the office of the Municipal Assessor as Assessment Clerk I since February 1, 1990 to June 3, 1991 with her last salary being paid by said office on June 3, 1991; and (2) she took her oath of office before Judge Mariano C. Tupas only on June 17, 1991;
b) why she did not report said business interest in her sworn statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections, and Identification of Relatives in the Government Service for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994;
c) why she has not divested herself of her interest in said business within sixty (60) days from her assumption into (sic) office; and
d) why she has indicated in her DTRs for August 1995 that she worked on August 15-18, 21, 23-25 and 28-31 and for September, 1995 that she worked for all its twenty one (21) working days when her Contract of Lease with the Municipal Government of Panabo for the market stall in its Section 7 clearly states that she has to personally conduct her business and be present at the stall otherwise the same would be canceled as per its Section 13."

Respondent Flores, in a letter dated February 13, 1996, explains that, as stated in the certification of Atty. Ginete, she assumed her job in the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao on May 16, 1991, in compliance with the directive from this Court for her to start working on the said date. Respondent further states that "even prior to said date (May 16, 1991)" she already reported to the court in order to familiarize herself with the scope of her duties. 5

Respondent Flores also admits that she had received from the municipality a salary for the period May 16 1991 — May 31, 1991, notwithstanding her transfer to the judiciary on May 16, 1991. She submits, however, the following justification: 6

"I admit that I received my last salary in the amount of One Thousand and 80/100 (P1,000.80) Pesos from the Local Government Unit from May 16-31, 1991 but farthest from my mind is the intent to defraud the government. It was my desire all the time to refund the amount the moment my salary is received from the Supreme Court, unfortunately more often than not (the salary) is received three or four months after assumption of office. As we all know the month of May and June is the time we enroll our children in school thus the money I got that month from the Local Government Unit came handy in defraying registration expenses of my four children. The passage of time coupled with some intervening events, made me oblivious of my obligation to refund the money. However, when my attention was called on the day I received the copy of the resolution, I took no time in refunding the same."

Respondent alleges that the certification of Municipal Treasurer Jose V. Avenido is inaccurate because it was on January 25, 1990 that she was appointed as Assessment Clerk I. 7 According to respondent, she took her oath on June 17, 1991, simply because it was on that date that she received a copy of her oath form. 8

Respondent avers that she did not divulge any business interest in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure for the years 1991-1994 because she "was never engaged in business during said period although I had a stall in the market." 9

Respondent further avers that her Daily Time Record indicated that she held office on August 15, 18, 21, 23 to 25 and 28, 31 and all the working days of September, 1995 "because in truth and in fact . . . (she) did hold office on those days." This was because her contract of lease with the Municipal Government of Panabo was never implemented as it became the subject of "Civil Case No. 95-53 — Panabo Public Market Vendors Assn. Inc. and Pag-ibig Ng Gulayan Ass. Inc. vs. Municipality of Panabo, et al., for Declaration of Nullity of Mun. Ord. No. XLV, Series of 1994." 10

The Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its report, the OCA found respondent guilty of dishonesty and failure to report her business interest, and recommended that the penalty of dismissal be imposed on her. The Court finds that the report and recommendation of the OCA is in accord with the evidence and the law. We hold the explanation of respondent unsatisfactory. Respondent's misconduct is evident from the records.

By her own admission, respondent had collected her salary from the Municipality of Panabo for the period of May 16-31, 1991, when she was already working at the RTC. She knew that she was no longer entitled to a salary from the municipal government, but she took it just the same. She returned the amount only upon receipt of the Court Resolution dated January 17, 1996, or more than five (5) years later. We cannot countenance the same. Respondent's conduct is plain dishonesty.

Her explanation, as observed earlier, is unsatisfactory. Her overriding need for money from the municipal government, aggravated by the alleged delay in the processing of her initial salary from the Court, does not justify receipt of a salary not due her. We sympathize with respondent's sad plight of being the sole breadwinner of her family, with her husband and parents to feed and children to send to school. This, however, is not an acceptable excuse for her misconduct. If poverty and pressing financial need could justify stealing, the government would have been bankrupt long ago. A public servant should never expect to become wealthy in government.

But there is really more to respondents' defense of poverty. If respondent was just driven by dire pecuniary need, respondent should have returned the salary she had obtained from the Municipal Government of Panabo as soon as she obtained her salary from the court. However, she returned the money only after receipt of the Court's Resolution dated January 17, 1996, saying that she forgot all about it. Forgetfulness or failure to remember is never a rational or acceptable explanation.

In Macario Flores vs. Nonilon Caniya, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Imus, Cavite, 11 this Court ruled that a sheriff who failed to issue an official receipt for the money entrusted to him for the purpose of satisfying a judgment debt, "had really wanted to misappropriate the said amount." Inevitably, he was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration that a "(p)ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives." 12

We have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary. Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency. 13

This Court, in JPDIO vs. Josephine Calaguas, Records Officer, OCC, MTCC, Angeles City, 14 held:
"The Court must reiterate that a public office is a public trust. A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity and should be made accountable to all those who he serves."

Respondent's malfeasance is a clear contravention of the constitutional dictum that the State shall "maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption." 15

Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense. 16 Accordingly, for respondent's dishonesty in receiving and keeping what she was not lawfully entitled to, this Court has the duty to impose on her the penalty prescribed by law: dismissal.

Apart from the above finding, we also note the contradiction between the certification issued by Municipal Treasurer Jose Avenido stating that respondent had worked as an assessment clerk in his office up to June 3, 1991, and the certification of Clerk of Court Victor Ginete stating that respondent started working as an interpreter on May 16, 1991. Although specifically asked by the Court to explain this contradiction, respondent could only state that the certification of the treasurer is inaccurate because she assumed her position as Assessment Clerk on January 25, 1990 and not on February 1, 1990 as written in the said certification. Respondent, however, failed to explain the gravamen of the inquiry, i.e., that she was certified to be still connected with the Municipal Government of Panabo on June 3, 1991, notwithstanding her assumption of her post in the Regional Trial Court as early as May 16, 1991. To the mind of the Court, respondent's inability to explain this discrepancy is consistent with her failure to satisfactorily explain why she knowingly received and kept a salary she was not entitled to. Worse, it may be indicative of a conscious design to hold two positions at the same time.

Aside from dishonesty, however, respondent is also guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests. Respondent herself admitted that she "had a stall in the market." The Office of the Court Administrator also found that she had been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of the market stall. That respondent had a stall in the market was undoubtedly a business interest which should have been reported in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Her failure to do so exposes her to administrative sanction.

Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the "obligation" of an employee to submit a sworn statement, as the "public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that "(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him."

In the present case, the failure of respondent to disclose her business interest which she herself admitted is inexcusable and is a clear violation of Republic Act No. 6713.

The respondent's claim that her contract of lease of a market stall was never implemented because it became the subject of a civil case, fails to convince us. We agree with the finding of the OCA on respondent's guilt for this separate offense. It is a finding, which further supports its recommendation for respondent's dismissal, to wit: 17
"The case respondent is referring to was filed in 1995. This can be seen from the number of the case which is 95-93. Earlier than the filing of the case, respondent was already collecting rentals — as early as February 22, 1991 — from one Rodolfo Luay who was operating a business without the necessary license.

Respondent should have, therefore, indicated in her 'Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections, and Identification of Relatives in the Government Service' for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 that she had a market stall in the Public market of Panabo, Davao.She admits that she never indicated such in her sworn statements.

As this Office had earlier stated in its Memorandum dated November 10, 1995 filed in connection with the instant complaint:
'Such non-disclosure is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos, or both. But even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against the offender, the offender can be dismissed from the service if the violation is proven. Respondent 201 file speaks for itself.
Furthermore, respondent should have divested herself of her interest in said business within sixty (60) days from her assumption into (sic) office. She has not. The penalty for non-disclosure of business interests and non-divestment is the same.'" (Citations omitted.)

In her explanation, respondent maintains the position that she has no business interest, implicitly contending that there is nothing to divulge or divest from. As discussed above, respondent had a business interest. We do not find her administratively liable, however, for failure to divest herself of the said interest. The requirement for public officers, in general, to divest themselves of business interests upon assumption of a public office is prompted by the need to avoid conflict of interests. 18

In the absence of any showing that a business interest will result in a conflict of interest, divestment of the same is unnecessary. In the present case, it seems a bit far-fetched to imagine that there is a conflict of interest because an Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court has a stall in the market. A court, generally, is not engaged in the regulation of a public market, nor does it concern itself with the activities thereof. While respondent may not be compelled to divest herself of her business interest, she had the legal obligation of divulging it.

WHEREFORE, in conformity with the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator, Interpreter III Delsa M. Flores is hereby DISMISSED from service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with PREJUDICE to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

  1. Office of the Court Administrator, Informal Preliminary Inquiry.
  2. In Complainant Rabe's separate affidavit, she made the following allegations:
"xxx                    xxx                    xxx
  That on August 14, 1995 at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Mrs. Delsa Flores, a Court Interpreter at the Regional Trial Court of Panabo, Davao, went to the stall I occupied and while there, she made several defamatory utterances against me in a very menacing, arrogant and threatening manner and in the Visayan dialect, as follows:
  'Putang ina mo ka, akoa nin pwesto, wala kay ulaw, wala kay batasan, mangingilog ug pwesto'
  That Mrs. Flores attempted to inflict injury upon me by scratching my face but I was able to evade and with the timely intervention of Mr. Espiridion Vivas;
  That Mrs. Flores made the foregoing remarks and other remarks of the same import for several times in a very loud voice while walking to and fro;
  That Mrs. Flores challenged me to a fist fight and destroyed the stall I occupied by removing the wooden fence and the GI sheets with the help of her husband; loaded the materials on a motor vehicle; and brought them to the police station of Panabo;
  That Mrs., Flores committed the aforementioned acts during office hours and in such conduct unbecoming a government employee;
xxx                    xxx                    xxx"
  3. Rollo, p. 2.
  4. Ibid., p. 25.
  5. Ibid., p. 38.
  6 Ibid., p. 39.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Respondent's explanation, p. 2; Rollo, p. 50.
10. Ibid.
11. A.M. No. P-95-1133, April 26, 1996.
12. Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
13. Legaspi vs. Garrete, 242 SCRA 679, 701, March 27, 1995 citing Montemayor vs. Collado, Adm. Matter No. 2519-MJ, September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 258, 264; Association of Court Employees of Panabo, Davao vs. Tupas, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-87-141, July 12, 1989, 175 SCRA 292, 296; Leynes vs. Veloso, Adm. Matter No. 689-MJ and Virrey vs. Veloso,  Adm. Matter No. 809-MJ, the two latter cases promulgated on April 13, 1978, 82 SCRA 352, 328.
14. A.M. No. P-95-115, May 15 1996.
15. Section 27, Article II, 1987 Constitution.
16. Section 23 (a), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 Known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other Pertinent Civil Service laws.
17. Pages 6-7 of the Memorandum of the Court Administrator dated November 27, 1996. on this case.
18. Section 9 of RA 6713 provides: "A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption."

Corona Trial: Maid in the Philippines..

One quotable quote that struck me during the almost three hour opening statement cum direct testimony of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the impeachment trial is about household helpers or maids.

“Simpleng buhay at tahahan lamang. Hindi man kami gumagamit ng aircon sapagkat napakadali naming magkasakit sa lamig. Simpleng pagkain lamang ang kinakain namin sa bahay. Sa maniwala man kayo o hindi, kami po ay walang katulong sa bahay,” Corona said.

In essence, CJ Corona said that they were able to save money during the early years of their marriage by the fact that, among others,  they did not hire maids.
I asked my officemate: did i hear it right? The Corona family  has no maids?

I guess his statement will have a  badge of truth if the Corona family lived abroad. But realistically speaking, very seldom do you encounter a middle income family in the Philippines that has no maid in their household, moreso if you have growing children. What more in the case of Corona, as he said his financial status is a product of hard work. Moreover, he admitted that his wife came from a buena familia. So how can one believe in such statement that they did not hire any maid? Another question that came to my mind is: how much do they pay their maids that he cited them as a defense in the trial? Are  they receiving lucrative salaries that they become  significant  materials in the issue of the dollar bank accounts and SALN?  Under this premise,  I guess, they must be earning more than what i was earning during the early years of my legal practice.I am in  wrong profession, perhaps.

An article of the same tenor expounded further pointed inconsistency in Corona's testimony that  his family lives a simple life,  Corona’s reimbursements in the Supreme Court tell a different story. He dined in fancy restaurants and wore expensive Barong Tagalog, among others. Among the documents that the prosecution panel has  are the following:
 
* Corona's reimbursement of P15,362.37 for a meal at Century Tsukiji restaurant on June 20, 2010. The receipt was under the name “Renato/Cristina Corona.”

* Corona's reimbursement of P20,400 and P25,000 for Barong Tagalog purchased at Rustan’s store Design Exchange Corp.

* A reimbursement of P100,000 for the “purchase Christmas gifts of the Chief Justice”

Receipts of his reimbursements were part of the evidence that various commercial institutions submitted to the Senate impeachment court based on a request from the prosecution.

Article 3 of the impeachment complaint accuses Corona of “failing to meet and observe the stringent standards… that provides that “a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.”

“Respondent reportedly dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses. Numerous personal expenses that have nothing to do with the discharge of his official functions, such as lavish lunches and dinners, personal travels and vacations, and fetes and parties, have reportedly been charged by the Respondent to judicial funds. In essence, Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures,” reads the complaint.

The prosecution did not present them as evidence anymore after presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile barred them from discussing peripheral allegations.

Legally speaking, the domestic worker  is the person, commonly under a livein employment arrangement with his/her employer, providing household services. He/she is traditionally referred to in many ways such as “katulong,” “chimay or chimoy,” “boy,” “tsuper,” “yaya,”
“maid,” “DH”, “domestic or household helper,” or “servant,” among others. The more humane reference to the domestic worker is “kasambahay” which literally means house companion and such
other references like “kuya,” “manang,” or “inday”.Many domestic workers are migrants from the provinces or poverty areas of the country.

The Labor Code defines the domestic worker in terms of the domestic or household service he/she is expected to render. This covers services in the employer’s home which is usually necessary or

desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the employer’s household, including services of family drivers.The Labor Code has one chapter devoted to “Employment of Househelpers” that describes who the househelpers are, how they should be paid and treated during and even after their services are no longer needed. The chapter is made up of twelve articles or parts (from Article 141 to 152).

In 2011, the economic NGO  Ibon said Filipino domestic household workers in the Philippines and abroad contributed at least P167.4 billion in services and remittances to the economy . Ibon said there were 3.25 million domestic help employed in the country and abroad in 2011, Ibon said the value of services rendered by domestic household workers was estimated by multiplying their number by their P140.89 average daily basic pay, taken from the Labor Force Survey (LFS), by 365 days of the year.This resulted in an average daily basic pay worth P100.3 billion. This was used by Ibon as a proxy of the economic value of their services. The remittances from domestic household workers overseas was estimated by multiplying Ibon’s estimate of 1.3 million working abroad by an assumed remittance of $100 or P4,300 per month, for a total of P167.4 billion.

 In the Philippines, household workers receive only half of the minimum wage in the National Capital Region, while the rest of the country only pays them 45 percent of the minimum wage.According to the ILO in the Philippines, about half of domestic helpers work more than 10 hours a day.

In 2010 , the Senate approved on third and final reading the Senate version of the Kasambahay bill, which stipulates that employers need to pay their domestic helpers at least P2,500 if they are within Metro Manila; at least P2,000 if they are in first class municipalities; and at least P1,500 for those in third class municipalities.Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who heads the labor committee in the upper chamber, has earlier lambasted the House of Representatives for failing to act on the House version of the bill.

The Maid or househelper is in fact deeprooted in Philippine history under the term "alipin". With its nearest translation as "servant" or "slave," people belonging to this social class are not completely free, although they enjoyed some benefits to barangay land - they had rights to food, shelter and work. If situation calls for it, an alipin could lose his or her rank and rights, for instance, when he or she committed a heinous crime, but was not executed. A person became an alipin when he or she was captured from the war, punished for a crime, unable to pay debts, bought as a slave or born illegitimately. The class also include those born and raise by parents of the alipin class, especially those who have parents who died with unpaid debts.

There are two types of alipin - the namamahay and the sagigilid (or saguiguilid).

• Aliping Namamahay, translated as "householder," refers to an alipin who enjoyed rights and privileges to land, had his or her own house that are usually within the domain or territory of his or her master. In a sense, people belonging in this subclass were actually free, however their status was not permanent. A person became a namamahay when he or she is demoted from a higher rank, or promoted from being a sagigilid. He or she paid tribute or buwis which depends on his or her arrangement from the master. When the master's children are to be married, the namamahay was obliged to offer gifts.

• Aliping Sagigilid, translated as "hearth slave", refers to those alipin not enjoying rights and privileges. Purchased slaves and those captured from wars belong to this subclass. A sagigilid was highly dependent with his or her master, since had to provide him or her with food and shelter. The master had control over the sagigilid that he can easily sell his slave to another master. When this slave married, the master need not to support his or her family, and he or she will rise to being a namamahay. A sagigilid could buy his freedom in gold - for 30 golds, he or she can be freed from his or her master; and for 90 pesos, he or she can be promoted to timawa class.

There are some websites that have employed "marketing" strategies for the Filipino maids. "There are many advantages of hiring a maid from a Filipino Maid Agency. Filipinos are known all over the word for being hard-working and trustworthy employees. They also have the natural ability to maintain a good working environment and they get along well with other nationalities. Among their many traits, Filipino maids are also known for being clean, orderly and respectful. They take pride on their honest disposition and loyalty to their employers. Their patience is unmatched making them an ideal household member.A Filipino maid can be trusted with anything and knows how to draw the line between being a household employee and a dependable carer to all the members of the family. More than that, she is willing to take the extra mile by doing extra tasks in the home that are beyond her duties. If her duty is just to clean the house or do the laundry, she can go as far as tending the garden as well, looking after the kids or even running some errands."

Is the maid  capable of being a world leader? Some do think so." Should the domestic maid be the one to rule the world, tidiness and orderliness shall dominate humanity.This can be one rule where no house, streets and establishments would be dirty. The maid values cleanliness after all and it is something that takes effort, so a punishment should be given to all violators. The most important values would be hard work, honesty and love for God and family. It does not take to be a maid to have all of these but maids are inclined to have good values despite less attention. If they can have it their way and create their own rules, it may still be a wonderful clean and stress-free world. "