Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal
Title Facts
People v. Valenciano Lourdes Valenciano, Teresita
GR No. 180926 Marquez aka Teresita Imperial,
10 December 2008 Romeo Marquez aka Rodante
Velasco, Jr., J. Imperial, and Rommel Marquez aka
Rommel Imperial purported
themselves to be connected with
Middle East International Manpower
Resources, Inc. and obtained money
from four people whom they
promised to recruit for work at a
factory in Taiwan. Valenciano
received the payments, but turned
them over to the Marquezes who
issued receipts.
While the Marquezes remain at large,
Valenciano was caught and tried. She
was found guilty by the lower court
of illegal recruitment in large scale.
The CA affirmed the decision.
Valenciano appealed, claiming that
she was an ordinary employee of the
Middle East International Manpower
Resources, Inc., and that her promise
that the four recruits would be
employed in Taiwan was made in
good faith, and in the performance of
her duties as a clerk in the company.
Issue/s
W/N Valenciano was engaged in
illegal recruitment.
Ruling Doctrine/s
YES. Valenciano’s claim that she One cannot escape liability by
was a mere employee of her co- claiming that he is not aware that
accused does not relieve her of before working for his employer in
liability. An employee of a company the recruitment agency, he should
or corporation engaged in illegal first be registered with the POEA.
recruitment may be held liable as Illegal recruitment in large scale is
principal, together with his employer, malum prohibitum, not malum in se.
if it is shown that the employee Good faith is not a defense.
actively and consciously participated
in illegal recruitment. Money is not material to a
1. As testified to by the prosecution for illegal recruitment, as
complainants, accused- the definition of “recruitment and
appellant was among placement” in the Labor Code
those who met and includes the phrase, “whether for
transacted with them profit or not.”
regarding the job
placement offers. In some To prove illegal recruitment in large
instances, she made the scale, the prosecution is burdened to
effort to go to their houses prove three essential elements: (1)
to recruit them. She even the person charged undertook a
gave assurances that they recruitment activity under Article
would be able to find 13(b) or any prohibited practice
employment abroad and under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
leave for Taiwan after the (2) accused did not have the license
filing of their or authority to lawfully engage in the
applications. Accused- recruitment and placement of
appellant was clearly workers; and (3) accused committed
engaged in recruitment the same against three or more
activities, notwithstanding persons individually or as a group.
her gratuitous protestation
that her actions were
merely done in the course
of her employment as a
clerk.
2. It is sufficient that the
accused promises or
offers for a fee
employment to warrant
conviction for illegal
recruitment. Accused-
appellant made
representations that
complainants would
receive employment
abroad, and this suffices
for her conviction, even if
her name does not appear
on the receipts issued to
complainants as evidence
1
 Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal
People v. Hu Nenita Hu is the President of
GR No. 182232 Brighturn International Services, Inc.
6 October 2008 a land-based recruitment agency duly
Chico-Nazario, J. licensed by the POEA to engage in
the business of recruitment and
placement of workers abroad. Ethel
Genoves, on the other hand, worked
as a consultant and marketing officer
of Brighturn. Aside from her stint at
Brighturn, she was also connected
with Riverland Consultancy Service,
another recruitment agency.
Brighturn was authorized to recruit,
process, and deploy land-based
workers for the period of 18
December 1999 to 17 December
2001.
W/N Hu was engaged in recruitment
in large scale.
that payment was made.
3. Certifications made by the
POEA stated that
accused-appellant in her
personal capacity was not
licensed or authorized to
recruit workers for
overseas employment and
that any recruitment
activities undertaken by
her are illegal, and that
her name does not appear
on the list of employees
submitted by Middle East
International Manpower
Resources, Inc. Accused-
appellant thus could point
to no authority allowing
her to recruit
complainants, as she was
not an employee of
Middle East, nor was she
allowed to do so in her
personal capacity.
Furthermore, she
undertook recruitment
activities outside the
premises of the office of a
licensed recruitment
agency, which can only
be done with the prior
approval of the POEA.
NO. A conviction for large scale Illegal recruitment is committed
illegal recruitment must be based on when two elements concur: (1) the
a finding in each case of illegal offender has no valid license or
recruitment of three or more persons authority required by law to enable
whether individually or as a group. him to lawfully engage in the
While it is true that the law does not recruitment and placement of
require that at least three victims workers; and (2) he undertakes any
testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is activity within the meaning of
necessary that there is a sufficient “recruitment and placement” defined
evidence proving that the offense under Article 13(b) of the Labor
was committed against three or more Code. The crime becomes Illegal
persons. In the case at bar, the Recruitment in Large Scale when the
prosecution failed to adduce foregoing two elements concur, with
sufficient evidence to prove that the addition of a third element—the
illegal recruitment was committed recruiter committed the same against
against three or more persons. The three or more persons, individually or
illegal recruitment was committed as a group.
against only one person: Garcia,
2
 Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal
Genoves and Hu were charged with
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
following the complaint from 6
people that they promised the latter
employment/job placement abroad
and collected fees from them.
However, when the job placements
never materialized, the complainants
demanded that the money they gave
as placement fees be returned to
them. Hu was not able to refund the
same.
Four of these complainants were
promised employment during the
validity of Brighturn’s license.
Garcia applied on April 2002, when
Brighturn’s license had already
expired. She was referred to Best
One, another recruitment agency, but
her placement fee was paid with
Brighturn.
For her defense, Hu cited that the
receipts that the complainants
showed her were issued by
Riverland. She denied knowing
Genoves.
Villar v. People In January 1993, Rosario Villar and
GR No. 176169 Dolores Placa represented to Nila
14 November 2008 Panilag that they would be able to
Tinga, J. find her a job abroad and obtained
from the latter P6,500 as placement
fee, but they did not have any license
or authority to do so. An Information
was filed against Villar and Placa
with the title designating their
offense under RA 8042. In 2002,
after the trial, the RTC held Villar
liable for the offense of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code.
Villar appealed to the CA, which
found that Villar should have only
been charged under Article 13(b) of
the Labor Code and not under RA
8042. It then held that Villar was
liable under Article 38 of the Labor
Code, in relation to Article 13(b) and
Article 39 of the same Code. It then
W/N RA 8042 was retroactively used
as basis for filing a criminal action
against Villar for illegal recruitment.
W/N Villar is guilty of illegal
recruitment.
Under which law should Villar be
held accountable?
because Hu referred Garcia to
another agency without the license or
authority to do so. Illegal recruitment
cannot successfully attach to the
allegations of the others since they
testified that they accomplished their
pre-employment requirements
through Brighturn from June 2001 up
to October of the same year, a period
wherein Brighturn’s license to
engage in recruitment and placement
was still in full force and effect.
However, failure of the prosecution
to prove the guilt of Hu beyond
reasonable doubt does not absolve
her of her civil obligation to return
the money she collected from the
complainants. Neither does her
acquittal herein exempt her from
subsequent criminal prosecution for
estafa provided that deceit, which is
an essential element of estafa, be
proven by the prosecution.
NO. Petitioner was charged in 1998
under an Information that
erroneously designated the offense as
covered by RA 8042, but alleged in
its body acts which are punishable
under the Labor Code. As it was
proven that she had committed the
acts she was charged with, she was
properly convicted under the Labor
Code, and not under RA 8042.
YES. The prosecution established
beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner had performed the acts
constituting the offense defined in
Art. 38, in relation to Art. 13(b) and
punished by Art. 39 of the Labor
Code, as alleged in the body of the
Information.
THE LABOR CODE. A criminal act
is punishable under the laws in force
The act of referral, which means the
act of passing along or forwarding an
applicant after an initial interview to
a selected employer, placement or
bureau, is included in recruitment.
The absence of receipts in the case of
illegal recruitment does not warrant
the acquittal of the appellant and is
not fatal to the prosecution’s case. As
long as the prosecution is able to
establish through credible and
testimonial evidence that the
appellant had engaged in illegal
recruitment, a conviction for the
offense can be very well justified.
Obiter:
Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non
qui negat – he who asserts, not he
who denies, must prove.
The real nature of the crime charged
is determined, not from the caption or
preamble of the information nor from
the specification of the law alleged to
have been violated, but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or
information. What controls is not the
designation but the description of the
offense charged. If the accused
performed the acts alleged in the
body of the information, in the
manner stated, the then he ought to
be punished and punished
adequately, whatever may be the
name of the crime which those acts
constitute.
3
 Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal
affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Villar appealed, claiming that the CA
failed to consider that RA 8042
cannot be given retroactive effect and
the decision of the RTC constitutes a
violation of the constitutional
prohibition against ex post facto law.
People v. Diaz Three women (Navarro, Fabricante,
GR No. 112175 and Ramirez) were enrolled at the
26 July 1996 Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural
Torres, Jr., J. Foundation in Davao City, studying
Niponggo, when they were informed
by their teacher, Mrs. Aplicador, that
she knew of a Mr. Paulo Lim who
also knew of one Engineer Erwin
Diaz who was recruiting applicants
for Brunei.
Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the
three women went to Mr. Lim who
told them that his children had
already applied with Engr. Diaz. The
four women were then accompanied
by Mr. Lim to the CIS Detention
Center where Engr. Diaz was already
being detained. After Navarro and
Ramirez had already given 20k as
placement fee, Fabricante went to the
office of the POEA and found out the
Engr. Diaz was not licensed.
Fabricante informed the two women
about her discovery and they all
withdrew their applications. Engr.
Diaz refunded their payments.
The trial court held Engr. Diaz guilty
of illegal recruitment in large scale.
People v. Chowdury Bulu Chowdury, a consultant of
GR No. 129577-80 Craftrade Overseas Developers,
15 February 2000 interviewed potential applicants for
Puno, J. work at a factory in South Korea,
W/N RA 8042 was applied
retroactively in Villar’s case.
W/N Diaz was engaged in illegal
recruitment.
W/N Chowdury should be held liable
for illegal recruitment in large scale.
at the time of its commission. Thus,
Villar can only be charged and found
guilty under the Labor Code which
was in force in 1993 when the acts
attributed to her were committed.
NO. Neither the trial court nor the
appellate court give RA 8042 a
retroactive application because both
courts passed upon Villar’s case only
under the aegis of the Labor Code.
The proceedings before the trial court
and the appellate court did not violate
the prohibition against ex post facto
law nor involved a retroactive
application of RA 8042 in any way.
YES. Diaz was neither a licensee nor The crime of illegal recruitment, as
a holder of authority to qualify him defined under Article 38(a) in
to lawfully engage in recruitment and relation to Articles 13(b) and 34 and
placement activity. Appellant told the penalized under Article 39 of the
three women that he was recruiting Labor Code, as amended by PD 1920
contract workers for abroad, and PD 2018, is any recruitment
particularly Brunei, and promised activity, including the prohibited
them job opportunities if they can practices enumerated under Article
produce various amounts of money 34, undertaken by a non-licensee or
for expenses and processing of non-holder of authority.
documents. He manifestly gave the
impression to the three women that A person is guilty of illegal
he had the ability to send workers recruitment when he gives the
abroad. Misrepresenting himself as a impression that he has the power to
recruiter of workers for Brunei, he send workers abroad.
promised them work for a fee and
convinced them to give their money
for the purpose of getting an
employment overseas.
NO. The persons criminally liable for The existence of the corporate entity
illegal recruitment are the principals, does not shield from prosecution the
accomplices, and accessories. In case corporate agent who knowingly and
of juridical persons, the officers intentionally causes the corporation
4
 Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal

namely Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja, having control, management or to commit a crime.
and Melvin Miranda. The three were direction of their business shall be
charged processing fees which were liable. An employee of a company or The employee or agent of a
received by one Josephine Ong. They corporation engaged in illegal corporation engaged in unlawful
were promised that they would be recruitment may be held liable as business naturally aids and abets in
able to work abroad, but they were principal, together with his employer, the carrying on of such business and
never deployed. They tried to refund if it is shown that he actively and will be prosecuted as principal if with
their money from Craftrade to no consciously participated in illegal knowledge of the business, its
avail, and filed a case against recruitment. However, at the time purpose and effect, he consciously
Chowdury for illegal recruitment. Chowdury was employed by contributes his efforts to its conduct
Craftrade, the company was and promotion, however slight his
It appears that Craftrade was operating under a temporary contribution may be.
previously licensed to recruit workers authority given by the POEA
for abroad, and the license expired on pending renewal of its license. The
15 December 1993. It was granted a temporary license included the
temporary license effective 16 authority to recruit workers.
December 1993 until 11 September Although Craftrade failed to register
1994. From 11 September, the POEA Chowdury’s name in the POEA as an
granted Craftrade another temporary employee, Chowdury was unaware
authority to process the expiring of that fact.
visas of overseas workers who have
already been deployed. On 14
December 1994, POEA suspended
Craftrade’s temporary license.
Chowdury, for his part, was an
interviewer for Craftrade until his
resignation on 12 November 1994.

The trial court found Chowdury

guilty of illegal recruitment in large
scale.