G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008 People of the Philippines vs.

Beth Temporada Facts: Beth Temporada is an accused for the crime of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in which the prosecution alleged that the accused recruited and promised overseas employment, for a fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as technician in Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as factory workers in Hongkong. After collecting the alleged placement fees amounting to P282,160, it was also noted that such placement fees are in excess of or greater than that specified in the scheduled of allowable fees prescribed of the POEA and without reasons and without fault of the said complainants, failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse them the expenses they incurred in connection with the documentation and processing of their papers for purposes of their deployment. The accused-apellant now contends that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the offense that were charged to them. Issue: What constitutes the crime of Illegal Recruitment? Held Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement thusly: ART. 13. Definitions. – x x x (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. It was held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three (3) elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. In the case at bar, all the elements were present thus the SC convicted the accused for the crime of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment.

and petitioner was hired on account of her being a member thereof. in light of the study of Labor Standards not only ask for her illegal dismissal but also for the illegal deduction made by the academy in view of tithes given to the Seventh Day Adventist church.R. Lilia Labadan was hired by private respondent.G. Forest Hills Academy. No. Forest Hills Academy Facts: In this case the petitioner. in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned. and (c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. in his own behalf or in behalf of any person. except: (a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer. The petitioner alleged that such deduction is unlawful. 2008 Lilia Labadan vs. as does Rule VIII. Issue: Whether or not such deduction made by the academy is unlawful. The defense contends that Seventh Day Adventist Church requires its members to pay tithes equivalent to 10% of their salaries. (b) For union dues. shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees. and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance. The petitioner. 172295. December 23. Article 113 of the Labor Code instructs: No employer. Held It was held by the Supreme Court that such deduction was unlawful. and petitioner never questioned the deduction of the tithe from her salary. Section 10 of the Rules Implementing Book III of the Labor Code reading: .

from the transaction. .SEC. 10. provided that the latter does not receive any pecuniary benefit. Deductions from the wages of the employees may be made by the employer in any of the following cases: (a) When the deductions are authorized by law. In the absence then of petitioner’s written conformity to the deduction of the 10% tithe from her salary. (b) When the deductions are with the written authorization of the employees for payment to a third person and the employer agrees to do so. directly or indirectly. including deductions for the insurance premiums advanced by the employer in behalf of the employee as well as union dues where the right to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual employee himself. the deduction made by Forest Hills was illegal.

and exercised exclusive control and supervision over them. The Labor Arbiter and finds that the SMC and BMA are jointly and severally liable for the non-payment of the said incentives. BMA’s Schedular Planner. Issue: Whether or not SMC have an employee-employer relationship with the petitioners. and tools. after the routes were made by SMC salesmen. BMA Phil Asia Inc. vs. Inc. They were hired under fixed-term contracts. drivers. On a day-to-day basis. San Miguel Corporation. 13th month pay. and helpers in the storage and distribution of SMC products. investment. they would book the orders they obtained. On July 31. Private respondent SMC maintained that it had no employer-employee relationship with petitioners who were hired and supervised exclusively by BMA pursuant to a warehousing and delivery agreement in consideration of a fixed monthly fee. and service incentive leave pay. In turn. It submitted documentary evidence proving that BMA engaged the services of petitioners.. SMC argued that BMA is a legitimate and independent contractor. Respondent BMA Philasia. are the former employees of respondent BMA at respondent San Miguel Corporation’s (SMC) warehouse in Pasig City. paid for their wages and benefits. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.R. 168537. (BMA) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of transporting and hauling of cargoes. goods. and commodities of all kinds. 2008 Damian Aklan et al. CA reversed and set aside the decisions of the NLRC hence this case. BMA provided delivery trucks. Petitioners. detailed at the . numbering forty-seven (47) in all. a number of petitioners went to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) District Office to file a complaint against BMA and Eusebio for underpayment of wages and non-payment of premium pay for rest day. No.G. December 11. Held: It was held by the Supreme Court that SMC showed that under their contract. Facts: This labor case the dichotomy between impermissible labor-only contracting and legitimate job contracting. equipment. 2001. duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a separate and distinct corporation with substantial capitalization.

as opposed to permissible job contracting. . not respondent BMA. Petitioners argue mainly that their employer is.Pasig Warehouse. also an employee of BMA. As a result. and the "labor-only" contractor is considered as a mere agent of the principal.17 All four elements were found by the NLRC to be vested in BMA. They contend that BMA is a labor-only contractor and SMC. (2) power of dismissal. respondent SMC. is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor. BMA had to come up with ways and means in order to avoid the disruption of delivery operations. (3) the payment of wages by whatever means. should be held directly liable for their money claims. A finding that a contractor is a "labor-only" contractor. downloaded these booked orders from the computer and processed the necessary documents to be forwarded to the Warehouse Checker. the NLRC considered the following elements to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers. as their true employer. SMC contended that petitioners were dismissed by BMA for staging a two-hour strike without complying with the mandatory requirements for a valid strike. and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct. the real employer. SC hasten to add that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and the findings by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on that score shall be accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by ample evidence. in fact.16 In its ruling. but the facts of the case belies the contention of the petitioner thus the SC held that SMC should not be held liable for the money claims of the petitioner. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the employment contracts of petitioners duly prove that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and BMA.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful