People of the Philippines vs. Goce August 29, 1995 GR No.

113161 Facts: Salado et al met and was recruited by defendant, Agustin, in Manila through Clover Placement Agency, owned by the Goce spouses. Defendant gave representation that she sends workers overseas, through latter agency where shes a manager. Subsequently, placement and processing fees ranging from P 4,000.00 to P 12,000.00 were collected from petitioners and departure dates set but to no avail. For the second time, the placement contract failed to materialize hence Salado et al demanded refunds from defendant. Latter wasnt able to do so but promised to pay in instalments which proved futile, averring later that shes not liable, for her act of introducing petitioners to CPA owners do not constitute a job referral. She argued that she incurred no liability since no employment occurred. Hence, the aggrieved defendants filed a case for illegal recruitment seeking redress from the court. Issue: Whether or not, Agustins acts constitute a referral tantamount to job recruitment. Held: The revered court ruled in the affirmative, opining that Agustins acts constitute a referral tantamount to recruitment as provided in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, enticing liability to defendant attributable to misrepresentation of her recruitment authority. As eloquently stated by this court, referrals exist when a person pass along or forwards an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. In latters case, it was only logical that as an employee of Clover Placement Agency (CPA) she referred defendants to Goce spouses, the owners. Therefore, her defense is untenable for as an employee of CPA it was part of her duty to assess and refer job applicants to the company owner, Goces, attested by defendants collection of placement and processing fees from petitioners. More so, referral which is tantamount to recruitment constitutes a promise of employment so its breach entitles the offended party to damages. For which, Agustins conviction must be sustained for the reason that she deliberately referred Salado et al for a job placement abroad creating a promise of employment. Bolstered by the corroborating

testimonies of Salado et al, though without evidentiary receipts, was clear and positive. As compared to defendant who failed to provide substantial evidence to the contrary.