You are on page 1of 11

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |1

G.R. No. 178774 December 08, 2010 Brion, J. Third Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee V MARLYN P. BACOS, Appellant Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 1

Facts: Appellant Marlyn Bacos and her common law husband husband Efren Dimauyga were charged of illegal recruitment in large scale before the RTC based on the complaints based on the complaints of 10 individuals. They pleaded not guilty and trial ensued however Dimayuga died during the trial. The complainants claimed that Dimayuga represented himself as a recruiter and Bacos assured that they could sent them to work in Japan. Based on these representations and assurances, they parted with their money as placement and processing fees and were given receipts, but were not deployed within the periods promised. However, Bacos denied her participation by claiming that she only served snacks to the complainants when they came to their house. The RTC held that Bacos gave indispensable assistance to Dimayuga in perpetuating the fraud and found them engaged in illegal recruitment activities. The CA affirmed CAs decision finding Bacos guilty as principal. Issue: Can Bacos be held guilty of illegal recruitment as principal albeit any direct and clear of active participation? Laws Applicable: Republic Act 8042 Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act Ruling: The SC affirmed Bacos conviction. RA 8042 defines recruitment and placement as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Bacos and Dimayuga committed illegal recruitment activities. The prosecution evidence clearly showed that despite the lack of license or authority to engage in recruitment, Bacos admitted that she gave assurances to the complainants that she and dimayuga could deploy them for employment in Japan. Bacos accepted the placement fee, informed the complainants of their departure and gave them information on how to pay their balance. Her liability cannot be considered as that of a mere accomplice, but as a principal who directly and actively engaged in illegal recruitment activities. The argument that she did not derive any consideration for cannot serve to exonerate her from the crime. Opinion: The Courts were correct in convicting Bacos. By its very definition, illegal recruitment is deemed committed by mere act of promising employment without a license or authority and whether for profit or not. Whether the accused profit or not from such act is immaterial. The time when the misrepresentation was made, whether prior or simultaneous to the delivery of the money of the complainants is only material in the crime of estafa under Revised Penal Code as amended, and not on the crime of illegal recruitment. The acts of Bacos fall within the prohibited acts of illegal recruitment as provided for by law. She cannot escape liability by merely alleging that she did not gain any monetary benefits out of those acts. Her admission that she gave assurances to the complainants is deemed as promising for employment without license. Hence, the decision of the Court must be upheld.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |2

G.R. No. 138431-36 September 12, 2001 THIRD DIVISION, GONZAGA-REYES, J.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee V DIOSCORA M. ARABIA and FRANCISCA L. TOMAS, accused-appellants Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 2

Facts: The Appellants convinced the private complainants and other applicants to apply for jobs in Taiwan that would give them a monthly pay. Appellants solicited service fee for processing and placement from the complainants. Each of the private complainants give certain amount to Arabia at the latter's residence and in the presence of Tomas. Arabia, however, did not issue any receipt upon her assurance that she would not fool them. However, private complainants were not able to leave for Taiwan because appellants told them that the person who was supposed to accompany them to Taiwan did not arrive. The departure date was thus reset but private complainants were still unable to leave. Private complainants asked for the return of their money as they were no longer interested in working abroad. They were informed by Arabia's sister, however, that appellants were arrested by the NBI and detained at the Quezon City Jail. Records also showed that appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Issue: Did the accused-appellants committed illegal recruitment in large scale? Laws Applicable: Articles 13 and 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines Ruling: Yes, the accused-appellants were guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements: The accused undertook recruitment activity defined under Article 13 or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code, he did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers and he committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. These essential elements are present in this case. Accused-appellants recruited at least four persons, giving them the impression that they had the capability to send them to Taiwan for employment. They collected various amounts allegedly for recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. It is settled that the fact that an accused in an illegal recruitment case did not issue the receipts for amounts received from the complainants has no bearing on his culpability so long as complainants show through their respective testimonies and affidavits that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment. Opinion: The Courts decision must be upheld. It is very apparent that the appellants defrauded the complainants/witnesses through deceit. Appellants misled the complainants into believing that they could provide the latter with employment in Taiwan. As a result, the complainants tendered service fees. The illegal recruitment is considered as large scale. There were more than three victims in this case. The recruiters were also without license when they committed the illegal actsof recruitment.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |3

G.R. No. 146964 August 10, 2006 THIRD Division; CARPIO MORALES, J.

ROSA C. RODOLFO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 3

FACTS: Petitioner Rosa C. Rodolfo approached private complainants individually and invited them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai. The complainants accepted the invite and tendered certain amount as processing fee. Rodolfo then told Ferre and Corpus that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the scheduled date as their employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was rescheduled, but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, Ferre and Corpus demanded of Rodolfo to return their money. Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to Ferre, Rodolfo was not able to return Ferres and Corpus money. Ferre, Corpus and three others then filed a case for illegal recruitment in large scale with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Rodolfo. The RTC rendered judgement against Rodolfo but in imposing the penalty, the RTC took note of the fact that while the information reflected the commission of illegal recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of two (Ferre and Corpus) of the five complainants was proven. Rodolfo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. The CA also dismissed Rodolfos Motion for Reconsideration. ISSUE: Is Rodolfo is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale? LAWS APPLICABLE: Article 13 and Article 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines RULING: The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. If another element is present that the accused commits the act against three or more persons, individually or as a group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale. The Court held that the accused committed illegal recruitment in large. OPINION: I concur with the Ruling of the Supreme Court. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as 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.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |4

All of the elements of illegal recruitment are present in the case at bar. The accused committed acts of recruitment but without license to do so. Thus, he is not authorized to recruit any workers for overseas employment. Even if the accused did return or reimburse some of the amount he collected, he cannot he freed from the liability of violating the provisions against illegal recruitment. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. It must also be noted that the accused recruited and defrauded more than three applicants. Although, only two of those actually tendered service fees to Rodolfo, the acceptance of illegal fees is immaterial. It is enough that the accused committed illegal acts of recruitment against more than three persons to consider the act as illegal recruitment in large scale.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |5

G. R. No. 168651 16 March 2011 Third Division, Bersamin, J. Facts:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESAppellee, vs. EDITH RAMOS ABAT, Accused-Appellant Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 4

Appellant Edit Abat allegedly performed recruitment activities in large scale by recruiting several individuals in Calasiao, Pangasinan. The appellant denies having any participation in the recruitment of the said individuals. She argues that the money she received from the complainants is not for consideration of the employment of complainants in Taiwan. It only serves as reimbursement of the expenses she incurred for tour to different provinces with the complainants. Further, she averred that the failure of the complainants to produce receipts showing that she had collected money from them in connection with her assurances of their employment in Taiwan was fatal to the States case against her, and that only four of the nine complainants testified against her. Both the RTC and the CA convicted her of large scale illegal recruitment. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment as defined by Art. 13(b) and penalized by Art. 39(a), both of the Labor Code, handed down by the Regional Trial Court. Hence, this petition. Issue: Does the appellate court erred in affirming the appellants conviction despite the failure of the complainants to produce receipts to show that it was received in connection with complainants employment in Taiwan? Laws Involved: Articles 13(b), 38 and 39 Labor Code of the Phils. Ruling: The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts. Opinion: I agree with the SCs decision. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts in order to prove the existence of recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses. Consequently, as long as the State established through credible testimonial evidence that the accused had engaged in illegal recruitment, her conviction was justified. It must also be taken into account that there were several complainants in this case and there testimonies collaborated with each other. The credibility and strength of testimonial evidence may be given weight and credence by the Court albeit the absence of documentary or object evidence.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |6

G. R. No. 170834 August 29, 2008 Third Division, Austria Martinez, J.

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Antonio Nogra, Accused-Appellant Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 5

Facts: Accused Antonio Nogra is the operations manager of Loran International Overseas Recruitment Agency, a duly licensed overseas employment agency. He was assigned in the Naga City Branch office with the added responsibility of handling the advertisement as well. The main office of the agency is in Libertad Mandaluyong and owned by Lorna Orciga and Kataru Tanaka. Private complainants all applied at the branch office where Nogra is assigned. They paid the placement fee but the agencywas unable to deploy them. The agency was also unable to return the amount paid upon demand, prompting the complainants to institute the criminal case of illegal recruitment in a large scale against the agency, its owners and petitioner. Nogra was the only one arraigned as the others still remained at large. Nogra contends is that he is just a mere employee and that all the money paid was deposited into the account of Lorna Orciga and he did not retain any portion of the same. Issue: Is the complainant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale despite being a mere employee? Laws Applicable: Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and RA 8042 Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed Nogras conviction of life imprisonment and penalty of P500,000. The Court held that appellant Nogra is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale even if he is a mere employee. RA 8042 sufficiently broadened the concept of illegal recruitment in adding that a nonlicensee or non-holder along with licensees and holders of authority. The illegal recruitment has been committed against more than three persons which squarely puts the same under the ambit of the law defining illegal recruitment in large scale. He is nevertheless guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale because of the provision of Section 6 of RA 8042 providing that principals, accomplices and accessories are included in those that may be charged and in case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of the business. In the case at bar, he is guilty of the same as his job title of Operations Manager, makes him an active and conscious participant of the recruitment process. Opinion: I concur with the Courts decision. In my opinion, Nogra, being a mere employee in charge of recruitment and advertisement, is still an active participant of failure to deploy the applicants. As operations manager, he has the task of overseeing that the applicants will be successfully deployed to job to which the agency promised them. His duties and responsibilities are not confined within recruitment alone. His duty extends until the applicants are deployed. It may be true that the money paid by the applicants were paid to Orciga. His being not able to profit from such act of failure to deploy the complainant does not exempt him from liability. Thus, I believe that the Courts rendered the right decision.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |7

G. R. No. 184058 10 March 2010 First Division, Carpio-Morales, J.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, -v. MELISSA CHUA, Appellant. Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 6

Facts: Appellant was indicted for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale). Appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Her co-accused Josie remained at large. The cases were consolidated, hence, trial proceeded only with respect to appellant. Of the five complainants, only three testified, namely, Marilyn D. Macaranas (Marilyn), Erik de Guia Tan (Tan) and Harry James King (King). Appellant denied the charges. Claiming having worked as a temporary cashier from January to October, 2002 at the office of Golden Gate, owned by one Marilyn Calueng, she maintained that Golden Gate was a licensed recruitment agency and that Josie, who is her godmother, was an agent. Appellant was convicted thereof by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. She was also indicted for five counts of Estafa but was convicted only for three. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellants conviction. Issue: Is appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale? Laws Applicable: Articles 13 (b) and 34 of the labor Code of the Philippines and R.A. 8042 Ruling: Yes. For illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group. Even if appellant were a mere temporary cashier of Golden Gate, that did not make her any less an employee to be held liable for illegal recruitment as principal by direct participation, together with the employer, as it was shown that she actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. Opinion: The Courts decision of conviction must be sustained. R.A. 8042 is a special law, thus, even if the appellant is unaware of the illegal nature of the recruitment business, her intent is immaterial. Appellant was positively pointed to as one of the persons who enticed the complainants to part with their money upon the fraudulent representation that they would be able to secure for them employment abroad. This warrants the courts findings that she indeed actively participated in the illegal acts of the recruitment agency. In illegal recruitment case, it is immaterial whether the accused gained profit or not. It is sufficient that he/she actively participate din the illegal acts prohibited by the law for the accused to be convicted. As such, I upheld the Courts decision.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |8

G.R. No. 171644 Nov. 23, 2011 First Division, Carpio-Morales, J. THIRD DIVISION, PERALTA, J

DELIA D. ROMERO,Petitioner -vPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET. AL Respondents. Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 7

Facts: PRIVATE respondent Romulo Padlan went to petitioner Delia D. Romero to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by petitioners words of encouragement and inspired by the potential salary of US$700 to US$1,200 a month, respondent raised the amount of US$3,600, which he gave to petitioner so that his papers could be processed. Respondent left for Israel and secured a job with a monthly salary of US$650. Unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israels immigration police and deported for lack of a working visa. On his return, respondent demanded from petitioner the return of his money but the later refused. Respondent filed a complaint for Illegal Recruitment against petitioner. Issue: Is Delia Romero guilty of iIlegal recruitment? Laws Applicable: Article 13(b) and 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines Ruling: Yes. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as: 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. The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. The petitioner, who is without a license from POEA has committed acts of recruitment and placement. Hence, she is guilty of Illegal Recruitment. Opinion: It is very apparent that the appellant is guilty. Where the law is clear, it leaves no room for interpretation but merely implementation. It is clear the acts of the appellant fall within the meaning and scope of recruitment and placement as contemplated by the Labor Code of the Philippines. This provision against illegal recruitment and the requirement of obtaining license before one can proceed with the acts of recruitment and placement is for the protection of the labor force against unscrupulous recruiters. Thus, it in my humble opinion that the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court were all correct in convicting the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e |9

G. R. No. 180926 November 23, 2011 Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOURDES VALENCIANO y DACUBA, Accused-Appellant. Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 8

Facts: Valenciano, claiming to be an employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc. recruited private complainants for overseas employment. She received the payments made by the complainants of their placement fees to the alleged owners of the recruitment agency. Due to the failure of private complainants to be deployed, they filed a case for large scale illegal recruitment against the appellant and the Imperials. The Imperials remained at large. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime imputed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts findings. Issue: Is appellant guilty of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment despite the claim that she is just a mere employee of the recruitment agency? Laws Involved: Articles 13(b), 38, 39 of Labor Code of the Philippines; R.A. 8042 Ruling: The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other co-accused does not relieve her of liability. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that the employee actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Opinion: I strongly agree that the accused appellant must he held accountable for her acts. The Court did not err in convicting her of Illegal Recruitment. Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. It is a legal maxim that Ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, thus, intent is immaterial. It is also a well settled rule that it is immaterial whether the accused profit or not from the illegal acts. Likewise, to allow the accused to use a defense of good faith would be a circumvention of the law. Good faith cannot be used as a defense since it will only warrant the illegal recruiters to use it as cloak of their illegal acts.

G.R. Nos. 149014-16

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e | 10

February 5, 2004 Second Division, TINGA, J

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. ROSE DUJUA et. al. appellant Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 9

Facts: Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle, Guillermo Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. Only Ramon was arrested. Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All of them were promised work abroad upon payment of fees but they were not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations that he was a recruiter. Issue: Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was committed by Raon Dujua, et al. Laws Applicable: Articles 13(b) and 34 of Labor Code of the Philippines; R.A. 8042 Ruling: Yes, All three elements of Illegal Recruitment were established beyond reasonable doubt. First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved that Dujua promised them employment and assured them of placement overseas. All of them identified Dujua as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujuas mere denials cannot prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough credible testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal recruitment , a conviction for the offense can very well be justified. Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority. Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the recruitment of more than three persons. Opinion: Courts decision in the instant case is clear and without error. Where a person is engaged in recruitment and placement without license, he is deemed to have violated the provisions against illegal recruitment. Travel agencies as well as airline companies are prohibited from engaging in the acts of recruitment and placement. Dunjua, therefore on his private capacity or as an employee of a travel agency has no authority to engage into recruitment. Evidence adduced proved that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this ruling must be upheld.

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

P a g e | 11

G.R. No. 195419 October 12, 2011 Second Division, Carpio, J

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. HADJARMA LALII, ET. AL. accused- appellant Sinel, Rachel Ann A. Series No. 10

FACTS: Lolita Sagadsad Plando, herein complainant, was a victim of illegal recruitment and human trafficking. She was allegedly recruited by a certain Ronnie Masion Aringoy to work in Malaysia as a restaurant entertainer. She was told that she only needed a passport to get to Malaysia. She then took her sisters passport which was altered by Ronnie Masion Aringoy . In a matter of days, she was bound to Malaysia. One Hadja Jarma Lalli and one Nestor Relagampos accompanied her to her workplace in Malaysia, together with three other recruits. It was Nestor Relampagos who introduced them to their Boss. However, when she arrived there, the restaurant turned out to be a prostitution den where she was forced to work as a prostitute. After a month, she escaped from the said prostitution den with the help of her sister residing in Malaysia. Thereafter, she returned to the Philippines and filed a complaint against Hadja Jarma Lalli, Nestor Relagampos and Ronnie Masion Aringoy. The accused were found guilty by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: Did the accused commit illegal recruitment? LAWS APPLICABLE : Articles 13(b), 13(f) and 38 of the Labor Code of the Philippines RULING: YES. A person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite authority from DOLE, whether for profit or not, is deemed to be engaged in illegal recruitment. The commission of illegal recruitment by three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another is deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes economic sabotage. The three elements of syndicated illegal recruitment are present in this case, in particular: (1) the accused have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by actually recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and (3) illegal recruitment was committed by three persons, conspiring and confederating with one another. OPINION: Syndicated Illegal recruitment is an offense that really need to be sanctioned heavily in order to protect the labor force of this country. Thus, concur in the courts decision of imposing the appropriate penalties upon finding that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.