INOCENCIO, GR number: 90273-75, Date: November 15, 1989 Facts: Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. ("Pan Pacific") is a private, fee-charging, recruitment and employment agency. T in accordance with the requirements of Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), Pan Pacific posted a surety bond issued by petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation ("Finman") and was granted a license to operate by the POEA. Private respondents William Inocencio, Perfecto Palero, Jr., Edwin Cardones and one Edwin Hernandez filed with the POEA separate complaints against Pan Pacific for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended and for refund of placement fees paid to Pan Pacific. The complainants alleged that Pan Pacific charged and collected such fees from them but did not secure employment for them. In the case at bar, the POEA held, and the Secretary of Labor affirmed, that Pan Pacific had violated Article 32 of the Labor Code. Issue: Whether or not the POEA or the Secretary of Labor had proper jurisdiction over the case? Held: Yes, the Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The second paragraph of Article 31 of the Labor Code states that the secretary of Labor shall have the exclusive power to determine, decide, order or direct payment from, or application of, the cash or surety bond for any claim or injury covered and guaranteed by the bonds. There is, hence, no question that, both under the Labor Code and the POEA Rules and Regulations, Pan Pacific had violated at least one of the conditions for the grant and continued use of the recruitment license granted to it. NORBERTO SORIANO VS OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GR number: G.R. No. 78409, Date: September 14, 1989 Facts: In search for better opportunities and higher income, petitioner Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine Engineer, sought employment and was hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized shipping agent in the Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation. As evidenced by the Crew Agreement, petitioner was hired to work as Third Marine Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a conduction basis for a period of fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six (6) months by mutual agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer. Thus, while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on July 23, 1985 he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to the alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner to the position of Second Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila. In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, a complaint against private respondent for payment of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary for November, 1985 and refund of his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20,000.00 contending therein that private respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his salary of US$800.00 per month to US$560.00, causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed prohibited acts by altering or substituting employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor? Held: Yes, there is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the approval of the Department of Labor is a serious violation of law. In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission correctly

that some of the claims were paid beyond or prior to the period of effectivity of the bond. was held to be unreasonable and unjust. the Secretary of Labor gave the POEA "on its own initiative or upon filing of a complaint or report or upon request for investigation by any aggrieved person. successors and assigns. EASCO essentially disclaimed liability on the ground that the claims were not expressly covered by the bond. executors. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION.R. GR number: L-79436-50 Date: January 17. as agent of Ali and Fahd Shabokshi Group. Issue: Whether or not this was grounds for cancellation or suspension of license or authority of M. Ministry of Labor in the penal sum of PESOS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY for the payment of which will and truly to be made. EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION VS SECRETARY OF LABOR. Upon his return. ELVIRA VENTURA. among others. Issue: Whether or not the POEA or the Secretary of Labor had proper jurisdiction over the claims for refund filed by non-employees. herein petitioner. conferred by Section 36. The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed for violations of the above quoted provisions. Held: Yes. et al. administrators. a Saudi Arabian firm.1984. In consideration of promised deployment. they bound themselves. not only. S. Catan Placement Agency ." but also to "promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions" governing said activities. And the Secretary of Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions. Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted. On September 9. 1983. CATAN/M. 1985 by the applicant and the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation. their heirs. Hence. in virtue of which they both held themselves firmly bound unto Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The contract was automatically renewed when private respondent was not repatriated by his Saudi employer but instead was assigned to work as a crusher plant operator. a duly licensed recruitment agency. he was repatriated. jointly and severally. On March 30. Inc. the applicants filed separate complaints with the Licensing and Regulation Office of POEA against J&B for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code between the months of April to October 1985. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY VS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. complainants paid respondent various amounts for various fees. 1988 Facts: The Petitioner. he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work. he had his ankle treated for which he incurred further expenses. Because of nondeployment. No. and not in accord with the declared purpose of the Margin Law. to rule out from the exemption amendments set forth. Liabilities of Principals and Agents MANUELA S. although they did not materially change the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit. authority to conduct the necessary proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of the license or authority of any agency or entity" for certain enumerated offenses. exceptions from the coverage of a statute are strictly construed. On May 15. while he was working as a crusher plant operator. 77279 Date: April 15. and this decision is declared to be immediately executory. But such construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable. sensible and fair. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION and FRANCISCO D. 1990 Facts: In connection with the application with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration of J&B Manpower Specialist. REYES GR number: G. for a license to engage in business as a recruitment agency. this Court ruled that as a general proposition. to "restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies.analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted law. Under similar circumstances. ESTER TRANGUILLAN. recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as a steelman. as well as the authority. 1983. a surety bond was filed on January 2. the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. that POEA had no jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the bond.S. private respondent's right ankle was crushed under the machine he was operating.

00. This was followed by an ex-parte motion for leave to file third party complaint on June 4. accrued leave pay and time-off allowances. Abordo."Balatongan demanded payment for his claim for total disability insurance in the amount of US $ 50. [Section 10(a) (2) Rule V. 1982 Facts: Napoleon B. L-54204 Date: September 30. REBENE C. The supplementary contract of employment was entered into between petitioner and private respondent to modify the original contract of employment The reason why the law requires that the POEA should approve and verify a contract under Article 34 of the Labor Code is to insure that the employee shall not thereby be placed in a disadvantageous position and that the same are within the minimum standards of the terms and conditions of such employment contract set by the POEA. the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C. 1987 by Seagull. petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance Law of Singapore. Abordo. Rules to Implement the Labor Code.T. SIDDAYAO. Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency agreement at the time private respondent was injured. principal and agent. Seagull and Philimare appealed said decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on June 4.T. 1984. Inc. TORRES. 1983 to March 27. ABORDO GR number: G. On the other hand. SEAGULL MARITIME CORP. Abordo alleged that the amount of compensation due her from petitioners Norse Management Co. Power of the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreign-based employer for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. Book I. In her complaint for "death compensation benefits. (PTE) and Pacific Seamen Services. 1986. CRESCENCIO M. INC. 82252 Date: February 28. Egypt as a result of which he was hospitalized at the Suez Canal Authority Hospital. petitioner may still be sued for a violation of the employment contract because no notice of the agency agreement's termination was given to the private respondent. funeral expenses. entity. Abordo at the time of his death was receiving a monthly salary of US$850. (PTE) and PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES.00 as provided for in the contract of employment but his claim was denied for having been submitted to the insurers beyond the designated period for doing so.. Pending resolution of their appeal because of the alleged transfer of the agency of Seagull to Southeast Asia Shipping Corporation. attorney's fees and other benefits and reliefs available in connection with the death of Napoleon B.000. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry. OSCAR M. was the Second Engineer of M. or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor. 1985 the medical certificate was issued describing his disability as "permanent in nature. . VS NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD. AND PHILIMARE SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY VS NERRY D. BALATONGAN. Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed prohibited acts by altering or substituting employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor. The Court ruled that a recruitment agency was solidarily liable for the unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment in Saudi Arabia. The M. HON. 1987 a Motion For Substitution/Inclusion of Party Respondent which was opposed by Balatongan. No. 1983 Balatongan met an accident in the Suez Canal.R. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION GR number: G. should be based on the law where the vessel is registered. The late Napoleon B. respectively." filed before the National Seamen Board. it shall be unlawful for any individual. Seagull filed on April 28.R. licensee. On August 19. Restituta C. Held: Yes. Later. SEAMAN COMPENSATION for Death NORSE MANAGEMENT CO.Held: Yes. he was repatriated to the Philippines and was hospitalized at the Makati Medical Center from October 23. "Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE). Abordo. 1989 Facts: On October 6. No.

He was charged based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal capacity. stating that petitioner had paid P18. 1981. including its implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor. 1982. Mr. he only followed the instructions given by his superiors. Republic Act No. 1981. At that time. Brigido Samson. they offered to pay private respondent Restituta C. the Sheriff who served the writ submitted a report to the Board. 129577-80 Date: Feb. For his defense Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until 1994.R. No. L-63535 Date: May 27. Evidence shows that accused –appellant interviewed private complainant in 1994 at Craftrade’s office. SAMSON GR number: G. and that because of said payment. After the said decision reached finality. No. Abordo the sum of P30. against the petitioner before the National Seaman's Board (NSB).R. The respondent NLRC erred in recognizing a clearly illegal decision. Calleja. licensed to recruit overseas workers. the agency's President and General Manager. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. Melvin C. Hence. No. 25 which they claim should apply in this case. ARTICLE 38 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. UtkalChowdury. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BRIGIDO SAMSON. the appealed decision was affirmed by the NLRC. 1981 and which led to the Writ of Execution protested to by petitioner. As a mere employee. because said decision orders payment in the dollar standard in violation of law. arising out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas employment. On December 17. Held: No. The compalinants also averred that during their applications for employment for abroad. Emmanuel Geslani. the license of Craftrade was already expired.00 as death benefits based on the Board's Memorandum Circular No. the corresponding writ of execution was issued and served on petitioner. 529. Miranda and Aser S." WHEREFORE. with petitioner attributing to the NLRC the commission of the following alleged errors.R. A careful reading of the decision rendered by the Executive Director of the NSB dated April 2. 1985 Facts: The case at bar stems from a claim for disability compensation benefits and hospitalization expenses under employment contract. the petition in this case is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. represented by wife. Finally. Sasis for employment in Korea. and Mr. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged. namely.000. this instant petition for certiorari. filed by private respondent herein. 529 makes it unlawful to require payment of domestic obligations in foreign currency. No.As an alternative. provides that the National Seamen Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or cases including money claims.000. involving employer-employee relations. Held: Yes. Issue: Whether or not the respondent was in violation of R. BULU CHOWDURY G.: G. this particular statute is not applicable to the case at bar. will readily disclose that the award to the private respondent does not compel payment in dollar currency but in fact expressly allows payment of "its equivalent in Philippine currency. On April 28. 15. Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code. the Sheriff had in the meantime refrained from collecting the balance of the award until the Board shall have passed upon this matter. Issue: Whether or not the National Seamen Board had proper jurisdiction over the case at bar.A. he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under temporary authority given by POEA pending the renewal of license. .00 to private respondent herein which the latter accepted and evidenced by a voucher and a "Release" document dated May 7. 2000 Facts: BuluChowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting Estrella B. According to Article 20 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. NORMA S. the agency's Managing Director.

accused-appellant was not aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and the prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. She admitted. as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the testimony of a representative of said government agency. Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. together with his employer. accused Cabais denied all the charges against her. She talked to complainants several times during the period of February 1994 up to May 1994. Complainants checked with the office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) in Baguio and learned that Nellie Cabais was not licensed to recruit in Baguio or in any part of the Cordillera Administrative Region. Florentino Balanon. accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment. LINDA SAGAYDO G. They then inquired at the Baguio POEA office whether the accused was a license recruiter to which they receive certification that the accused was not a license recruiter. persuading them to be contract workers in South Korea. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he. No. Complainants Gina Cleto. In this case. Rogelio Tebeb.: G. They were assured of their flight and of employment abroad.R. Since the recruitment involves three or more persons. Held: Yes. accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale. 2001 Facts: Accused-appellant Nellie Cabais met the complainants Joan Merante. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. months have passed but their flight never pushed through. They were told that the accused-appellant was a legal recruiter working with a licensed recruitment agency based in Manila. Gina and Naty . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. though. the accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. No. Accused Cabais denied involvement in the recruitment of complainants. all the requisite of illegal recruitment are present. However. she said she used their money to buy their plane tickets.R. Complainants parted with their money. The accused was indicted for illegal recruitment and estafa. was duly authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. several months passed and they were not deployed as promised. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities.Held: No. She also received money from them as placement fees. NELLIE CABAIS y GAMUELA G. After complying with all the requirements. Her acts constituted recruitment. claiming that it was her boss who was doing recruitment activities. 29. that she received payments from complainants. Moreover. 2000 Facts: Accused Linda Sagayado was convicted before the regional trial court of illegal recruitment in large scale and fur charges of estafa. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant Accused-appellant Cabais is guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. In this case. and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment.: G. and Imelda Mortera on different occasions. Furthermore.R. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. In her defense. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money from them. No. the complainants complied with requirement and paid all the needed amounts. Convinced. However. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the company. She even presented some persons to influence them. accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitment activities. her duties only included processing other applications for job placement and entertaining applicants.R. 129070 Date: March 16. but alleged that she was merely acting upon the instruction of Forneas and that she turned over all the payments to her employer. Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment. Thus. in turn. Nancy Oidi. While accused admitted having received money from complainants Gina Cleto and Naty Pita. Jr. complainants were told to wait for their deployment. accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants. Accused-appellant was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. No. They waited and repeatedly inquired about the status of their applications. an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. For her part. Complainants gave their respective payments to the accused for the processing of their travel papers and passport. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being informed that she was able to send her three (3) sons to Korea. Nata Pita and Jessie Bolinao recounted that the accused Sagayado propsed and encourage them for employment abroad in Korea. evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais. She alleged that she was hired as an employee and as such employee. 124671-75 Date: Sep. if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.

6. Accused never fulfilled his promise. individually or as a group. With respect to complainants Jessie Bolinao and Rogelio Tibeb. 34 of the Labor Code. On June 27. the accused denied having received money from them. accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment. mere denial of accused cannot prevail. He was not also authorized to recruit workers abroad as he has not been licensed by the POEA and he illegally recruited more than three persons. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants. (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record shows that accused-appellant did more than just make referrals. accused said that she returned the plane tickets to the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency did not make reimbursements. the record showed that accused-appellant did not have the authority to recruit for employment abroad as the certification issued by the POEA in Baguio City.Sally Kamura. 119594 Date: Jan. As to the license requirement. 8. Indeed. either locally or overseas. 3. Esteban. and 9. 2. individually or as a group. the accused denied the charges and for collecting fees from them. 4. constituting a promise of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. 18. He further claimed that his signatures on the receipt were forged and he merely suggested to the complainants employment abroad. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. When asked why she was not able to return the money of Gina and Naty.Paul G. Held: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art. This crime requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code. The evidence shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees.Noel Bacasnot Baldivino. They paid the placement fees and were assured for employment abroad upon completion of their papers. BENZONG ONG y SATE G. Some of them voluntarily sought the help of the accused believing that he is a legal and licensed recruiter. and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons. his act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Art.: G. particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers. For his part. The accused representations to the private complainants that she could send them to Korea to work as factory workers. 1994. Malinias The above complainants recounted that the accused encourage them for employment abroad. Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.Teofilo S. Held: Yes. . Even if accused-appellant did no more than "suggest" to complainants where they could apply for overseas employment. Accused represented himself to complainants as one capable of deploying workers abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of factory and construction workers in Taiwan.Samuel Bagni. a team composed of NBI and special investigators conducted an entrapment operation which led to the arrest of the accused. there is no denying that accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. 1992. 2000 Facts: The regional trial court convicted accused Benson Ong of illegal recruitment and seven charges of estafa for promising employment abroad to the following: 1. No. Gallao.. From the testimonies of the private complainants. (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Solidad M. The NBI confirmed from the Philippine Overseas Employment AdministrationRegional Extension Unit (POEA-REU) in the Cordillera Autonomous Region that accused had not been licensed to recruit for overseas employment. 7. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more person.R. No. and (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons. All the requisites of Illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case.David Joaquin.Jr. individually or as a group. Complainants sought help to the NBI about the recruitment activities of the accused. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Clearly.Francisca Cayaya.13 (b) of the Labor Code. 5.” All the requisites are present in this case.R.Ruth A Eliw.were not able to leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement beginning January.

the accused-appellants are liable for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. Complainants then were introduced by Hernandez to spouse Reichl who in turn promised them for employment abroad. and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ DE REICHL. the spouse denied any of involvement of Hernandez's recruitment and their knowledge of promises for overseas employment. They were asked to pay a certain amount for placement and processing fees. Held: Yes.R. KARL REICHL. No. It has been shown that Karl Reichl. Neil Mascardo. Manuel Latina. No. It is clear that accused-appellant's acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement under the above provision of the Labor Code. In this case. Held: They cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. 141221-36 Date: March 7. G. 1997 Facts: Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias “Tommy Tan” was charged and convicted with illegal recruitment in large scale and 6 counts of estafa before the regional trial court of cavity city. The spouse issued reciept for the payments made by the complainants. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. Each of them recounted that they were informed of job employment in Taiwan.: G. Narcisa Autor de Hernandez. . Karl Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. they are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment. No. Accused Hernandez asked for the payment for the processing of their papers. contracting. utilizing. However. Leonora Perez. the accusedappellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale for having recruited six complainants. The accused issued receipts. The promise of employment however did not push through and the complainants decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment. Where only one complainant filed individual complaints as in this case. The promises of employment however did not pushed through and the complainants remained in the Phillippines. enlisting. Librado C. Pozas. The complainants namely. the accused spouse promise them to refund the payment if their employments never materialized. eight informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and eight informations for estafa were filed against accused-appellants. contract services. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants were guilty of syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. locally or abroad. Yolanda Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other in convincing private complainants to apply for an overseas job and giving them the guaranty that they would be hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensed to do so. Date: April 10. Provided.R.: G. hiring or procuring workers.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. They later found out that the accused-appellant was not a licensed overseas recruiter. travel documents and visas.. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. whether for profit or not. promising or advertising for employment. that any person or entity which. Estela Abel de Manalo. illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. and includes referrals. Anicel Umahon and Charito Balmes have their own similar stories about the illegal recruitment conducted by the accused-appellants. There was also a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that Francisco Hernandez. spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. Upon demands. Melanie Bautista Annaliza Perez. As for their part. transporting. Edgardo Tolentino and Cavino Asiman have similar stories about the illegal recruitment activities of the accused. These agreements were reduced into a document but the accused spouse never complies with their obligations. Thus. The complainants namely: Ernesto Orcullo. They recounted that accused Hernandez was the one convincing each of them to apply for employment abroad. there is no illegal recruitment in large scale. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Labor Code. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (at large). the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as any act of canvassing. PP VS. No. in any manner. The accused was not also licensed by the POEA and thus making him an illegal recruiter. together with Francisco Hernandez. They further contended that they cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale as the several information were only filed by single complainant.R. 120835-40. 2002 Facts: In April 1993. Only the Reichl spouses were tried and convicted by the trial court as Francisco Hernandez remained at large. Moreover. Edwin Coling. TAN TIONG MENG alias "TOMMY TAN" G. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant was guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. The transactions happened in certain house of Borja where the accused-appellant assured the complainants of employment at Rainbow Ship Co.R.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful