Prime Security vs NLRC

Facts:

On February 23, 1989, private respondent Othello C. Moreno filed a complaint with the Department of
Labor and Employment, Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, against the petitioner, A Prime
Security Agency, Inc., for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction and underpayment of wages
(private respondent herein) had been working as a security guard for a year with the Sugarland Security
Services, Inc., a sister company of petitioner; that he was rehired as a security guard on January 30, 1988
by the petitioner and assigned to the same post at the U.S. Embassy Building
he was among those absorbed by the petitioner when it took over the security contracts of its sister
company,
he was forced by petitioner to sign new probationary contracts of employment for six (6) months; that on
August 1, 1988, his employment was terminated; that during his employment,
LA ruled in the favor of the guard
NLRC affirmed

Issue:
1. Whether private respondents employment with A Prime Security Services, Inc. was just a continuation of his
employment with Sugarland Security Services, Inc.;
2. Whether private respondent is a regular or probationary employee of petitioner; and
3. Whether private respondents dismissal is illegal.
Held:

ICMC vs NLRC ( If not illegal dismissal, no payment of unserved service)

Facts:
Petitioner International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), a non-profit organization dedicated to
refugee service at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in Morong, Bataan engaged the services of
private respondent Bernadette Galang on January 24, 1983 as a probationary cultural orientation teacher
with a monthly salary of P2,000.00.
Three (3) months thereafter, or on April 22, 1983, private respondent was informed, orally and in writing,
that her services were being terminated for her failure to meet the prescribed standards of petitioner
Despite her termination, records show that private respondent did not leave the ICMC refugee camp at
Morong, Bataan, but instead stayed thereat for a few days before leaving for Manila, during which time,
she was observed by petitioner to be allegedly acting strangely.
, private respondent filed a complaint 1 for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against
petitioner with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement with backwages,
exemplary and moral damages.
LA ruled in favor of petitioner but ordered them to pay the remaining 3 months of the oral contract
NLRC affirmed LA
Issue: The issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not an employee who was terminated during the
probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month
probationary employment.
Held:

We find for petitioner.

There is justifiable basis for the reversal of public respondent's award of salary for the unexpired threemonth portion of private respondent's six-month probationary employment in the light of its express finding
that there was no illegal dismissal
here is no dispute that private respondent was terminated during her probationary period of employment for
failure to qualify as a regular member of petitioner's teaching staff in accordance with its reasonable
standards
Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards of the employer is a
just cause for terminating a probationary employee specifically recognized under Article 282 (now Article
281) of the Labor Code
A probationary appointment is made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness of a
probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and efficient employee.
The word "probationary", as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or
period, but not its length.
It is well settled that the employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will be hired and who will be
denied employment. In that sense, it is within the exercise of the right to select his employees that the
employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the latter may test and observe the conduct of
the former before hiring him permanently.
As the law now stands, Article 281 of the Labor Code gives ample authority to the employer to terminate a
probationary employee for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement
It was thus a grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent to order petitioner to pay private
respondent her salary for the unexpired three-month portion of her six-month probationary employment
when she was validly terminated during her probationary employment. To sanction such action would not
only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer

People vs Panis
Facts:

Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo
City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the
Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and
expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in
violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was
accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations.
Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or
more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee."
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation
to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable.
However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper
authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruitment and
placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code.

Held:

Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, states that,
o "(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting,
transporting, 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."
As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an
exception thereto but merely to create a presumption.
The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it
is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment
is made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
(of) workers."
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal
recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign
land, and investing hard-earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be
awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.

People vs Saulo
Facts
Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were charged with violation
of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code[1] illegal recruitment in large scale and the accused were also charged
with three counts of estafa.

During a meeting sometime in April or May, 1990, ROMULO SAULO told BENNY MALIGAYA that she
would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she gave him the fees for the processing of her
documents.
Sometime in May, 1990, Maligaya also met with AMELIA DE LA CRUZ and CLODUALDO DE LA
CRUZ at their house in Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her that they were authorized by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for Taiwan.
Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz the amount of P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a
receipt signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz.

Seeing that he had reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint against
accused-appellant with the POEA.
Meanwhile, ANGELES JAVIER was told by Ligaya, accused-appellants wife, to apply for work abroad
through accused-appellant.
At a meeting in accused-appellants Quezon City residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that he
could get her a job in Taiwan as a factory worker and that she should give him P35,000.00 for purposes of
preparing Javiers passport.
Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-appellant, but she did not ask for a receipt as she
trusted him. As the overseas employment never materialized, Javier was prompted to bring the matter
before the POEA.

On April 19, 1990, LEODIGARIO MAULLON, upon the invitation of his neighbor Araceli Sanchez, went
to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for gaining employment abroad. As in the case
of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant assured Maullon that he could secure him a job as a factory
worker in Taiwan if he pays him for the processing of his papers.
Maullon pay to accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt. Thereafter, Maullon paid an additional
amount in the presence of accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz, which payment is also evidenced by a
receipt.
Finally, Maullon pay to a certain Loreta Tumalig, a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt.
Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on the promised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint
with the POEA.

Issue: Whether or not Saulo is guilty

Held:
YES

The Court finds that the trial court was justified in holding that accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful
recruitment and placement activities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant promised
the three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan
as factory workers and that he asked them for money in order to process their papers and procure their
passports.
It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor licensedby the Department of Labor and
Employment to engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or
authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.
It is also well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal
recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa
is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction in the former,
but is required in the latter.
WHEREFORE, Decision of the Trial Court is AFFIRMED subject to MODIFICATIONS.

Mariveles Shipyard Corp vs CA

Facts:

petitioner Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the services of Longest Force Investigation and
Security Agency, Inc. (hereinafter, Longest Force) to render security services at its premises

Longest Force deployed its security guards, the private respondents herein, at the petitioners shipyard in
Mariveles, Bataan.
Petitioner found the services being rendered by the assigned guards unsatisfactory and inadequate, causing
it to terminate its contract with Longest Force on April 1995.
private respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages
The petitioner denied any liability on account of the alleged illegal dismissal, stressing that no employeremployee relationship existed between it and the security guards. It further pointed out that it would be the
height of injustice to make it liable again for monetary claims which it had already paid.
LA decided in favor of the guards
NLRC affirmed
Petition denied outright in CA
Issue:

(3) Did the appellate court grievously err in finding petitioner jointly and severally liable with Longest Force for the
payment of wage differentials and overtime pay owing to the private respondents?\
Held:

petitioner argues that it should not be held jointly and severally liable with Longest Force for underpayment
of wages and overtime pay because it had been religiously and promptly paying the bills for the security
services sent by Longest Force and that these are in accordance with the statutory minimum wage
petitioner contends that it should not be held liable for overtime pay as private respondents failed to present
proof that overtime work was actually performed.
petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals failed to render a decision that finally disposed of the case
because it did not specifically rule on the immediate recourse of private respondents, that is, the matter of
reimbursement between petitioner and Longest Force
Petitioners liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force, pursuant to Articles 106, 107 and 109 of
the Labor Code
In this case, when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security agency that
hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation, petitioner became an indirect
employer of private respondents pursuant to Article 107 abovecited.
when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards, the corporation as principal becomes jointly and
severally liable for the guards wages
The security agency is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer, while the corporation is
deemed the indirect employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of
the agency to pay them.
Labor standards are enacted by the legislature to alleviate the plight of workers whose wages barely
meet the spiraling costs of their basic needs
Labor laws are considered written in every contract. Stipulations in violation thereof are considered null.
legislated wage increases are deemed amendments to the contract. Thus, employers cannot hide behind
their contracts in order to evade their (or their contractors or subcontractors) liability for noncompliance
with the statutory minimum wage.

People vs De Leon
Facts:

The accused ( Husband and Wife) representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and
transport Filipino workers [for] employment abroad conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping and aiding with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee
recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad
Only Baltazar de Leon was arrested. Marietta de Leon remains at large up to the present. The former
entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment on 2 April 1991
Trial Court Found them guilty
o Clearly accused Baltazar de Leon is neither authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for overseas
jobs and yet he and his wife recruited workers, talked to the applicants and collected fees for
requirements that each applicant had to comply with in order that their applications may be
processed.
o played out their roles resulting in the applicants' reposing their trust and belief in them. It is of
little surprise that the complaining witnesses conclusively identified accused Baltazar as the man
who recruited them or their relatives

Noeta Perez then asked her sister and brother to apply, and she gave P1,380.00 to appellant's wife
For helping Daniel and Lourdes get jobs abroad, appellant demanded P6,380.00 from each of the applicants
allegedly for the processing of the papers, medical examination, pictures and passport
Noeta Perez received a letter from the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") saying that the applications
for overseas jobs sent to Micronesia were sent to the NBI because there were no such job orders from
Micronesia.
Upon getting this information, Noeta, together with her sister Lourdes and brother Daniel could not have
gone to Micronesia since the alleged jobs offered to them by appellant never existed
Also, Gutierrez, however, was unable to leave for Guam because it turned out that there was no such job
order in Guam
the appellant does not have any license or authority from the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment

Issue: Whether or not De Leon is guilty

Held: Yes

"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 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 appellant and his wife were co-conspirators in the illegal recruitment business conducted in their
residence with each contributing coordinative and cooperative acts to insure the success of an enterprise
that provided them with income for their mutual benefit and advantage.
All these acts of the appellant and his wife conclusively established a common criminal design mutually
deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves.
Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers for or promising them overseas
employment, which are among the acts of recruitment embraced in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code,
the appellant was positively identified by the complainants. It is axiomatic that alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the accused

C.F Sharp Crew vs Epanol

Facts:

Louis Cruise Lines (LCL), a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Cyprus,
entered into a Crewing Agreement[3] with Papadopolous Shipping, Ltd. (PAPASHIP).
PAPASHIP in turn appointed private respondent Rizal International Shipping Services (Rizal) as manning
agency in thePhilippines, recruiting Filipino seamen for LCLs vessel.
LCL terminated the Crewing Agreement with PAPASHIP to take effect on December 31, 1996. It then
appointed C.F. Sharp as crewing agent in the Philippines
C.F. Sharp requested for accreditation as the new manning agency of LCL with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), but Rizal objected on the ground that its accreditation still existed
and would only expire on December 31, 1996.
Despite not getting acrredited, C.F. Sharp still recruited people
Rizal Filed a complaint for illegal recruitment
POEA found Sharp liable for such
DOLE also affirmed ( Espanol was undersecrtery here)

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for illegal recruitment
Held: YES

LCL had no approved POEA license to recruit. C.F. Sharps accreditation as LCLs new manning agency
was still pending approval at that time. Yet Savva and Tjiakouris, along with C.F. Sharp, entertained
applicants for LCLs vessels, and conducted preparatory interviews.
the conduct of preparatory interviews is a recruitment activity based on the definition stated in the law
Indeed, it was Savva and Tjiakouris that conducted the interviews, and undertook selection and
hiring. However, C.F. Sharp cannot steer clear of liability for it conspired with LCL in committing illegal
recruitment activities.
The intention, agreement and both common design of both LCL and CF Sharp to engage in recruitment of
crewmen for LCLs ships had already been made manifest when LCL through Savva had instructed, in
the October 14, 1996 letter to disembarking crewmembers, for the latter to report to CF Sharp for
processing of their papers.
This was followed by the execution by LCL on October 17, 1996 of a Special Power of Attorney in favor
of CF Sharp as new manning agent and attorney-in-fact of LCL
on November 8, 1996, CF Sharp applied for accreditation as manning agent of LCL for the latters five
named vessels.
The appointment or designation of Desiderio as an employee or agent of C.F. Sharp, without prior approval
from the POEA, warrants administrative sanction.
The claim of denial of due process on the part of C.F. Sharp must also be rejected. The essence of due
process lies in the reasonable opportunity afforded a party to be heard and to submit any evidence in
support of its defense. What is vital is not the opportunity to cross-examine an adverse witness, but an
opportunity to be heard.
In this case, C.F. Sharp was given ample opportunity to be heard,

People vs LO
Facts:

Sometime in 1998, Lo persuaded private complainants to apply for a job in Italy through the services of
accused-appellants.[13] Lo introduced them to accused-appellant Calimon who represented herself as a subagent of Axil International Services and Consultancy (AISC), a legitimate recruitment agency.
Calimon showed a job order of factory workers purportedly issued by an Italian firm. Devanadera called up
AISC to verify Calimons representation. The person who answered the phone readily confirmed accusedappellant Calimons claim
P10,000.00 from each of the private complainants to cover expenses for medical examination and
processing fees for travel documents, both Devanadera and Agramon readily parted with their money, as
evidenced by receipts
Private complainant Agramons follow ups with Calimon were just met by repeated assurance that she will
be deployed immediately once her papers are completely processed.[25] The other complainants received
similar treatment.
Finally, in January 1999, Calimon gave private complainants their supposed individual employment
contracts as factory workers in Italy. However, the contracts did not indicate an employer

They found out the accused are not part of AISC

Trial Court found them guilty as well as the CA

Issue:
Whether or not they are guilty
Held: YES

In their brief[34], accused-appellants contend that the prosecution witnesses established that only Lo
recruited private complainants and promised to deploy them abroad.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that accused-appellant Calimon committed the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale while accused-appellant Comila committed the crime of simple illegal
recruitment.
By her conduct, Calimon successfully gave private complainants the impression that she had the ability to
send workers abroad although she did not in fact have the authority to do so. She was also able to induce
private complainants to tender payment for fees.
Since there were three (3) workers involved in the transaction, she committed the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale.
For Comila she is only a conspirator since it was not alleged in the information
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale three (3) elements must concur:
o (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in recruitment and placement of workers;
Substantiated by the POEA, Licensing Branch which issued a Certification [37] to this
effect and the testimony of an employee of the POEA, Corazon Cristobal
o
(b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the same Code (now Sec. 6, RA 8042); and,
supported by the testimonies of the private complainants, particularly Devanadera [39] who
categorically testified that accused-appellants promised private complainants
employment and assured them of placement overseas.
that accused-appellants promised them employment in Italy as factory workers and they
(accused-appellants) asked money from them (private complainants) to allegedly process
their papers and visas.
o (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
Three complainants in this case
Here, we are convinced that the three elements were sufficiently proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

People vs HU
Facts:

That on or about the 9th day of October 2001, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit, promise
employment/job placement abroad for an overseas employment and collect fees from the following persons
( Complainants)
Accused stated He was the President of Brighturn International Services, Inc. (Brighturn), a land-based
recruitment agency duly licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to engage in the
business of recruitment and placement of workers abroad,
Private complainants Orillano, Panguelo, Abril and Garcia sought employment at Brighturn for the
positions of factory worker and electronic operator inTaiwan.
Notwithstanding private complainants compliance with all of the pre-employment requirements, including
the payment of placement fees, they were not able to leave the country to work abroad.
When Panguelo went to Brighturn, he was promised employment abroad by Hu for P50,000.00. Upon Hus
instruction, Panguelo paid in full the placement fee in the amount of P50,000.00 to Genoves.

For his part, Orillano came to know of Brighturn thru Genoves. Orillano was interviewed at Brighturn by a
Taiwanese principal in October 2001. After the interview, Hu informed Orillano to submit a medical
certificate,
For her defense, Hu claimed that she was the President of Brighturn, a duly authorized land-based
recruitment agency. Brighturn had foreign principals inTaiwan who were looking for skilled individuals
willing to work in a foreign country.
Hu alleged that Brighturn had an established recruitment procedure wherein applicants were only required
to pay the corresponding placement fees after the POEA had already approved their employment
contracts. According to Hu, announcements were posted all over Brighturns premises warning job
applicants to pay placement fees only to the cashier
Trial Court held HU guilty
CA affirmed

Issue: Whether or not Hu Is guilty

Held:

We cannot sustain the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale.

Illegal recruitment cannot successfully attach to the allegations of Panguelo, Abril and Orillano,
since they testified that they accomplished their pre-employment requirements through Brighturn
from June 2001 up to October of the same year,[24] a period wherein Brighturns license to engage in
recruitment and placement was still in full force and effect.
Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely:
o (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
o (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.
the prosecution, nonetheless, failed to establish that Hu engaged in illegal recruitment acts against at least
three of these complainants.
Basically nagkulang sa evidence un prosecution
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 private complaints Panguelo, Abril and Orillano,
plus legal interest in accordance with our ruling in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals.[
Thus, civil liability is not extinguished where the acquittal is based on lack of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, since only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. There appears to be no sound reason
to require that a separate action be still filed considering that the facts to be proved in the civil case have
already been established in the criminal proceedings
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.
Undoubtedly, the act of Hu in referring Garcia to another recruitment agency squarely fell within the
purview of recruitment that was undertaken by Hu after her authority to recruit and place workers already
expired on 17 December 2001.
The absence of receipts in the case of illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the appellant and
is not fatal to the prosecutions case.
As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible and testimonial evidence, as in the case at
bar, that the appellant had engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can be very well
justified.
Hu successfully enticed her to part with a considerable amount of money in exchange for an employment
abroad which was never realized.
Hu is only liable for Simple illegal recruitment because of what she did to Garcia

People vs Goce
Facts:

The accused are spouses as well as Agustin

That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, the accused
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, representing themselves to have the
capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando
Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y
Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and
(8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or authority from the
Department of Labor.
Agustin Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency showed him a job order as
proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment.
Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or
May of the same year
He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the
original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher sum, they
subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad
Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment.

He decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real status
of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job
applicants.
Agustin could only pay 500 pesos upon demand by the complainant
It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being
a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and
facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses.
Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues,
does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal
recruitment.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is liable for illegal recruitment

Held:

The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal
recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached
regarding their plans of working overseas.
It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to
submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement
agency.
appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging
in recruitment activity.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad."
It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability
to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in
order to be so employed.
The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in
their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted,
nonetheless there is sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above.

People vs Padilla
Facts:

That on or about and during the period comprised between January 12, 1991 and February 17, 1991, both
dates inclusive, prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring
and confederating with three others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still
unknown, helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
NAPOLEON RAMOS y ESPEJO in the following manner, to wit:
o the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which they made
to said NAPOLEON E. RAMOS to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and
employ him as Factory Worker in Hongkong and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent
papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and
o
by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said NAPOLEON E.
RAMOS to give and deliver, as in fact (he) gave and delivered to said accused the amount of
P30,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing
that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact did obtain the
amount of P30,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud he (sic) willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use
and benefit, to the damage
Ramos was told by the accused in his house that they knew someone who could make them work abroad in
Hong Kong and should be prepared to make an initial payment of P15,000.00 each, for their placement
fees.
They met someone named Julie Micua
The complainants were assured by Micua that she could get them overseas employment and upon payment
of their placement fees of P35,000.00 each, they would leave for Hongkong within one month hence they
paid
After Ramos failed to leave for Hongkong or secure overseas employment for more than two months since
January 1991, he became suspicious and later realized that he and the other complainants had been
hoodwinked.
Other complaints were also tricked by the accused in the same manner
Testifying in her own defense, accused-appellant denied the charges of engaging in recruitment activities
and of receiving money from complainants. She described herself as a public school teacher living in
Pangasinan with her four children and unemployed husband.
Trial Court found them guilty of illegal recruitment at large

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty
Held:
Yes

The accused stated She acted as a "good samaritan" by facilitating their quest for a better economic status.
She denies receiving the fees paid by complainants and asserts that it was Julie Micua who recruited
complainants and collected the placement fees for overseas employment.
An examination of the records, however, reveals that accused-appellant is as culpable as Julie Micua.

Well settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court that had observed the
deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified. The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at
only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of
witnesses certainly deserve respect by an appellate court
. It was through her that they met Julia Micua. This is clearly an act of referral. Worse, accused-appellant
declared that she was capable of placing them in jobs overseas. Suffice it to say that complainants
recruitment would not have been consummated were it not for the direct participation of accused-appellant
in the recruitment process.
Illegal recruitment is conducted in a large scale if perpetrated against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.
This crime requires proof that the accused:
o (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;
o (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and
o (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
All these three essential elements are present in the case at bar. As earlier discussed, accused-appellant
recruited the six complainant
They were not licensed
the evidence shows that accused-appellant conspired and actively participated in the deceitful plan adopted
by her co-accused Julie Micua, Rico Cordova and her own husband, Renato Meris, to hire without license
or authority, gullible and nave applicants for non-existent overseas jobs.

People vs Fortuna
Facts:

Three complainants
In Cabanatuan city, Fortuna took the occasion to converse with private complainants, along with some of
the attendees, offering job placements in Taiwan.
They got convinced and gave 5400
The promise did not materialize
They found out that Fortuna did not have a license to transact such recruitment
Trial Court held Fortuna guilty

Issue: Whether or not Fortuna is guilty

Held: Yes

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who, without being duly
authorized according to law, represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the
ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom the
impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment.
The rule has been said that a person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of
the testimony of the complainants, if found to be credible and convincing, and that the absence of receipts
to evidence payment to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being fatal to the
prosecution's cause

RA. 8042 states:

o illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract of services, promising or advertising
for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder
of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that any such non-licensee or
non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The evidence is sufficient to warrant the charges
It is not the specific designation of the offense in the information that controls but it is the allegations
therein contained directly apprising the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him that
matter.
First, appellant, undeniably, has not been duly licensed to engage in recruitment activities;
second, she has engaged in illegal recruitment activities, offering private complainants employment abroad
for a fee; and
third, she has committed the questioned illegal recruitment activities against three or more persons.

Rodolfo vs People
Facts:

That in or about and during the period from August to September 1984, in Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused representing herself to
have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to
VILLAMOR ALCANTARA, NARCISO CORPUZ, 1NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN
and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor
and Employment.
Accused approached complainants invited them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai
This office which bore the business name "Bayside Manpower Export Specialist" was in a building situated
at Bautista St. Buendia, Makati
Complainants gave money to the accused for the corresponding fees
Appellant then told private complainants that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai on September 8,
1984. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the said date as
their employer allegedly did not arrive.
Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, private complainants demanded of appellant to return their
money. Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to Ferre, appellant was not able to return private complainants
money.
private complainants filed the present case for illegal recruitment against the accused-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty

Held:
Yes

That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas
Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the records of
the POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment, 18 is "the
act ofpassing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected
applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
Petitioners admission that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her
acceptance of fees including those for processing betrays her guilt.
It is sufficient that the accused "promises or offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.
it is "the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case
for illegal recruitment.

Lapasaran vs People
Facts:

private complainant Menardo Villarin (Menardo) and his sister Vilma Villarin (Vilma) met petitioner Arlene
N. Lapasaran, who worked at Silver Jet Travel Tours Agency (Silver Jet) at SIMCAS Building, Makati.
For a fee of P85,000.00, petitioner undertook the processing of the papers necessary for the deployment
(under a tourist visa) and employment of Menardo in South Korea.
Petitioner informed Menardo that he would be employed as "factory worker," which was, subsequently,
changed to "bakery worker."
After two postponements in his flight schedule, Menardo finally left for South Korea on November 25,
2001.
Unfortunately, he was incarcerated by South Korean immigration authorities and was immediately deported
to the Philippines because the travel documents issued to him by the petitioner were fake
Thereupon, petitioner promised to send him back to South Korea, but the promise was never fulfilled.
Consequently, Menardo and his sister Vilma demanded the return of the money they paid, but petitioner
refused and even said, "Magkorte na lang tayo."
RTC found petitioner guilty
CA affirmed

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty

Held:

Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that the latter
was convinced to part with his money in order to be employed.
To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a
promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.
Petitioners misrepresentations concerning her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas
employment, and the collection from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of
illegal recruitment.
Petitioners claim that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she merely tried to help
the complainants secure a tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment, it being enough
that she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.

People vs Gallardo ( At Large) and Malapit

Facts:

Marie Purificacion Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano met accused-appellant at her beauty parlor in Lopez
Building,
Marie claims that accused-appellant enticed her to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada. Accusedappellant showed her a piece of paper containing a job order saying that Canada was in need of ten (10)
caregivers and some messengers.
On June 6, 1997, accused-appellant introduced Marie to co-accused Nenita Maria Olivia-Gallardo in
Tandang Sora, Quezon City. On the same day, Marie submitted herself to a physical examination and
personally handed to Gallardo a partial payment of P18,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt.
Marie made another payment in the amount of P52,000.00, for which accused-appellant issued a
provisional receipt.
Three months lapsed without any news on Maries deployment to Canada. Her sister, Araceli, had already
left for work abroad through the efforts of their other town-mate.
The weekly follow-ups made by Marie to accused-appellant pertaining to her application and that of
Aracelis were to no avail. Accused-appellant just promised Marie that she will return her money. Realizing
that she had been hoodwinked, Marie decided to file a complaint against the accused-appellant and
Gallardo with the National Bureau of Investigatio
Similar case happened to both complainants
RTC found accused guilty

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty

Held: Yes

Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) essential elements concur:

o (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and

(2) that the offender undertakes 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.[

In the case at bar, the first element is present. Nonette Legaspi-Villanueva, the Overall Supervisor
of the Regional Office of the POEA in Baguio City, testified that per records, neither accusedappellant nor Gallardo were licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in
the City of Baguio or in any part of the Cordillera Region.

The second essential element is likewise present. Accused-appellant purported to have the ability
to send Marie Purificacion Abenoja, Araceli Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano for employment abroad
through the help of her co-accused Gallardo, although without any authority or license to do so.
Accused-appellant was the one who persuaded them to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada by
making representations that there was a job market therefor.
She was also the one who helped them meet Gallardo in order to process their working papers and
personally assisted Marie, Araceli and Marilyn in the completion of the alleged requirements.
Accused-appellant even provided her house in Baguio City as venue for a meeting

All told, the evidence against accused-appellant has established beyond a shadow of doubt that she actively
collaborated with co-accused Gallardo in illegally recruiting the complainants in this case. As correctly
pointed out by the trial court, the private complainants in this case would not have been induced to apply
for a job in Canada were it not for accused-appellants information, recruitment, and introduction of the
private complainants to her co-accused Gallardo.
It is enough that she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment
abroad. In fact, even without consideration for accused-appellants services, she will still be deemed as
having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas
employment to private complainants.
Undoubtedly, the acts of accused-appellant showed unity of purpose with those of co-accused
Gallardo. All these acts establish a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished
through coordinated moves. There being conspiracy, accused-appellant shall be equally liable for the acts
of her co-accused even if she herself did not personally reap the fruits of their execution.
The circumstantial evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other
conclusion than that accused-appellant and co-accused Gallardo conspired in recruiting and promising a
job overseas to Araceli Abenoja.
Moreover, Marie Purificacion Abenoja had personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the charges filed by her sister, Araceli, for simple illegal recruitment and estafa.
Marie was privy to the recruitment of Araceli as she was with her when both accused-appellant and
Gallardo required Araceli to undergo physical examination to find out whether the latter was fit for the job
abroad

People vs Jamilosa
Facts:

Imelda D. Bamba testified that on January 17, 1996, she met the appellant in Cubao, Quezon City on board
an aircon bus.
he appellant was seated beside her and introduced himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad.
The appellant told her that his sister is a head nurse in a nursing home in Los Angeles, California, USA and
he could help her get employed as a nurse at a monthly salary of Two Thousand US Dollars ($2,000.00)
and that she could leave in two (2) weeks time
she has to pay the amount of US$300.00 intended for the US consul. The appellant gave his pager number
and instructed her to contact him if she is interested to apply for a nursing job abroad.
She paid
The appellant promised to see her and some of his other recruits before their scheduled departure to hand to
them their visas and passports; however, the appellant who was supposed to be with them in the flight
failed to show up.
They went to the supposed residence of the appellant to verify, but nobody knew him or his whereabouts.
They tried to contact him at the hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no avail.
RTC stated he was guilty

Issue: Whether or not Jamilosa is guilty

Held: YES

As gleaned from the collective testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the
appellate court found to be credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.
Indeed, the findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent
evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance.
The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where he
acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability
Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the "services" of appellant, the
latter is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.
It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be
for profit or not.
It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.
The complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the
false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants
were neither able to leave for work abroad nor get their money back.
The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to produce receipts as proof of
their payment to accused-appellant does not free the latter from liability. The absence of receipts cannot
defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.
We find it unbelievable that the appellant, a college graduate, would not divulge the said certifications
which would prove that, indeed, he is not an illegal recruiter.
When a party has it in his possession or power to produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature
is susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some sinister
motive and that its production would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose.

People vs Valenciano
Facts:

In May 1996, Lourdes Valenciano, claiming to be an employee of Middle East International Manpower
Resources, Inc., went with one Susie Caraeg to the house of Agapito De Luna, and told him he could apply
for a job in Taiwan.
A week later, De Luna went to Valencianos house, there to be told to undergo a medical examination, with
the assurance that if there were a job order abroad, he would be able to leave.
He was also told that the placement fee for his employment as a factory worker in Taiwan was PhP 70,000.
The first and last payments were turned over by Valenciano to Teresita Imperial, who issued the
corresponding receipts, and the second payment was turned over by Valenciano to Rodante Imperial, who
also issued a receipt.
After the payments were made, Valenciano brought the prospective workers to the office of Middle East
International Manpower Resources, Inc. in Pasay City, where they were made to fill out application forms
for their employment as factory workers in Taiwan. The complainants were introduced to Romeo Marquez,
alias Rodante Imperial, Teresita Marquez, alias Teresita Imperial, and Rommel Marquez, alias Rommel
Imperial, whom Valenciano made to appear as the owners of the employment agency. She assured the
prospective workers that they could leave for Taiwan within one month from the filing of their
applications. During the period material, they have not yet found employment as factory workers
in Taiwan.
Valenciano, Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel were charged with the offense of illegal recruitment in large
scale ( note that the other people stated yun mga sumama kay Valenciano sa pagkukuha ng pera)
RTC found him guilty

CA affirmed

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty
Held: Yes

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
As testified to by the complainants, accused-appellant was among those who met and transacted with them
regarding the job placement offers.
In some instances, she made the effort to go to their houses to recruit them.
She even gave assurances that they would be able to find employment abroad and leave for Taiwan after
the filing of their applications.
Accused-appellant was clearly engaged in recruitment activities, notwithstanding her gratuitous
protestation that her actions were merely done in the course of her employment as a clerk.
Accused-appellant cannot claim to be merely following the dictates of her employers and use good faith as
a shield against criminal liability.
o Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense
The claim of accused-appellant that she received no payment and that the payments were handed directly
over to her co-accused fails in the face of the testimony of the complainants that accused-appellant was the
one who received the money.
In spite of the receipts having been issued by her co-accused, the trial court found that payments were
directly made to accused-appellant, and this finding was upheld by the CA.
And even if it were true that no money changed hands, money is not material to a prosecution for illegal
recruitment, as the definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code includes the phrase, whether
for profit or not.
o We held in People v. Jamilosa that it was 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 that payment was
made.
Another certification dated July 9, 1997 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.
Accused-appellant could thus point to no authority allowing her to recruit complainants, as she was not an
employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc. nor was she allowed to do so in her
personal capacity.
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, and neither she nor her co-accused had
permission to do so, as testified by Aquino of the POEA
In the present case, there are four complainants: De Luna, De Villa, Dela Cuesta, and Candelaria
The three essential elements for illegal recruitment in large scale are present. Thus, there can be no other
conclusion in this case but to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant and apply the penalty as imposed
by law.

People vs Gasacao
Facts: