G.R. No.
146964 nor authorized by the then Ministry of Labor and
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_14
6964_2006.html
ROSA C. RODOLFO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati for illegal recruitment
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, 1 NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H.
TAPAWAN and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first
securing the required license or authority from the
Ministry of Labor and Employment.
RTC
finds the accused ROSA C. RODOLFO as GUILTY
of the offense of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
in August and September 1984, accused-appellant
approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and
Narciso Corpus individually and invited them to
apply for overseas employment in Dubai
private complainants gave certain amounts to
appellant for processing and other fees. Ferre gave
P1,000.00 as processing fee (Exhibit A) and another
P4,000.00 (Exhibit B). Likewise, Corpus gave
appellant P7,000.00 (Exhibit D). 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. Thus, their
departure was rescheduled to September 23, but the
result was the same
To prove that accused-appellant had no authority to
recruit workers for overseas employment, the
prosecution presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior
Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), who
testified that accused-appellant was neither licensed
Employment to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
appellant denied ever approaching private
complainants to recruit them for employment in
Dubai. On the contrary, it was the private
complainants who asked her help in securing jobs
abroad. As a good neighbor and friend, she brought
the private complainants to the Bayside Manpower
Export Specialist agency because she knew Florante
Hinahon, 5 the owner of the said agency.
she received the same only in trust for delivery to
the agency.
the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial
court
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, the legal
provisions applicable when the offense charged was
committed, 12 provided:
ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. – (a) Any recruitment
activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable
under Article 39 of this Code
Article 39. Penalties. – x x x x
(c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a
holder of authority under this Title found violating
any provision thereof or its implementing rules and
regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years
nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than
P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both such
imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the
court;
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. 13 If another element is present  that the
Page 1 of 22
accused commits the act against three or more
persons, individually or as a group, it becomes an
illegal recruitment in a large scale.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines
"recruitment and placement" as "[a]ny 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."
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
In weighing contradictory declarations and
statements, greater weight must be given to the
positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
than to the denial of the defendant. Article 38 (a)
clearly shows that illegal recruitment is an offense
that is essentially committed by a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority. A non-licensee means any
person, corporation or entity to which the labor
secretary has not issued a valid license or authority
to engage in recruitment and placement; or whose
license or authority has been suspended, revoked or
cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A
license authorizes a person or an entity to operate a
private employment agency, while authority is
given to those engaged in recruitment and
placement activities.
That appellant in this case had been neither licensed
nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment was certified by Veneranda C.
Guerrero, officer-in-charge of the Licensing and
Regulation Office; and Ma. Salome S. Mendoza,
manager of the Licensing Branch – both of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
Yet, as complainants convincingly proved, she
recruited them for jobs in Taiwan.
The second element is doubtless also present. The
act of referral, which is included in recruitment, 18
is "the act of passing 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." 19
Petitioner’s 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.
As the appellate court stated:
x x x Sec. 13(b) of P.D. 442 [The Labor Code] does
not require that the recruiter receives and keeps the
placement money for himself or herself. For as long
as a person who has no license to engage in
recruitment of workers for overseas employment
offers for a fee an employment to two or more
persons, then he or she is guilty of illegal
recruitment. 21
Parenthetically, why petitioner accepted the
payment of fees from the private complainants
when, in light of her claim that she merely brought
them to the agency, she could have advised them to
directly pay the same to the agency, she proferred
no explanation.
On petitioner’s reliance on Señoron, 22 true, this
Court held that issuance of receipts for placement
fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment.
But it went on to state that it is "rather the
undertaking of recruitment activities without the
necessary license or authority" that makes a case for
illegal recruitment.
G.R. No. 151303 - Athenna International
Manpower Services, Inc. v. Nonito Villanos.
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprude
nce2005/apr2005/151303.php
ATHENNA* INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER
SERVICES, INC., Petitioners, v. NONITO
VILLANOS
Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. is a
domestic corporation engaged in recruitment and
placement of workers for overseas employment
Nonito Villanos is a contract worker recruited by
petitioner to work as a caretaker in Taiwan.
Respondent applied to work overseas thru petitioner
sometime in February 1998
Page 2 of 22
He alleged that he was assessed P100,000
placement fee by petitioner. As he had only P30,000
to pay petitioner, respondent begged for a reduced
fee.
Petitioner agreed and the placement fee was reduced
to P94,000 only, on the condition that the remaining
balance of P64,000 shall be paid through salary
deductions upon his deployment.
Respondent received no receipt for the P30,000
cash that he advanced as partial placement fee.
Instead, petitioner gave him a schedule of his
monthly salary deduction payments for one year for
his balance, which included interest and other
charges, amounting to P90,725.
respondent's Contract of Employment with a certain
Wei Yu Hsien arrived. Under this contract, he was
to work as caretaker for one year, ten months and
twenty-eight days with a monthly pay of New
Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 15,840.
On October 15, 1998, he flew to Taiwan
Respondent alleged that upon his arrival in Taiwan,
he was assigned to a mechanical shop, owned by
Hsien, as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car lifters,
instead of the job for which he was hired
He found out that Hsien was actually engaged in the
installation and repair of hydraulic machines for
gasoline stations and other mechanical shops.
Since then, he traveled from one place to another,
even during nighttime as hydraulic installer/repair
man for car lifters, as required by his employer.
He did not, however, complain because he needed
money to pay for the debts he incurred back home.
Barely a month after his placement, he was
terminated by Hsien.
respondent was made to sign a document stating
that he was not qualified for the position. He did
not, however, sign the document.
respondent was handed his salary, with the
accompanying computation and instruction for his
departure to the Philippines.
Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he immediately
went to petitioner's office and confronted its
representative, Lorenza Ching, about the assignment
given to him and demanded that he be reimbursed
the P30,000 he paid as downpayment.
Instead of returning the said amount, petitioner gave
him a summary of expenses amounting to P30,493,
which it allegedly incurred for his deployment
abroad.
respondent filed a complaint docketed as POEA
Case No. RV98-12-1586, before the Adjudication
Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA).
because of financial constraints, he had to go home
to Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte where, on
February 17, 1999, he filed a complaint against
petitioner for illegal dismissal, violation of contract,
and recovery of unpaid salaries and other benefits
before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch
No. 9, Dipolog City.
petitioner alleged that it hired respondent to work in
Taiwan for one year and that for his deployment, he
was charged a placement fee of merely P15,840
plus P5,050 for documentation expenses.
Petitioner further claimed that under the
employment contract, respondent was to undergo a
probationary period of forty (40) days
However, at the job site, respondent was found to be
unfit for his work, thus he resigned from his
employment and requested for his repatriation
signing a statement to that effect.
the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding
petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien solidarily liable for the
wages representing the unserved portion of the
employment contract, the amount unlawfully
deducted from respondent's monthly wage, moral
damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees
For the remittance of illegal placement fee in the
amount of P99,110, petitioner was held solely
liable.
Did the respondent voluntarily resign or was he
illegally dismissed?
Page 3 of 22
we find no persuasive grounds nor substantial basis
to reverse the decision and the resolution of the
appellate court.
An employee voluntarily resigns when he finds
himself in a situation where he believes that
personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice
but to disassociate himself from his employment.
Petitioner did not refute respondent's contentions
regarding these incidents. Further, it failed to prove
the legality of the dismissal, despite the fact that the
burden of proof lies on the employment and
recruitment agency. Thus, the presumption stands to
the effect that respondent was illegally dismissed by
his employer.
Even assuming respondent was a mere probationary
employee as claimed by petitioner, respondent
could only be terminated for a pertinent and just
cause, such as when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards
of employment made known to him by his employer
at the time of his engagement.
it appears that the petitioner failed to prove that, at
the time of respondent's engagement, the employer's
reasonable standards for the job were made known
to respondent.
respondent was assigned to a job different from the
one he applied and was hired for.
Respondent counters that he worked for only a
month because he was hastily and unceremoniously
terminated; and that he was entitled to his salary
corresponding to the remaining portion of the
employment contract. Further, he demands full
reimbursement of the P30,000 he paid as placement
fee.
Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8042
SEC. 10. Money Claims. - . . .
In case of termination of overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by
law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the
full reimbursement of his placement fee with
interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less.
for the computation of the lump-sum salary due an
illegally dismissed overseas employee, there are two
clauses as points of reckoning: first is the
cumulative salary for the unexpired portion of his
employment; and the other is the grant of three
months salary for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is lesser.
Since respondent was dismissed after only one
month of service, the unexpired portion of his
contract is admittedly one year, nine months and
twenty-eight days.
But the applicable clause is not the first but the
second: three months salary for every year of the
unexpired term, as the lesser amount, hence it is
what is due the respondent.
Note that the fraction of nine months and twenty-
eight days is considered as one whole year
following the Labor Code.
Thus, respondent's lump-sum salary should be
computed as follows:
3 months x 2 (years) = 6 months worth of salary
6 months x (NT$) 15,840 = NT$95,040, subject to
proper conversion to Philippine currency by Labor
Arbiter Cresencio Iniego.
an illegally dismissed overseas worker is also
entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement
fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum.
We note that while respondent was assessed
P94,000 in placement fee, he paid only P30,000 on
the agreement that the balance of P64,000 would be
paid on a monthly salary deduction upon his
deployment.
Hence, we cannot grant respondent reimbursement
of the entire assessed amount of P94,000. He is only
entitled to the reimbursement of the amount of
placement fee he actually paid, which is the
P30,000 he gave as downpayment plus interest at
twelve percent (12%) per annum.
Page 4 of 22
we must sustain the award of P50,000 in moral
damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages, in
addition to attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of
the aggregate monetary awards.
People vs Saulo : 125903 : November 15, 2000 :
J. Reyes : Third Division
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprude
nce2000/nov2000/125903.php
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. ROMULO SAULO
Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz
and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were charged with
violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code1 for
illegal recruitment in large scale
In addition, accused were charged with three counts
of estafa
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the
charges against him. Meanwhile accused Amelia de
la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz have remained at
large.
Benny Maligaya, having learned from a relative of
accused-appellant that the latter was recruiting
workers for Taiwan, went to accused-appellants
house in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City,
together with Angeles Javier and Amelia de la Cruz,
in order to discuss her chances for overseas
employment.
accused-appellant told Maligaya that she would be
able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once
she gave accused-appellant 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 dated May 21, 1990 signed by accused-
appellant and Amelia de la Cruz
Angeles Javier, a widow and relative by affinity of
accused-appellant, was told by Ligaya, accused-
appellants wife, to apply for work abroad through
accused-appellant.
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.5
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
accused-appellant assured Maullon that he could
secure him a job as a factory worker in Taiwan if he
paid him P30,000.00 for the processing of his
papers
Accused-appellant flatly denied that he was an
overseas employment recruiter or that he was
working as an agent for one. He also denied having
received any money from any of the complainants
or having signed any of the receipts introduced by
the prosecution in evidence.
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of
three counts of estafa and of illegal recruitment in
large scale.
the Court finds that the trial court was justified in
holding that accused-appellant was engaged in
unlawful recruitment and placement activities.
Accused-appellant interposes a denial in his
defense, claiming that he never received any money
from the complainants nor processed their papers
insists that he was merely a co-applicant of the
complainants and similarly deceived by the schemes
of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz
Page 5 of 22
The fact that accused-appellant did not sign all the
receipts issued to complainants does not weaken the
case of the prosecution.
The absence of receipts to evidence payment does
not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecutions cause.
It is 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.
The elements of estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2
(a), of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the
accused has defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by deceit, and (2) that damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused
to the offended party or third person.20 The trial
court was correct in holding accused-appellant
liable for estafa in the case at bench. Owing to
accused-appellants false assurances that he could
provide them with work in another country,
complainants parted with their money, to their
damage and prejudice, since the promised
employment never materialized.
Decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa is
hereby AFFIRMED
G.R. Nos. 115719-26 October 5, 1999 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE YABUT : October
1999 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999octoberde
cisions.php?id=838
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. IRENE YABUT
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 159,
convicting appellant Fernando Cortez y Vega of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale
Appellant is a former policeman while the co-
accused, Irene Yabut, is his common-law wife
Both were charged with estafa and illegal
recruitment in large scale, but only appellant stood
trial as Yabut has eluded arrest and remains at-large
Mr. Henry Ilar met for the first time the herein
appellant, who was at that time a policeman, and his
live-in partner and co-accused Irene Yabut, at Rm.
103 P.M. Apartelle, N. Domingo Street, San Juan,
Metro Manila
Ilar handed over to the appellant and co-accused
Irene Yabut the initial down payment of P10,000.00
for the processing of papers and visa for Japan
where he was to work as a roomboy in a hotel
Appellant assured Ilar not to worry since he would
be able to leave for Japan otherwise his money
would be refunded
Additional amounts were given by Ilar to co-
accused Irene Yabut thru her employee Butch
Barrios, namely: P6,000.00, and P4,000.00 for the
purpose of processing his papers
Ilar handed over additional P5,000.00 to the
appellant the amount to be used allegedly for the
expenses to be incurred for Ilar’s training
Ilar was made to sign a one (1) year contract but he
was not furnished a copy of the same
Ilar was scheduled to leave for Japan on October 8,
1993 but this date was postponed allegedly due to
problems
he second scheduled date for departure was again
cancelled allegedly due to the necessity of
applicants undergoing medical examination
lar was again scheduled to depart on December 12,
1992 (Ibid). Prior to the scheduled departure, Ilar
checked on Irene Yabut but she was no longer in
her apartelle (Ibid) although he found the appellant
who re-assured Ilar that he would be able to leave
for Japan
Ilar verified from the POEA whether the appellant
and his co-accused were authorized or licensed to
engage in recruitment and placement activities. A
certification was issued by the POEA stating that
the appellant and co-accused Irene Yabut were
Page 6 of 22
neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers
for overseas employment
Mr. Reynaldo P. Claudio, on July 28, 1992, he went
to Room 103 P.M. Apartelle, San Juan, Metro
Manila, to apply for a job as hotel worker in Japan.
Appellant and co-accused Irene Yabut, introducing
themselves as husband and wife, told him that he
could work in Japan provided he paid the fees
Claudio was made to sign a recruitment contract but
he was not furnished a copy of the same by the
appellant and his co-accused
Mr. Arnel Diana, on July 20, 1992, he along with
his brother-in-law, met the appellant and his co-
accused Irene Yabut at their room in P.M. Apartelle,
No. 26 N. Domingo Street, San Juan Metro Manil
Diana and his companion were assured by the
appellant that they could leave for abroad
The appellant and his co-accused asked Diana to
pay the fee of P50,000.00 for the travel documents
and POEA papers
Diana was made to sign an employment contract
t Antonio S. Bernardo, he entered into an
employment contract with appellant’s co-accused
Irene Yabut (TSN, August 18, 1993, pp. 2-3).
Bernardo was told by the appellant that he did not
affix his signature on the employment contract
because of his government employment i.e., a
member of the Philippine National Police (PNP),
but appellant on several occasions promised
Bernardo that he would be able to leave for abroad
Fely Casanova testified that she first met appellant
and his co-accused Irene Yabut who introduced
themselves as Mr. and Mrs. Madrid on June 8, 1992
(TSN, August 18, 1993, p. 5). Casanova always saw
the appellant at the P.M. Apartelle on Domingo
Street, San Juan, Metro Manila whenever she made
follow-ups on her papers (Ibid). Casanova also saw
the appellant and his co-accused Irene Yabut at the
Town and Country on December 18, and 22, 1992
when the two were already in hiding.
complainants hauled appellant and his co-accused to
the Department of Justice, which conducted a
preliminary investigation on the complaints. Both
were subsequently charged with (1) Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale in Criminal Case No.
98224, and (2) eight (8) counts of Estafa in
Criminal Case Nos. 98997-99004.
appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.
the trial court rendered a decision 7 acquitting
appellant of eight (8) counts of estafa but convicting
him of illegal recruitment in large scale
whether appellant could be convicted of illegal
recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the
crime of estafa.
a person who commits illegal recruitment may be
charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under
par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
The offense of illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused
is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is
malum in se where the criminal intent of the
accused is crucial for conviction.
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does
not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other
laws.
conviction for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of
the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction
for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code.
one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa will not
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice
versa.chanrobles la
Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code enumerates
the acts which constitute recruitment and placement
as follows —
"(b) ‘Recruitment and placement’ refer to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
Page 7 of 22
employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement."crala
The acts of appellant consisting of his promises,
offers and assurances of employment to
complainants fall squarely within the ambit of
recruitment and placement as defined above. The
fact that he did not issue the receipts for amounts
received from complainants has no bearing on his
culpability for the complainants have shown
through their respective testimonies and affidavits
that appellant was involved in the prohibited
recruitment. 13 It is immaterial that appellant
ingeniously stated to one of the complainants that
he (appellant) was a member of the PNP and a
government employee, hence could not sign the
receipts.
"ARTICLE 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any
recruitment activities, including the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code,
to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable
under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of
Labor and Employment (now Department of Labor
and Employment) or any law enforcement officer
may initiate complaints under this Article.
(b) Illegal Recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage and shall be
penalized in accordance with Article 39
hereof.cralawnad
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, enterprise or scheme defined under the
first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three
(3) or more persons individually or as a
group. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
if the illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate or in large scale, the Labor Code
considers it an offense involving economic sabotage
and imposes a stiffer penalty therefor in accordance
with Article 39 of the Labor Code.
The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale
are:" (1) the accused undertakes any recruitment
activity defined under Art. 13, par. (b), or any
prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the
Labor Code; (2) he does not have a license or
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and, (3) he commits the same
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as
a group."
all three (3) elements exist in the case at bar. First,
the complaining witnesses have satisfactorily
established that appellant had actively promised
them employment, gave assurance of their
placement overseas, and with his co-accused
received certain sums as fees therefor. Second, the
Licensing Division of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration issued a Certification
dated March 1, 1993 that JAWOH GENERAL
MERCHANDISING 16 represented by Irene Yabut
and Fernando Cortez are neither licensed nor
authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for
overseas employment
in these difficult times, many of our countrymen
venture abroad and work even in hazardous places
to ensure for themselves and their families a life
worthy of human dignity
They labor overseas to provide proper education for
their children and secure a decent future for them.
Illegal recruiters prey on hapless workers, charge
exorbitant fees that siphon their meager savings,
then cruelly dash their dreams with false promises
of lucrative jobs overseas. For this reason, illegal
recruiters have no place in society. Illegal
recruitment activities must be stamped out by the
full force of the law.cralawna
Darvin vs CA : 125044 : July 13, 1998 : J.
Romero : Third Division
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprude
nce1998/jul1998/125044.php
IMELDA DARVIN, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT
OF APPEALS
the above-named accused, through fraudulent
representation to one Macaria Toledo to the effect
that she has the authority to recruit workers and
employees for abroad and can facilitate the
necessary papers in connection thereof, did, then
Page 8 of 22
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, hire,
recruit and promise a job abroad to one Macaria
Toledo, without first securing the necessary license
and permit from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration to do so, thereby
causing damage and prejudice to the aforesaid
Macaria Toledo
Macaria Toledo, shows that sometime in March,
1992, she met accused-appellant Darvin in the
latters residence at Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite,
through the introduction of their common friends,
Florencio Jake Rivera and Leonila Rivera.
accused-appellant allegedly convinced Toledo that
by giving her P150,000.00, the latter can
immediately leave for the United States without any
appearance before the U.S. embassy.
Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150,000.00, as
evidenced by a receipt stating that the amount of
P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa and Air fare
After receiving the money, Darvin assured Toledo
that she can leave within one week.
after a week, there was no word from Darvin,
Toledo went to her residence to inquire about any
development, but could not find Darvin.
Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police
Station against Imelda Darvin. Upon further
investigation, a certification was issued by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) stating that Imelda Darvin is neither
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment
Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa and
illegal recruitment by the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Cavite.
Accused-appellan
claims that she did not promise any employment in
the U.S. to Toledo.
She, however, admits receiving the amount of
P150,000.00 from the latter on April 13, 1992 but
contends that it was used for necessary expenses of
an intended trip to the United States of Toledo and
her friend, Florencio Rivera
After receiving the money, she allegedly told
Toledo that the papers will be released within 45
days. She likewise testified that she was able to
secure Toledos passport on April 20, 1992 and even
set up a date for an interview with the US embassy.
RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of
simple illegal recruitment but acquitted her of the
crime of estafa.
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court in toto,
Article 13 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides
the definition of recruitment and placement as:
x x x; b) 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.
On the other hand, Article 38 of the Labor Code
provides:
a) Any recruitment activities, including the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or
non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The
Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law
enforcement officer may initiate complaints under
this Article.
to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two
elements need to be shown: (1) the person charged
with the crime must have undertaken recruitment
activities; and (2) the said person does not have a
license or authority to do so.
he certification issued by the POEA that accused-
appellant Imelda Darvin is not licensed to recruit
workers abroad.
Page 9 of 22
It is not disputed that accused-appellant does not
have a license or authority to engage in recruitment
activities.
whether the accused-appellant indeed engaged in
recruitment activities, as defined under the Labor
Code
People v. Goce,12 to prove that accused-appellant
was engaged in recruitment activities as to commit
the crime of illegal recruitment, it must be shown
that the accused appellant gave private respondent
the distinct impression that she had the power or
ability to send the private respondent abroad for
work such that the latter was convinced to part with
her money in order to be so employed
we find no sufficient evidence to prove that
accused-appellant offered a job to private
respondent.
It is not clear that accused gave the impression that
she was capable of providing the private respondent
work abroad.
What is established, however, is that the private
respondent gave accused-appellant P150,000.00.
The claim of the accused that the P150,000.00 was
for payment of private respondents air fare and US
visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because
the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was
presented by both parties during the trial of the case,
stated that it was for Air Fare and Visa to USA.
there is nothing to show that accused-appellant
engaged in recruitment activities
Imelda Darvin is hereby ACQUITTED on ground
of reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 113161
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_11
3161_1995.html
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee,
vs.
LOMA GOCE
an information for illegal recruitment committed by
a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code
the said 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
Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness
stand and he declared that sometime in March or
April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez,
his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly
Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo,
Parañaque, Metro Manila. Representing herself as
the manager of the Clover Placement Agency,
Agustin 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 was issued the
corresponding receipt
Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who
were his relatives, went to the office of the
placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila
where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and
Loma Goce, owners of the agency. 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
a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover
Placement Agency showing that Salado and his
aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead
of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid.
Page 10 of 22
Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for
the promised overseas employment. Hence, in
October, 1987, along with the other recruits, 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. Later, upon learning that
Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see
her and to demand the return of the money he had
paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00.
Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came
to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez,
about Nelly Agustin. Accompanied by her husband,
Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's
residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a
cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her
husband. Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she
and her husband could live together while working
in Oman, she instructed her husband to give Agustin
P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the
total sum of P4,000.00.
the Salado couple received a telegram from the
placement agency requiring them to report to its
office because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly
arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987,
Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and his
wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers
twice a week from February to June, 1987, he and
his wife failed to leave for abroad
Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-
law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with
the Clover Placement Agency at Parañaque, the
agency's former office address. There, Masaya met
Nelly Agustin, who introduced herself as the
manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan
and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He
submitted several pertinent documents, such as his
bio-data and school credentials
Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial
downpayment for the placement fee, and in
September of that same year, he gave an additional
P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said
amounts and was advised to go to the placement
office once in a while to follow up his application,
which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay and
chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised.
Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his
money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him
back only P4,000.00 in installments.
Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7,
1993. He testified that in February, 1987, he met
appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry
Alvarez, at her residence in Parañaque. She
informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa
Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance
driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a
monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00
Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as
processing fee to Agustin at the latter's residence. In
the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this
time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin
assured him that he could leave for abroad before
the end of 1987. He returned several times to the
placement agency's office to follow up his
application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded
the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin
could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked
for Agustin about eight times, but he could no
longer find her.
the trial court rendered judgment finding herein
appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale
it should be made clear that all the accused in this
case were not authorized to engage in any
recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification
issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing
and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration
Said certification states that Dan and Loma Goce
and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor
authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers
to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers,
and includes referrals, contract services, promising
or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not; provided, that any person
or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment to two or more persons shall
be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
Page 11 of 22
referral is the act of passing 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.
whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced
complainants to the Goce couple or her actions went
beyond that.
being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore
logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to
said spouses, they being the owners of the agency.
As such, appellant was actually making referrals to
the agency of which she was a part. She was
therefore engaging in recruitment activity.
. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that
appellant represented herself as the manager of the
Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was
offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the first
time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered
that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented
herself as "nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman." 28
Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the
operations of the recruitment agency, working
together with the Goce couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the
impression of having the ability to send a worker
abroad." 29 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.
It cannot be denied that Agustin received from
complainants various sums for purpose of their
applications. Her act of collecting from each of the
complainants payment for their respective
passports, training fees, placement fees, medical
tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably
constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning
of the law. In fact, appellant demanded and received
from complainants amounts beyond the allowable
limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations.
the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far
exceeding the amount allowed by law was not
considered per se as "recruitment and placement" in
contemplation of law, but that was because the
recipient had no other participation in the
transactions and did not conspire with her co-
accused in defrauding the victims.
Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court on
the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be
disturbed on appeal
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.
In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-
prosecution of another suspect therein provided no
ground for the appellant concerned to fault the
decision of the trial court convicting her. The
prosecution of other persons, equally or more
culpable than herein appellant, may come later after
their true identities and addresses shall have been
ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into
custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal
rule and course of procedure should not apply in
this case.
G.R. Nos. L-58674-77
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/jul1990/gr_l_58
674_77_1990.html
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. DOMINGO PANIS
Article 13(b) of P.D. 442, otherwise known as the
Labor Code, reading as follows:
(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.
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
Page 12 of 22
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.
The view of the private respondents is that to
constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts
mentioned in this article should involve dealings
with two or mre persons as an indispensable
requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner
argues that the requirement of two or more persons
is imposed only where the recruitment and
placement consists of an offer or promise of
employment to such persons and always in
consideration of a fee.
The other acts mentioned in the body of the article
may involve even only one person and are not
necessarily for profit.
We fail to see why the proviso should speak only of
an offer or promise of employment if the purpose
was to apply the requirement of two or more
persons to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule.
the petitioner does not explain why dealings with
two or more persons are needed where the
recruitment and placement consists of an offer or
promise of employment but not when it is done
through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of)
workers.
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.
Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in
Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and
placement even if only one prospective worker is
involved.
The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence
that where a fee is collected in consideration of a
promise or offer of employment to two or more
prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing
with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act
of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be
deemed" create that presumption.
It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the
meaning of the questioned provision for lack of
records of debates and deliberations that would
otherwise have been available if the Labor Code
had been enacted as a statute rather than a
presidential decree.
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
theirown countrymen.
G.R. No. 119160
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/jan1997/gr_119
160_1997.html
Page 13 of 22
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle,
vs.
EDITHA SEÑORON Y LIMORA
Appellant Editha L. Señoron and her co-accused
Aquilino Ilano and one John Doe, both at large,
were charged in four separate informations with one
count of illegal recruitment in large scale1 and three
counts of estafa2 before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City.3 When arraigned, appellant pleaded not
guilty
the trial court rendered a decision convicting
appellant as charged
Cesar Virtucio testified that sometime in October
1991, he met appellant at accused Aquilino Ilano's
house in Malibay, Pasay City, when he (Virtucio)
and other applicants applied for jobs abroad
During the meeting at Ilano's residence, Virtucio
and his companions were given job application
forms which they filled up as told
Virtucio paid Ilano, in the presence of appellant, the
amount of P20,000.00 as placement fee
After paying the placement fee, Virtucio and his
companions were told by appellant to follow-up
their applications at her office or at Padre Faura,
Manila
Appellant failed to send Virtucio and his
companions abroad, hence, he (Virtucio), together
with applicants Ronilo Bueno and Greg Corsega,
filed a complaint for illegal Recruitment and Estafa
against appellant, a certain John Doe and Aquilino
Ilano before the National Bureau of Investigation
"Greg Corsega, one of the three (3) complainants,
testified that accused Aquilino Ilano introduced him
to appellant as the person who will process his
papers for employment abroad (tsn, June 30, 1993,
pp. 8 to 9). Thereafter, Ilano demanded from
Corsega the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) as placement fee (ibid). The amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) was given to
Ilano in the presence of appellant and it was at this
juncture that appellant promised Corsega and his
companions (Virtucio and Bueno) that they will be
called as a group to sign a contract
appellant's promise to deploy Corsega, Virtucio and
Bueno for employment abroad never materialized,
prompting him (Corsega), Virtucio and Bueno to
file a complaint for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
against appellant, John Doe and Aquilino Ilano
before the National Bureau of Investigation.
Ronilo Bueno testified that he was initially referred
by Aquilino Ilano to his (Ilano's) secretary in order
to sign papers for employment abroad (August 31,
1993, p. 4). After signing some papers, Bueno was
required by Ilano to pay the amount of P19,000.00
for the processing of his passport and visa
The amount of P19,000.00 was immediately paid to
Ilano in the presence of appellant
Bueno, Virtucio and Corcega uniformly testified
that before the filing of Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa cases against Aquilino Ilano, John Doe and
appellant before the National Bureau of
Investigation, they (Bueno, Virtucio and Corcega)
asked for the return of their money.
The prosecution presented as its last witness
Socorro Landas, an employee of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA),
who testified that appellant is not licensed by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to
be a recruiter
the Court observes that appellant confines her
appeal to her conviction for illegal recruitment as
she neither questioned nor assailed her convictions
for the three (3) counts of estafa. The failure to
appeal therefrom rendered the estafa convictions
final and executory; hence, this review shall be
limited to the illegal recruitment case.
the centerpiece of appellant's defense dwells on the
alleged insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence
to prove her guilt as "[t]here is nothing on
record . . . which says that placement fees received
by Aquilino Ilano from the three (3) private
complainants was turned over to [her]"
Illegal recruitment is defined under Article 38 (a) of
the Labor Code, as amended, as "(a)ny recruitment
activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be
Page 14 of 22
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority.
Article 13 (b) of the Code defines "recruitment and
placement" as
[A]ny 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.
o prove illegal recruitment, two elements must be
shown namely: (1) the person charged with the
crime must have undertaken recruitment activities,
or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of
the Labor Code, as amended; and (2) said person
does not have a license12 or authority13 to do so
Contrary to appellant's mistaken notion, therefore, it
is not the issuance or signing of receipts for the
placement fees that makes a case for illegal
recruitment, but rather the undertaking of
recruitment activities without the necessary license
or authority. And in this case, evidence on record
belie appellant's assertion that she did not engage in
any recruitment activity and that the fees paid by the
applicants were not turned over to her possession as
shown by the following testimony of private
complainant Virtucio,
Appellant made a distinct impression that she had
the ability to send applicants for work abroad.
She, however, does not possess any license or
authority to recruit which fact was confirmed by the
duly authenticated certification17 issued by the
Manager of the Licensing Branch of the POEA
. It is the lack of necessary license or authority that
renders the recruitment activity, as in this case,
unlawful or criminal
G.R. No. 91896 November 21, 1991 - AURORA
T. AQUINO v. COURT OF APPEALS :
November 1991 - Philipppine Supreme Court
Decisions
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991november
decisions.php?id=881
AURORA T. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF
APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
the said accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and knowingly, being then a private
individual, recruit workers for employment abroad
without first obtaining the required license or
authority from the Ministry of Labor, in violation of
the said Article 25, Presidential Decree 442
the accused pleaded not guilty
Rodrigo Nicolas, a laborer from Sta. Cruz, Manila,
met appellant Aurora Aquino when he applied at
her Manila Hotel Office in response to a published
notice of alleged recruitment of workers for Guam.
he applied for the position of carpenter
One week later, he gave appellant P1,000.00 as part
payment of the P1,500.00 required of him
A second payment of the P500.00 was made by
Nicolas to appellant
Of the total, P1,500.00 Nicolas paid, P1,000.00 was
later refunded directly to him by appellant
and the balance of P500.00 was included in an
alleged "group refund check" for P5,270.00 which
could not be cashed for lack of funds
Braulio Sapitula, a farmer from Agoo, La Union,
having learned that Mrs. Aurora T. Aquino, (known
hereafter as Appellant) was recruiting applicants for
employment in Guam, likewise applied for the
position of carpenter at appellant’s Manila Hotel
Office and plunked down FIVE HUNDRED
(P500.00) PESOS as his initial payment of the
recruitment fees. A second payment of ONE
THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS was delivered to
appellant
Aurelio Costales, a resident of Sampaloc, Manila,
met appellant at the Greenwich Travel Agency,
where Costales likewise applied for a job in Guam
and made a partial payment of P800.00 for the usual
P1,500.00 recruitment fees appellant charged job
applicants
Page 15 of 22
A second payment of P550.00 was given by
Costales to appellant
Costales, disappointed at not being able to go to
Guam, asked for a refund of his money. He was
paid P700.00 by appellant, and the balance of
P650.00 was allegedly part of the alleged "group
refund check" for P5,270.00 issued by appellant
which was dishonored for lack of funds
Benito Vertudez
applied for a Guam job at appellant’s agency
he filled out an application form and paid P70.00
for "mailing expenses"
following up his application to work in Guam,
Vertudez paid appellant P500.00
and another P500.00
Due to appellant’s inability to get him a job in
Guam, Vertudez asked for the return of his money.
He was issued a check for the amount of P1,070.00
by appellant, but said check like the alleged "group
refund check" was dishonored for lack of funds
a complaint was filed against appellant for violation
of the Provisions of Article 24, of P.D. No. 442
The accused-appellant’s version, on the other hand,
shows that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Aurora T. Aquino, 51 years old businesswoman,
disclosed that in 1973, she was a licensed contractor
authorized to hire laborers as evidenced by a Labor
Contractor’s License (New) dated 22 May, 1973
said license was issued after payment of P6,000.00
for the year 1973-1974
the lower court found the accused guilty
the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
lower court.
Anent the second issue, the Court on the basis of the
evidence on record finds the accused-petitioner not
guilty of illegal recruitment.
Every existing authority or license to hire or recruit
workers on the date of effectivity of this Code shall
remain valid for the duration indicated therein
unless sooner cancelled, revoked, or suspended for
cause by the Secretary of Labor.
However, said authority or license to hire or recruit
may renewed provided that the holders thereof shall
comply with all applicable provisions of this Code
and its implementing rules and regulations."cr
Article 24 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Authority or license to recruit. — No individual or
entity may engage in the business of a private fee-
charging employment agency without first obtaining
a license from the Department of Labor.
"No individual or entity may operate a private non-
fee charging employment agency without first
obtaining an authority from the Department of
Labor."
accused-petitioner had a valid license before May
18, 1974. She contends that her license was not
renewed, not because of any violation, but because
of a Ministry of Labor policy phasing out all private
recruitment agencies
She never received any letter from the Labor
Ministry about any illegal activities and never was
her office raided. She claims that her activities were
above-board and states that the Ministry was merely
implementing a policy that no new application for a
license to operate shall be entertained upon the
effectivity of the Code and that all private
employment agencies would be phased out within
four years from that date.
She argued that the phrase "no new application"
should not include renewal of old applications.
We must emphasize that this case involves a
criminal prosecution for a violation of a penal
provision. We are not concerned with whether or
not the accused-petitioner’s license should be
renewed nor with the administrative actions taken
by the Labor Department against recruitment
agencies.
Page 16 of 22
By no stretch of the imagination should an acquittal
in this case mean that the Court does not support the
legitimate activities of the Government against
illegal recruiters preying on the gullibility of poor
laborers, seamen, domestics, and other workers who
see employment abroad as the only way out of their
grinding poverty. We simply apply the principles of
Criminal Law that an accused is presumed innocent
until proven guilty and that the burden of
establishing guilt must be satisfactorily met by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Does the receipt of payments, after the expiration of
the license, for services rendered before said
expiration constitute illegal recruitment?
We believe that it does not, at least not for purposes
of criminal prosecutions.
Recruitment refers to the ordering of inducements to
qualified personnel to enter a particular job or
employment
The advertising, the promise of future employment
and other come-ons took place while Ms. Aquino
was still licensed. True, the payments for services
rendered are necessary consequences of the
applications for overseas employment. However, it
is asking too much to expect a licensed agency to
absolutely at the stroke of midnight stop all
transactions on the day its license expires and refuse
to accept carry-over payments after the agency is
closed
In any business, there has to be a winding-up after it
ceases operations. The collection of unpaid accounts
should not be the basis of a criminal prosecution.
It has been suggested that once a license expires, the
recruiter should turn over all continuing activities
such as collections of unpaid accounts to another
licensed agency in order to give teeth to the
campaign against illegal recruiters. There is nothing
to prevent the law from doing amended to avoid the
problem exemplified by this case but certainly no
speculations on what could have been done should
enter into the resolution of a criminal
case.chanrobles law library
The Government did not question the legality of the
payments as such. The prosecution is based on the
date of the prohibited activity, not on the payments
being illegal exactions ever if effected during the
correct period. The payments are necessary in order
to defray the expenses entailed in any overseas
contract of employment. They are intended for
administrative and for business of expenses and for
the travelling expenses of the applicants once
cleared for overseas travel.
Article 25 (it should be Article 24) of the Labor
Code, the violation of which was imputed to Aurora
Aquino, states only that no person may operate a
private fee-charging employment agency without
the necessary license.
Inferentially, it is the operation of this kind of
employment agency without the proper license
which constitutes the act of illegal recruitment
If the factual circumstances are otherwise, as when
the accused does not operate any employment
agency, then all activities including the acceptance
of the application papers and the collection of
payment would constitute acts of recruitment within
the meaning of the law. Or if the accused continued
to operate as before, even after the license is denied
renewal, this would be punishable under the law.
The facts of this case, however, conspicuously show
that the recruitment activities, namely the continued
operation of the Greenwich Travel Agency, the
advertisements that the agency was recruiting
workers for overseas employment and the active
solicitation of workers ceased upon the non-renewal
of Aurora Aquino’s license to operate the said
agency.
After May 18, 1974, Aquino closed her office at the
Manila Hotel Annex and settled in her residential
home in Quezon City from where she conducted the
winding-up of her business.
G.R. No. 112175 July 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DIAZ : July 1996 -
Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996julydecisi
ons.php?id=426
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ENGINEER RODOLFO DIAZ
Page 17 of 22
appellant of violating Articles 38 (a) and 38 (b) in
relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code, as
amended, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That sometime in the month of July 1992, in the
City of Davao, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovementioned accused,
purporting himself to have the capacity to contract,
enlist and transport Filipino workers for
employment abroad, particularly Brunei and Japan,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully recruit and
promise employment/job placement abroad to Mary
Anne Navarro, Maria Theresa Fabricante and Maria
Elena Ramirez, without first securing the required
license and/or authority from the Department of
Labor and Employment.
"Mary Anne Navarro was 22 years old, single and a
student of the University of the Immaculate
Concepcion in 1992, taking up bachelor of science
in music, Davao City.
Maria Theresa Fabricante was 23 years old, single
and jobless in 1992. She is accordingly a commerce
graduate of the Notre Dame University in Cotabato
City.
Maria Elena Ramirez was 27 years old, married and
a businesswoman in 1992. She is accordingly a
college graduate of the University of Mindanao in
Davao City where she finished the course of
bachelor of science in commerce, major in
management.
they were all enrolled at the Henichi Techno
Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao City,
studying Niponggo.
Their teacher was Mrs. Remedios Aplicador.
Mrs. Aplicador told them that if they wanted to go
and work abroad, particularly Brunei where they
could earn a salary of" $700.00 for four hours daily
work," she would refer them to Mr. Paulo Lim who
knew one Engr. Erwin Diaz who was recruiting
applicants for Brunei
Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three
complainants went to Mr. Paulo Lim who explained
to them that he was not the one recruiting workers
but Engr. Diaz
Mr. Lim informed them that his children had
already applied with Engr. Diaz and that the
requirements were bio-data, passport, medical
checkup, I.D. and income tax return, and P2,500.00
for processing of their papers
Telling them that he knew "pretty well the recruiter"
Engr. Diaz and that "We don’t have to worry we
can really go abroad and as a matter of fact he said
that his three children were applying (to go) to
Brunei," he offered to accompany them to Engr.
Erwin Diaz at the office of the CIS
They asked Mr. Lim when he was available, and he
said July 18 (1992), Saturday morning
Mr. Paulo Lim and Mrs. Remedios Aplicador
accompanied the three complainants to Engr. Diaz
who was then being detained in the CIS Detention
Center in Davao City and introduced them to him
The complainants asked Engr. Diaz why he was
"inside the cell." and he explained that four
applicants had filed a case against him "because
they could not accept that they were sick of hepatitis
and that the CIS elements are just making money
out of it"
They asked him if he was "recruiting applicants for
Brunei" and "he said yes" ; they also inquired what
were the requirements, and he said four passport
size pictures of each applicant, bio-data, income tax
return, medical certificate, NBI clearance, passport,
P2,500.00 for processing of the papers of each
applicant, and P65,000.00 as placement fee, but
only P20,000.00 for plane fare was to be paid by
each applicant, the balance of P45,000.00 was to be
paid by means of salary deductions
The P2,500.00 for processing of their respective
applications was to be paid at the house of Engr.
Diaz at 14 Aries Street, GSIS Heights, Davao City
Mary Anne Navarro paid P2,300.00 to Engr. Diaz at
his residence
Maria Theresa Fabricante paid only P2,000.00 to
Engr. Diaz
Maria Elena Ramirez paid to Engr. Diaz P2,500.00
Page 18 of 22
After submitting to the accused all the required
papers and undergoing medical examination (before
the return of said amounts to the complainants),
they asked him when they could leave. The accused
told them to wait for three to four weeks as his
papers were still being processed by the CIS
During this period when the accused had already
been released from detention
the complainants kept inquiring from him when
they would be leaving for Brunei, going to his
house several times where they saw many other
applicants like them. But the accused just kept
saying that his papers were still with the CIS
When he was still detained, he told the
complainants that "the name of his agency is
confidential but the owner thereof is Erlinda
Romualdez" who "used to be her (sic) mistress"
assuring them that "we don’t have to worry about it
because he said it is government project and then he
said he will escort us to Philippine Plaza Hotel for
briefing before leaving for abroad and after the
briefing at the Philippine Plaza Hotel we will
proceed to POEA where we will sign a contract that
is the time we will give him the amount of
P20,000.00 and then we will proceed to the
residence of Erlinda Romualdez where we will be
staying for three days"
Mary Anne Navarro asked her father for P20,000.00
for her plane fare, and so they mortgaged their
piano for P30,000.00 to Serve Loan Mart as
evidenced by a promissory note for P30,000.00
From the borrowed P30,000.00, Mary Anne
Navarro set aside P20,000.00 "for placement fee
and the remaining P10,000.00 I used in buying
traveling bag, dresses, shoes and of course make up
(sic) because we were told that we will be working
there as salesgirls.
Then hairband, pair of earrings and ring"
It was the accused who told them that they would be
working in one of the department stores in Brunei
and receiving a monthly pay of $700.00 for working
only four hours a day (tsn 9-7-92 p. 17). Earlier, she
said Engr. Diaz told her and her co-complainants
herein that the P20,000.00 was for plane fare (
Maria theresa Fabricante went home to Cotabato to
secure the required P20,000.00.
The money was supposed to be released on August
6, but before that date August 3, I came back to
Davao and went to the office of POEA and verify
whether Engr. Diaz was indeed a licensed recruiter.
upon learning that Mr. Diaz is not included in the
masters list, what did you do?
"A After knowing that I went to my two
companions Ma. Elena Ramirez and Mary Anne
Navarro and informed them of what I found out that
the agency represented by Engr. Diaz was a fake
agency and I advised them they too should follow it
up by themselves.
we set a date to go to the POEA but before that we
agreed that we will go and see Engr. Diaz to get
back the money that we paid as well as the papers.
when we met him, he greet us by saying: "If you are
ready to leave?" But we told him that we are not
going to leave and we are withdrawing our
applications because we found from the office of
the POEA that he is a fake recruiter and so he got
angry and said that if our purpose in going there
was to withdraw, he said we can and we can get
back our documents the next day but he said we will
have to pay him charges.
the three complainants learned that the "agency
represented by Engr. Diaz was a fake agency"
The three complainants withdrew their applications
from Engr. Diaz without paying his charges. The
amounts they paid for processing fees were all
returned to them by Engr. Diaz
The crime of illegal recruitment, as defined under
Articles 38 (a) in relation to Articles 13 (b) and 34
and penalized under Article 39 of the Labor Code,
as amended by Presidential Decree 1920 and
Presidential Decree 2018, is any recruitment
activity, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34, undertaken by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority.
in People v. Cabacang 5 this Court ruled that the
crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two
Page 19 of 22
elements concur, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library
1] That 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] That the offender undertakes either any activity
within the meaning of recruitment and placement
defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, provides for the
statutory definition of "recruitment and placement",
as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Recruitment and placement refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not; Provided that any person or entity
which in any manner offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement."
In People v. Panis, 6 we made the pronouncement
that any of the acts mentioned in Article 13(b) will
constitute recruitment and placement even if only
one prospective worker is involved. The number of
persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of
the act of recruitment and placement.
Article 38(a) clearly shows that illegal recruitment
is an offense which is essentially committed by a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
A non-licensee or non-holder of authority means
any person, corporation or entity which has not been
issued a valid license or authority to engage in
recruitment and placement by the Secretary of
Labor, or whose license or authority has been
suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or
the Secretary.
recruitment and placement activities of agents or
representatives whose appointments by a licensee or
holder of authority were not previously authorized
by the POEA shall likewise constitute illegal
recruitment.
We ruled in People v. Goce, in this
wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any
recruitment activity, including the prohibited
practices enumerated in Article 34 of said Code,
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable
under Article 39 thereof. The same article further
provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage if any of
the qualifying circumstances exist, namely,
a] when illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate, that is, if carried out by a group of three
or more persons conspiring or confederating with
one another; or,
b] when illegal recruitment is committed in large
scale, that is, if committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group
Considering the clear import of the foregoing
doctrine which spells the unmistakable intent of the
specific provision applicable at bar, the instant case
without doubt involves illegal recruitment in large
scale.
he elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale, which are undoubtedly present in this
case are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1] the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority to engage in recruitment and placement
activity,
2] the offender undertakes recruitment and
placement activity defined under Article 13(b),or
any prohibited practices enumerated under Article
34, and
3] illegal recruitment is committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.
after a thorough reading of the records, appellant
Diaz was neither a licensee nor a holder of authority
to qualify him to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement activity.
Page 20 of 22
As to the third element of the crime, there were
obviously three persons who were victims of the
appellant’s nefarious act of large scale illegal
recruitment.
Relative to the question of whether or not appellant
Diaz was engaged in recruitment activity, it is clear
from the testimonies of the three complainants that
appellant undertook to recruit them
n People v. Reyes (242 SCRA 264), we enunciated
the rule that — have to worry because ‘it is a government project
"When the issue is the credibility of witnesses,
appellate courts will in general not disturb the
findings of the trial court unless certain facts or
circumstances of weight have been overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied which, if considered,
might affect the result of the case. This is because
the trial court heard the testimony of the witnesses
and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during trial.
In the case at bar, we see no reason to disturb these
observations of the trial court. A careful scrutiny of
the records reveals that no facts or circumstances
had been overlooked or misapplied by the trial court
which might affect the result of the case when
considered.
it is the settled rule that a person is guilty of illegal
recruitment when he gives the impression that he
has the power to send workers abroad.
Appellant Diaz manifestly gave that impression to
the three complainants that he had the ability to
send workers abroad. Misrepresenting himself as a
recruiter of workers for Brunei, he promised them
work for a fee and convinced them to give their
money for the purpose of getting an employment
overseas.
There is no direct and express denial by Mr. Diaz of
the following testimonies of the
complainants:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1] That they had asked Mr. Diaz if he was
‘recruiting applicants for Brunei’ and he said ‘Yes’.
2] That when asked what his requirements were, he
said four passport size pictures, bio-data, income tax
returns, medical certificates, NBI clearance,
passport, P2,500 for processing fee, and P65,000 as
placement fee, but only P20,000 for plane fare was
to be paid as the balance of P45,000 was payable by
salary deductions.
3] That he was asked by the complainants as to
what agency he would be referring them, he said
‘the name of the agency is confidential but the
owner thereof is one Erlinda Romualdez, who used
to be his mistress’; that the complainants did not
and then he said he’d escort us to the Philippine
Plaza Hotel for briefing before leaving for abroad
and after the briefing we will proceed to POEA
where we will sign our contract and after the
signing that is the time we will give the P20,000,
and then we will proceed to the residence of Erlinda
Romualdez where we will be staying for three
days.’
4] That Mr. Diaz told the complainants that they
would be working ‘as salesgirls in one of the
department stores in Brunei, that they will be
getting $700 a month and they will be only working
four hours a day’
These are definitely prohibited practices or
activities constituting large scale illegal recruitment
according to the above quoted provisions of the law.
There is no denial of these by the accused."
RA 8042, otherwise known as Migrant Workers for
Overseas Employment, which was approved on
June 07, 1995. It is An Act to Institute the Policies
of Overseas Employment and Establish a Higher
Standard of Protection and Promotion of the
Welfare of Migrant Workers, their Families and
Overseas Filipinos in Distress and for Other
Purposes. This new law, amends the pertinent
provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines and
gives a new definition of the crime of illegal
recruitment and provides for its higher penalty.
this new law as it is not applicable in the case at bar,
considering the rule that crimes are punishable by
the laws in force at the of their commission.
considering the positive testimonies of the
complainants against the negative bare denials of
accused-appellant, no other conclusion could be
Page 21 of 22
arrived at but to sustain the conviction of accused-
appellant finding the latter guilty of large scale
illegal recruitment beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 22 of 22