MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ART.

39

As a service contractor, it is not allowed to charge, directly or indirectly, any

fee from the workers except the authorized documentation fee of P1,500.00.
During the period from January 1984 to July 1986, the accused F.C. Construction
Co. demanded and received from its applicants, herein private complainants
numbering about 22, various sums of money ranging from P1,500.00 to P8,500.00,
in excess of the limits set forth by law. The complainants, furthermore, were not able
to work abroad, were not issued any travel documents, and despite efforts, were not
refunded the money paid to and received by the accused.
The accused Roxas did not deny the receipts covering the different sums of
money paid by private complainants. He reasoned out that the amounts paid to and
received by him were for “passporting and ticketing” of the private complainants.
Ruling: The court found the excuse of accused to be highly unjustified and
definitely unconvincing. Besides, the accused has jumped bail, and despite the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, he has not been apprehended. As a matter of fact, he
was tried in absentia. The fundamental rule that the plight of the accused is consistent
with his guilt was made applicable in his case.
Accused Roxas is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 32 of
P.D. No. 442, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations, as charged in
the Information and was sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment for a period
of five years and to pay a fine of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
The accused was further ordered to refund to the herein private complainants
the amounts paid by each of them plus legal interest of 12% per annum from the filing
of this case until the above amounts are paid in full, and also to pay the cost of this
suit.
(Case decided by Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, RTC-NCJR Branch 47, Manila,
August 8, 1989.)
People of the Philippines vs. Remullo, G.R. No. 124443-46, June 6, 2002 —
Facts: Jenelyn Q., Rosario C. and Honorina M. testified that appellant Remullo
told them she was recruiting factory workers for Malaysia. Appellant told them to
fill up application forms and go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment
agency where appellant worked. Appellant also required each applicant to submit a
passport, pictures, and clearance from the NBI and to undergo a medical examination.
Appellant asked them to pay, as in fact she received an amount, as placement fee.
On the day of their departure, an immigration officer told private complainants that
they lacked a requirement imposed by POEA. They were not able to leave because
their visas were for tourist only. Honorina M. inquired from Jamila and Co. regarding
their application papers. In response, Evelyn, vice president and general manager to
Jamilla, denied any knowledge of such papers and that appellant Remullo did not
submit any document to Jamila. She certified that appellant was not authorized to
receive payments on behalf of Jamila.
Issue: Whether appellant N. Remullo is guilty of illegal recruitment in large
scale.

111