G.R. No.

L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983

VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROGELIO BISULA RUBEN ARROZA JUAN
GACUTNO LEONILO ATOK, NILO CRUZ, ALVARO ANDRADA, NEMESIO ADUG SIMPLICIO
BAUTISTA, ROMEO ACOSTA, and JOSE ENCABO respondents.

FACTS: The facts show that when the respondents boarded the M/T Jannu there was no intention to send their
ship to Australia. On January 10, 1979, the petitioner sent a cable to respondent shipmaster Bisula informing him
of the procedure to be followed in the computation of special compensation of crewmembers while in ITF
controlled ports and expressed regrets for not having earlier clarified the procedure as it thought that the vessel
would trade in Carribean ports only.

On March 22, 1979, the petitioner sent another cable informing Bisula of the special compensation when the ship
would call at Kwinana Australia.

The following day, shipmaster Bisula cabled Vir-jen stating that the officers and crews were not interested in ITF
membership if not paid ITF rates and that their only demand was a 50 percent increase based on their then salaries.
Bisula also pointed out that Vir-jen rates were "very far in comparison with other shipping agencies in Manila."

In reply, Vir-jen counter proposed a 25 percent increase. Only after Kyoei Tanker Co., Ltd., declined to increase
the lumps sum amount given monthly to Vir-jen was the decision to terminate the respondents' employment
formulated.

The facts show that Virjen Initiated the discussions which led to the demand for increased . The seamen made a
proposal and the petitioner organized with a counter-proposal. The ship had not yet gone to Australia or any ITF
controlled port. There was absolutely no mention of any strike, much less a threat to strike. The seamen had done
in act which under Philippine law or any other civilized law would be termed illegal, oppressive, or malicious.
Whatever pressure existed, it was mild compared to accepted valid modes of labor activity.

The wages of seamen engaged in international shipping are shouldered by the foreign principal. The local manning
office is an agent whose primary function is recruitment and who, usually gets a lump sum from the shipowner to
defray the salaries of the crew. The hiring of seamen and the determination of their compensation is subject to the
interplay of various market factors and one key factor is how much in terms of profits the local manning office and
the foreign shipowner may realize after the costs of the voyage are met. And costs include salaries of officers and
crew members.

Petitioner contends that if the respondent seamen are sustained by this Court, we would in effect "kill the hen that
lays the golden egg."

ISSUE: Whether or not the pre-termination of contract of herein respondents is valid.

HELD: We agree with the movants that there is no showing of any cause, which under the Labor Code or any
current applicable law, would warrant the termination of the respondents' services before the expiration of their
contracts. The Constitution guarantees State assurance of the rights of workers to security of tenure. (Sec. 9,
Article II, Constitution). Presumptions and provisions of law, the evidence on record, and fundamental State
policy all dictate that the motions for reconsideration should be granted.

Filipino seamen are admittedly as competent and reliable as seamen from any other country in the world.
Otherwise, there would not be so many of them in the vessels sailing in every ocean and sea on this globe. It is
competence and reliability, not cheap labor that makes our seamen so greatly in demand. Filipino seamen have
never demanded the same high salaries as seamen from the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and other
developed nations. But certainly they are entitled to government protection when they ask for fair and decent
treatment by their employer.-, and when they exercise the right to petition for improved terms of employment,
especially when they feel that these are sub-standard or are capable of improvement according to internationally
accepted rules. In the domestic scene, there are marginal employers who prepare two sets of payrolls for their
employees — one in keeping with minimum wages and the other recording the sub-standard wages that the
employees really receive, The reliable employers, however, not only meet the minimums required by fair labor
standards legislation but even go way above the minimums while earning reasonable profits and prospering. The
same is true of international employment. There is no reason why this Court and the Ministry of Labor and.
Employment or its agencies and commissions should come out with pronouncements based on the standards and
practices of unscrupulous or inefficient shipowners, who claim they cannot survive without resorting to tricky and
deceptive schemes, instead of Government maintaining labor law and jurisprudence according to the practices of
honorable, competent, and law-abiding employers, domestic or foreign.

G.R. No. L-50734-37 February 20, 1981

WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs.

THE HON. MINISTER OF LABOR, in his capacity as Chairman of the National Seamen Board Proper,
JAIME CAUNCA, ANTONIO CABRERA, EFREN GARCIA, JOSE OJEDA and RODOLFO
PAGWAGAN, respondents.

FACTS: Private respondents were hired by petitioner sometime in May 1975 to work as seamen for a period of ten
months on board the M/V Woermann Sanaga, a Dutch vessel owned and operated by petitioner's European
principals. While their employment contracts were still in force, private respondents were dismissed by their
employer, petitioner herein, and were discharged from the ship on charges that they instigated the International
Transport Federation (ITF) to demand the application of worldwide ITF seamen's rates to their crew.

Petitioner claims that the dismissal of private respondents was justified because the latter threatened the ship
authorities in acceeding to their demands, and this constitutes serious misconduct as contemplated by the Labor
Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of herein private respondents was valid.

HELD: The records fail to establish clearly the commission of any threat. But even if there had been such a threat,
respondents' behavior should not be censured because it is but natural for them to employ some means of pressing
their demands for petitioner, who refused to abide with the terms of the Special Agreement, to honor and respect
the same. They were only acting in the exercise of their rights, and to deprive them of their freedom of expression
is contrary to law and public policy. There is no serious misconduct to speak of in the case at bar which would
justify respondents' dismissal just because of their firmness in their demand for the fulfillment by petitioner of its
obligation it entered into without any coercion, specially on the part of private respondents.

G.R. No. 74009 August 27, 1987

PAN PACIFIC OVERSEAS RECRUITING SERVICES INC., and ALMABANI GENERAL

CONTRACTORS, Petitioner, vs.
The HON. COMMISSIONERS DIEGO P. ATIENZA, GERONIMO Q. QUADRA and CLETO T.
VILLATUYA of the National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and ALLAN P.
BRAZIL, Respondents.
FACTS: Respondent NLRC declared guilty herein petitioners for having illegally dismissed private respondent
Allan P. Brazil.

The petitioners allege that before the end of his first year of employment, Brazil had (1) organized a labor strike;
(2) caused heavy equipment to cross a flooded area at nighttime against the instruction of the project management;
(3) repeatedly and unjustifiably absented himself from work; and (4) without due authority traveled outside the
project site using a company vehicle. Brazil proposed that he be allowed to resign from his work and leave Saudi
Arabia. Almabani agreed, and consequently decided to forego the filing of administrative and criminal charges
against him.

Brazil resigned. However, according to the petitioners, he requested that a certificate of eligibility for re-
employment be issued to him so that he would not be "black-listed" and might in the future have a chance to work
once more in Saudi Arabia. Again his employer agreed.

Brazil filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) a complaint for illegal dismissal,
claiming that his employer had dismissed him without notice while he was on his fifteen-day vacation in the
Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not Brazil was illegally dismissed.

HELD: A perusal of the record and the impugned decision reveals that material evidence was indeed ignored for
unstated reasons, to wit: the certificate of re-employment dated November 30, 1982; the certification of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia to the effect that Brazil left Saudi Arabia with an exit visa only; and
the clearance of account with waiver dated December 13, 1982. It thus appears that the NLRC whimsically and
capriciously disregarded evidence material to and even decisive of the controversy. In doing so, it acted with grave
abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of the corrective writ of certiorari. As the Solicitor General points out,
"private respondent acted in bad faith when he made a false claim that he was dismissed while on vacation leave,
although he knew even on the basis of his own evidence, that he had already resigned from Almabani when he left
Saudi Arabia . . . (but) notwithstanding the absence of credible evidence to substantiate his claim, and the presence
of no less than four (4) documents negating his claim, it is surprising that the decision was still rendered in his
favor . . . (awarding) more or less the equivalent of P200,000.00 in benefits which were unworked for, on the basis
of a prevaricated claim. . . . (S)uch a decision will open the floodgates for the filing of similar false claims which
will undermine and eventually destroy the overseas employment program of the Philippines."

G.R. No. L-65284 October 14, 1985

PHILGRECIAN MARITIME SERVICES AND TRANS-OCEAN STEAMSHIP AGENCY,

INC., petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION, ANTONIO P. MALLARI, ELPIDIO ALONZO, AND APOLONIO
PEREN respondents.

FACTS: When they boarded the vessel on March 2, 1982, the telex from Trans-ocean informed them that it was
only the printing of the "New Greek Collective Agreement" which was delayed and that the crew would "receive
retroactively the difference between old and new wage scale" even as they were dispatched under their old
salaries.

On the way to Australia, the respondents demanded from the Master of M/V Karin Vatis, a certain Dinos Chiotis,
the payment of the salary differentials due them based on the new Greek collective agreement mentioned in the
telex.
Captain Chiotis called the private respondents and had them taken to the ITF office where a conference took place.
During the conference, the master of the vessel in behalf of petitioner Trans-ocean, agreed to the payment of the
claimed salary differentials. The private respondents were paid.

A week later, the master of the vessel demanded from the private respondents the return of the money that he had
given them with a threat that if they refused, he would terminate their employment contracts and have them
repatriated to the Philippines.

Private respondents refused to return the money, they were disembarked and repatriated to Manila by the master of
the vessel. A day after arriving in Manila, the private respondents reported at the office of petitioner Philgrecian
and demanded the payment of their allotments for May and June, 1982 which their allottees had not received.

In their answer, the petitioners denied the allegations of the respondents and averred that their dismissal from
employment was due to their unwillingness to do their job, and the refusal to follow instructions of superiors and
to abide by their contracts.

ISSUE: Whether or not the withholding of the allotment were valid.

HELD: The respondent seamen were not asking for anything unreasonable. The salary differentials were based on
agreements made in Greece and in whose execution they had no part.

To the credit of the public respondents, they acted correctly and properly on the seamen's claims. It is, however, an
expression of despair that the private respondents did not initially contact the relevant agencies of the government.
Unceremoniously kicked out at a distant port for merely trying to get what their employer's telex had promised, the
respondent seamen directed their letter complaint to a media man, Mr. Roberto Guanzon of City 2 Balita, not to
the Ministry of Labor and Employment.

[G.R. No. L-77970. January 28, 1988.]

AMBRAQUE INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT & SERVICES, Petitioner, v.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION and RUBEN GANDIA, Respondents.

FACTS: Private repondent had worked in Saudi Arabia before. As arranged by the agency, the private respondent
left for Saudi Arabia, but five days later, he was repatriated to the Philippines.

The private respondent alleged that he, together with the other workers who arrived at the job site with him, were
made to sleep in unsanitary quarters. He called the attention of the officials concerned regarding the matter and
requested for more suitable accommodations. On March 4, 1983, he was repatriated. Thus, the private respondent
maintains that the termination of his employment was without cause and, therefore, illegal.

The petitioner recruitment agency alleged that the private respondent was validly dismissed from work inasmuch
as he displayed arrogance, stubbornness and belligerence towards his employer.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal is valid.

HELD: The allegation that the private respondent exhibited disagreeable conduct when he was abroad thus paving
the way for his dismissal is a sweeping statement. The allegation is not even accompanied by any elaboration on
the matter. If the said allegation were true, then the petitioner would have discussed in detail the circumstances
surrounding such disagreeable conduct in order to support its stand. The absence of such vital information casts
suspicion on the veracity of the allegation of the petitioner.
[G.R. NO. 167614 : March 24, 2009]

ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner, v. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW

NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents.

FACTS: Antonio Serrano, claims that the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 violates
the OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their contract, deprives them of equal protection and
denies them due process.

Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 provides: Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be
entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of 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. x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Antonio Serrano (serrano for brevity) was a Filipino sea fairer employed as Chief Officer by Gallant Maritime
Services Inc and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc (respondents for brevity) under a 12- month contract with Basic
Monthly Salary of US$1400. However, when he departed on March 19. 1998, Serrno was constrained to accept a
downgraded employment of Second Officer with monthly salary of US$1,000 with the assurance that he would be
made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. However, respondents failed to keep their promise so Serrano
refused to stay as Second Oficer and was repatriated to the Philippines, having served only 2 months and 7 days
fot eh 12 month contract.

Serrano filed a complaint before the Labor arbiter for constructive dismissal and payment of money claims (total
US$26442.73), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

LABOR ARBITER: Serrano was declared illegally dismissed and was awarded monetary benefits, representing
Serrano’s salary for three (3) months of the unexpired portion of his employment contract (total USD8,770) at
the exchange rate of USD45 and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of total amount awarded. LA’s basis was
Serrano’s basic pay (USD1,400), fixed overtime pay (USD700), vacation leave pay (USD490).

Serrano appealed to the NLRC, arguing that he is entitled to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract
pursuant to Tripe Intefrated Services Inc vs. NLRC.

NLRC: NLRC modified the monetary awards and ordered respondents to pay only USD4669 which is equivalent
to 3 months salary (USD1400 x 3); Salary differential of USD45 and 10% attorney’s fees of USD424.5, reasoning
that R.A. No. 8042 "does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which should be proven to have been
actually performed, and for vacation leave pay. Other findings were affirmed.

Serrano questioned the constitutionality of said provision.

Court of Appeals: The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling on the reduction but skirted the constitutional issue.

Respondents argue that respondent cannot belatedly question the constitutionality of the said law on appeal.

The Sol Gen (OSG) argues that since the law preceded Serrano’s contract, it (especially the monetary claims) is
deemed incorporated therat sans stipulation. The OSG further contends that there is a reasonable and valid basis to
differentiate OFW from local workers; and therefore the provision does not violate the equal protection clause nor
sec. 18 Art. II of the Constitution.
ISSUES:

1.    Whether or not the issue of Constitutionality was timely raised by Serrano and before the proper
tribunal

2.     Whether or not Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8402 is constitutional.

3.     Whether or not Serrano is entitled to salaries equivalent of three months of the unexpired portion or
salaries equivalent of the entire nine months and 23 days left of his employment contract including overtime
pay and holiday pay.

RULING:

1.         The Court may exercise its power of judicial review of acts of a co-equal branch, i.e Congress, when the
following conditions are satisfied:

a.         There is an actual controversy

b.     The constitutional question is raised by proper party and at the earliest opportunity

c.         The constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case.

In ruling that the conditions were met, the Court ruled that:

   There is an actual controversy re the Labor and CA’s computation of Serrano’s monetary claims.

   The issue on Constitutionality was timely raised when Serrano raised the same before the Court of Appeals, such
court having been vested with the power of judicial review to declare a law unconstitutional.

   The constitutional issue is critical to the resolution of the monetary claim of Serrano.

2.         On Violation of Non-Impairment Clause (Sec 10, Art II of the Constitution)

The provision does not violate the principle of non-impairment of contract (as the law preceded the contract and
laws operate prospectively.

On Violation of Sec 1, Art III; Sec 18, Art II; and Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution

The subject clause VIOLATES the Equal Protection Clause and Right of an individual to due Process(Sec
1, Art III), recognizing their rights as a protected Sector (Sec 18, Art II; and Section 3 of Article XIII)

Prior to R.A. 8042, all OFWs who were illegally terminated were subjected to a uniform rule of monetary benefits
computation: basic salary times the entire  unexpired portion of their employment. However, upon the enactment
of R.A. 8042, illegally dismissed employees with unexpired portion of 1 year or more are singled out and
subjected to the disadvantageous monetary award of 3 months of their unexpired portion; as opposed to those
illegally terminated OFWs with unexpired contracts of less than one year who are entitled to their salaries for the
unexpired period; and illegally dismissed local workers with fixed-term employment who are not subjected to the
3-cap limitation.

Filipino workers are protected and afforded certain rights under the Constitution subject to the inherent power of
Congress to incorporate a system of classification into its legislation. 
There is a valid classification if the classification is

1.) based on substantial distinction,

2.) germane to the purpose of law,

3) it is not limited to existing conditions; and

4) it applies equally to all members of the class.

There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality of a classification embodied in a
law:

1.) the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged classification needs only be shown to be
rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest

2.) the middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged classification
serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that
interest; and

3.)) strict judicial scrutiny in which a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of
a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and
the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state
interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest

In American jurisprudence, strict scrutiny is triggered by suspect classifications based on race or gender but not
when the classification is drawn along income categories. However, foreign decisions, although persuasive, are not
per se controlling in the Philippines. Philippine laws are  to be construed in light of our lawmakers intent and
construed to serve our own public interest.

Imbued with the same sense of "obligation to afford protection to labor," the Court in the present case also
employs the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceives in the subject clause a suspect classification
prejudicial to OFWs.

In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but found no compelling state interest that the subject
clause may possibly serve.

The Court ruled that the Government has failed to discharge its burden of proving the existence of a compelling
state interest that would justify the perpetuation of the discrimination against OFWs under the subject clause.

The Court declared the provision unconstitutional clause VIOLATES the Equal Protection Clause and Right of
an individual to due Process(Sec 1, Art III), recognizing their rights as a protected Sector (Sec 18, Art II; and
Section 3 of Article XIII).

Note how the Court approaches the issue applying Section 1, Art III and not solely on the provisions re the
Constitution’s state policy on labor.

This is so because Setion 3 of Article XII is not a self-executing provision and it cannot on its own, be a source of
enforceable right. What it does is recognize labor as a protected sector; otherwise, it will lead to a broad
interpretation would suggest a blanket shield in favor of labor.
In declaring the subject clause unconstitutional, the Court reasoned that since the same deprived Serrano of
property and money benefits without an existing valid and definitive governmental purpose, it violated not only
Serrano’s right to equal protection but as well as his right to substantive due process under (Section1, Art. III of
the Constitution); thus, entitling Serrano to his salaries for the entire unexpired period.

3.         Serrano is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period, not including his overtime and
leave pay because there is no evidence that he performed work during those periods.

Salary is understood as the basic wage, exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime pay
is compensation for all work "performed" in excess of the regular eight hours, and holiday pay is compensation for
any work "performed" on designated rest days and holidays.

[G.R. NO. 197528 - September 5, 2012]

PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., Petitioner, v.

ARMANDO A. VINUY A, LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S. LUMANTA,. JR., ROBELITO S.
ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R. ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY 0. ENJAMBRE and NOEL T.
LADEA, Respondents.

FACTS: The respondents entered into a POEA-approved two-year employment contract, with Modern Metal
providing among others, as earlier discussed, for a monthly salary of 1350 AED. On April 2, 2007, Modern Metal
issued to them appointment letters32Ï‚rνll whereby the respondents were hired for a longer three-year period and a
reduced salary, from 1,100 AED to 1,200 AED, among other provisions. Then, on May 5, 2007, they were
required to sign new employment contracts33Ï‚rνll reflecting the same terms contained in their appointment
letters, except that this time, they were hired as "ordinary laborer," no longer aluminum fabricator/installer.

All of them resigned, stating personal reasons for their fear that they will not get their salary.

ISSUE:

HELD: The agency and its principal, Modern Metal, committed flagrant violations of the law on overseas
employment, as well as basic norms of decency and fair play in an employment relationship, pushing the
respondents to look for a better employment and, ultimately, to resign from their jobs.

First. The agency and Modern Metal are guilty of contract substitution.

Second. The agency and Modern Metal committed breach of contract.

Third. With their original contracts substituted and their oppressive working and living conditions unmitigated or
unresolved, the respondents decision to resign is not surprising. They were compelled by the dismal state of their
employment to give up their jobs; effectively, they were constructively dismissed. A constructive dismissal or
discharge is "a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an
offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."

This argument fails to persuade us. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. By its
very nature, the amendment introduced by R.A. 10022 restoring a provision of R.A. 8042 declared
unconstitutional cannot be given retroactive effect, not only because there is no express declaration of retroactivity
in the law, but because retroactive application will result in an impairment of a right that had accrued to the
respondents by virtue of the Serrano ruling - entitlement to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their
employment contracts.
All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective application, unless the purpose and intention of the
legislature to give them a retrospective effect are expressly declared or are necessarily implied from the language
used. We thus see no reason to nullity the application of the Serrano ruling in the present case. Whether or not
R.A. 1 0022 is constitutional is not for us to rule upon in the present case as this is an issue that is not squarely
before us. In other words, this is an issue that awaits its proper day in court; in the meanwhile, we make no
pronouncement on it.

G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997

P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), and NORBERTO CUENTA, SR., Respondents.

FACTS: Respondent Norberto Cuenta, Sr., applied to petitioner P.I. Manpower Placements Inc. (P.I. Manpower)
for overseas employment as trailer driver.

At the time of his flight. Cuenta found out that his deploying agent was LPJ Enterprises, not P.I. Manpower.

Cuenta was assigned by Al Jindan Contracting and Trading Establishment (Al Jindan) to drive a trailer, and was
later on informed that he was under probation.

Without prior notice and investigation Cuenta was dismissed and told to pack up and surrender his working
permit, which prompt him to complain before the POEA.

POEA, affirmed by NLRD, held that P.I. Manpower Placements Inc., LPJ Enterprises Inc. (now ADDISC
Enterprises Inc.) and foreign employer Al Jindan Contracting and Trading Establishment jointly and solidarily
liable for Cuenta’s unpaid salaries and the unexpired portion of his contract.

ISSUE: Whether or not P.I. Manpower Placements Inc., LPJ Enterprises Inc. and Al Jindan Contracting and
Trading Establishment may be held jointly and solidarily liable.

HELD: While the practice of agencies in referring applicants to other agencies for immediate hiring and
deployment, what is referred to by the POEA and petitioner as "reprocessing," is not evil per se, agencies should
know that the act of endorsing and referring workers is recruitment as defined by law and, therefore, they can be
held liable for the consequences thereof. Recruitment, whether a business activity or otherwise, has economic and
social consequences, as its failure or success affects the very livelihood of families and, ultimately, of the nation.

The joint and solidary liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to
assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him. This is in line with the
policy of the State to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class. Hence, petitioner's contention that the
four-month suspension of its license is enough punishment is without merit.

G.R. No. 187052               September 13, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

MELISSA CHUA a.k.a. Clarita Ng Chua, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS: Accused-Appellant Chua allegedly recruited and promised private complainants for overseas
employment for a fee, but but failed to place the four private complainants for work abroad. appellant’s defense
was that she was only a cashier of Golden Gate.

appellant had no license to recruit at the time she promised employment to and received placement fees from
private complainants.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction of accused for illegal recruitment and estafa is proper.

HELD: In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the
offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of
the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6
of Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third
element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more
persons, individually or as a group. All three elements are present in the case at bar.

It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and
estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in
se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is
imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of fraud.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent
representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

G.R. No. 173198               June 1, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

DOLORES OCDEN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS: Allegedly, Accused-appellant Ocden Ocden denied recruiting private complainants and claimed that she was
also an applicant for an overseas job in Italy, just like them. Ocden identified one Ramos as the recruiter.

Ocden contends that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale. Other than the bare allegations of the prosecution witnesses, no evidence was
adduced to prove that she was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers. No certification attesting to this fact was formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction of accused for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa is proper.

HELD: It is not necessary for the prosecution to present a certification that Ocden is a non-licensee or non-holder
of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042
enumerates particular acts which would constitute illegal recruitment "whether committed by any person, whether
a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority." Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic
Act No. 8042, is the "[f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation
and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without
the worker’s fault."

It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No.
8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

G.R. No. 182232             October 6, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

NENITA B. HU, accused-appellant

FACTS: Accused-appellant allegedly promise employment/job placement abroad for an overseas employment and
collect fees from herein six (6) private complainants, who were not able to leave the country to work abroad.

Hu claimed that she was the President of Brighturn, a duly authorized land-based recruitment agency. Brighturn
had foreign principals in Taiwan who were looking for skilled individuals willing to work in a foreign country.

Hu was charged with and convicted by the trial court of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, which
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction of accused for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale was proper.

HELD: No. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that illegal recruitment
was committed against three or more persons. What we have uncovered upon careful scrutiny of the records was
the fact that illegal recruitment was committed against only one person; that is, against Garcia alone. 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 Brighturn's license to engage in recruitment and placement
was still in full force and effect.

It is evident that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is

determinative. Where illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be
convicted of simple illegal recruitment which is punishable with a lower penalty under Article
39(c)27 of the Labor Code. Corollarily, where the offense is committed against three or more persons, it is
qualified to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a higher penalty under Article 39(a)28 of the
same Code. (Emphasis supplied.)

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.33 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.

Failure of Garcia to present proof of payment is irrelevant. The absence of receipts in the case of illegal
recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the appellant and is not fatal to the prosecution's 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.34

[G.R. Nos. 115338-39. September 16, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

LANIE ORTIZ-MIYAKE accused-appellant

FACTS: Accused appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in large scale for allegedly recruiting and
promising employment/job placement abroad for a fee to herein three (3) private complainants.

Of the three complainants in the case for illegal recruitment in large scale, Marasigan was the only one who
testified at the trial. The two other complainants, Generillo and Del Rosario, were unable to testify as they were
then abroad.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction of accused for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale was proper.

HELD: It is evident that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is determinative. Where
illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be convicted of simple illegal recruitment
which is punishable with a lower penalty under Article 39(c) of the Labor Code. Corollarily, where the offense is
committed against three or more persons, it is qualified to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a
higher penalty under Article 39(a) of the same Code.

The accused in a criminal case is guaranteed the right of confrontation. Such right has two purposes: first, to
secure the opportunity of cross-examination; and, second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment and
appearance of the witness while testifying.

G.R. No. 161757             January 25, 2006

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.Petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division; HON. ERNESTO S. DINOPOL, in
his capacity as Labor Arbiter, NLRC; NCR, Arbitration Branch, Quezon City and DIVINA A.
MONTEHERMOZO, Respondents.

FACTS: Petitoner deployed to Taiwan Divina A. Montehermozo (Divina) as a domestic helper under a 12-month
contract, after which Divina continued working for her Taiwanese employer, Hang Rui Xiong, for two more years.

Back in the Philippines, Divina filed a complaint before the NLRC against Sunace, one Adelaide Perez, the
Taiwanese broker, and the employer-foreign principal alleging that she was jailed for three months and that she
was underpaid.

Allegedly, Sunace continually communicated with the foreign "principal" (sic) and therefore was aware of and had
consented to the execution of the extension of the contract is misplaced.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sunace is liable to private respondent during the extension of her employment in Taiwan.

HELD: The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer
Xiong, not the other way around.23 The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot, therefore, be
imputed to its agent Sunace.

There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-year employment
contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its "owner" cannot be held solidarily liable
for any of Divina’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. As the New Civil Code provides,

Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and
obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of
law.24

Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its agency relationship with its
foreign principal when, after the termination of the original employment contract, the foreign principal directly
negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate employment contract in Taiwan. Article 1924 of the
New Civil Code reading

The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with
third persons.