Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R.

September 11, 2022

3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

G.R. No. 113161

August 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D.
AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.

Facts:
Information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale was filed
against spouses Goce and Nelly Agustin. The complainants testified that Agustin represented
herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency. One of the applicants, testified that she
was offered a job as a cutter by Agustin the first time they met, while another applicant,
remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented herself as "nagpapaalis
papunta sa Oman.” It was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of
working overseas and it was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as
the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the spouses of
Goce who owned the placement agency.
Agustin also received from complainants various sums of money for the purpose of their
applications. When it was discovered that all the accused in this case were not authorized to
engage in any recruitment activity, Agustin denied any participation in the illegal recruitment and
maintained that the recruitment was perpetrated only by the Goce couple. Agustin contended that
all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said couple,
and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and facilitated by
them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the
goodness of her heart, she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not
fall within the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal
recruitment. However, the trial court found Agustin guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal
recruitment on a large scale.
Appellant Agustin then raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing
complainants to the Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and
placement under Article 13 (b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof
of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there
is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not Agustin is guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment on a
large scale.
(2) Whether or not the act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple falls within the
meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34
of the Labor Code.
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

Held:
(1) YES. Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code.
Article 38 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
these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed
by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring
and/or confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in
large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a
group. 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 25 engaged in
recruitment and placement. There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of
having the ability to send a worker abroad." It is undisputed that appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people
abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded
in order to be employed. Her act of collecting from each of the complainant’s 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.
(2) YES. 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. On the other hand, 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. The
testimonial evidence shows that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal
recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they
initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they
learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It
was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the
placement agency. As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it
was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

the owners of the agency. As such, the appellant was actually making referrals to the
agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.
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." 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 employed. It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants
various sums for the 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.

Critique/Assessment:
The nature of illegal recruitment as defined in the Labor Code is all-encompassing, as it
so explicitly defines and enumerates the many ways in which recruitment and placement, as well
as referral may take place. In an effort to acquit herself from the charges filed against her,
Agustin argued that there is no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce couple to make her
liable for illegal recruitment since she merely did an act of “introducing” the complainants to the
couple. However, repudiating her defense, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of documentary
and testimonial evidence presented by the complainants as sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused and her connivance with the Goce couple to deceive the complainants of overseas
employment. In fact, despite denying her guilt of engaging in illegal recruitment activities, the
certification which proved all the accused as neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers
for overseas employment was not disputed by Agustin. Upon the three (3) primary defenses
established by herein accused Agustin to wit; (1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce
couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b)
in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal
recruitment among her and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that sher offered or
promised overseas employment to the complainants—the Supreme Court was able to rule on the
basis of evidence presented by the prosecution to disfavor the self-serving denials of the accused
to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

G.R. No. 119076

March 25, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROGER SEGUN and JOSEPHINE CLAM, accused-appellants.

Facts:
Spouses Roger Segun and Josephine Clam were charged before the Iligan City RTC of
violating Article 38 of the Labor Code for conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously canvass, enlist, contract, transport,
and recruit for employment thirteen (13) persons without any license and/or authority to engage
in recruitment and placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE). The prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses. One of the prosecution’s witnesses
presented two certifications issued by the Director of DOLE. The first certification stated that
appellants were neither licensed nor authorized by the Department to recruit workers for
overseas employment. The second certification was issued upon the request of the mayor of
Linamon, Lanao del Norte, stating that appellants were not authorized to conduct recruitment for
local and overseas employment. The other seven (7) witnesses’ testimonies are to wit;

1. Conchita Tambacan
- testified that her son Mario, was "recruited" by appellants and was brought to
Manila. She knew that he was recruited only because "many told [her]." Her son
did not consult her regarding the recruitment.
2. Josephine Aba
- testified that her nephews told her that they wanted to go to Manila and that they
were "recruited." Mrs. Aba went to the appellants' house to inquire if what her
nephews told her was true. Appellants told her that her nephews would be given
free fare to Manila, free meals and good wages. They also promised her nephews.
3. Melecio Ababa
- she learned that appellants had "recruited" his grandsons. He went to the house of
appellants who assured him that the transportation to Manila was free, and that his
grandsons were to be provided free meals and paid good wages. Because of these
promises, he acquiesced to the recruitment.
4. Rogelio Collantes
- He learned that appellants had "recruited" his wife and two children. He talked to
appellants who promised that his wife and children’s transportation to Manila and
meals will be free and that they will receive good wages. His family were then
brought to Cabanatuan City.
5. Loreta Cavan
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

- testified that she was "recruited" by appellants and brought to Manila then to
Cabanatuan City. She related that she met appellants in the house of Josephine
Clam, where she was recruited. Appellants told her that Cabanatuan City was a
"good place" "because the salary [was] big." Loreta agreed to go.
6. Ester Cavan
- supported Loreta’s testimony. The same was dispensed with, however, the
corroborative nature thereof having been admitted by counsel for the defense.
7. Elena Arañas
- testified that appellants brought her son to Cabanatuan City and was promised that
he would be given a good salary. She learned of the promise when she went to the
appellants' house where she saw appellants, her son, among others. Elena agreed
to the recruitment of her son because of the promise of a good salary.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellants committed illegal recruitment on a large scale.

Held:
NO. The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when the three essential
elements are present: (1) The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. (2) He or she undertakes any
activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” defined under the Article 13 (b) or
any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. (3) The offender
commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The first element is
obviously present in this case, as the certification issued by Dole Region XII Director Allen
Macaraya dated on the 17th of May 1993 states that both Roger Segun and Josephine Clam,were
not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and overseas employment. The prosecution failed
however to obtain from the witnesses the specific acts that the appellants have done that may
constitute the recruitment of the alleged victims, in which out of the 13 witnesses only 2
witnesses has successfully proven recruitment activities in pursuance of the definition and scope
provided in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code.. The third element of illegal recruitment at large is
therefore absent as the prosecution erred in getting substantial evidence and non-conclusive
statements from the other 11 witnesses, the appellants do not qualify to be convicted of illegal
recruitment on a large scale, thus shall only be convicted of two counts of simple illegal
recruitment as provided by Article 38(a).

Critique/Assessment:
In the case at bar, the Iligan City RTC convicted applicants for violating Article 38 of the
Labor Code to which the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
recruitment. It was reiterated in the case that “recruit” is a legal conclusion as this term was said
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

repeatedly in the cross-examination of the witnesses. The witness must testify as to the facts that
would prove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply states that the accused
"recruited" the "victim." Hence, there were testimonies that were considered by the Court as
insufficient to convict the appellants for the recruitment of the people involved. The Court in this
part was making sure that they balance the situation especially between the accused and the
appellants. In connection to this, the prosecution failed to elicit from many of its witnesses the
specific acts constituting the recruitment of other alleged victims. Consequently, the appellants
can be convicted only of two counts of illegal recruitment.
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

G.R. Nos. 140067-71.

August 29, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NENITA MARIA OLIVIA GALLARDO (at large), and REMEDIOS MALAPIT, accused,
REMEDIOS MALAPIT, accused-appellant.

Facts:
Remedios Malapit and Nenita Maria Olivia Gallardo were charged with one (1) count of
illegal recruitment committed in large-scale, three (3) counts of estafa, and one (1) count of
simple illegal recruitment before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3. The
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment as contract
workers in Canada, to nine (9) people, without said accused having first secured the necessary
license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. Accused-appellant
maintains that she did not commit any of the activities enumerated in the Labor Code on illegal
recruitment in connection with the applications of the private complainants. It was Nenita Maria
Olivia Gallardo who convinced and promised private complainants employment overseas. It was
also Gallardo who received and misappropriated the money of private complainants.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant was guilty for the crime of illegal recruitment.

Held:
Yes. Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) essential elements concur: (1) that the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers, and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within
the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. In the case at bar, the first element is
present. Nonette Legaspi-Villanueva, the Overall Supervisor of the Regional Office of the POEA
in Baguio City, testified that per records, neither accused-appellant nor Gallardo were licensed or
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the City of Baguio or in any part of the
Cordillera Region. The second essential element is likewise present. Accused-appellant
purported to have the ability to send Marie Purificacion Abenoja, Araceli Abenoja and Marilyn
Mariano for employment abroad through the help of her co-accused Gallardo, although without
any authority or license to do so. Accused-appellant was the one who persuaded them to apply
for work as a caregiver in Canada by making representations that there was a job market therefor.
It is enough that she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for
deployment abroad. In fact, even without consideration for accused-appellant's "services", she
will still be deemed as having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently
Mercado, Sophia Ysabelle R. September 11, 2022
3-LM1 LM3188 - Labor laws and Social Legislations

demonstrated that she promised overseas employment to private complainants. In sum, the
accused-appellant is only guilty of two (2) counts of illegal recruitment.

Critique/Assessment:
I am in agreement with the ruling of the court as they had carefully discussed Malapit’s
conviction by first establishing the presence of the necessary elements of illegal recruitment and
estafa and later clarifying that there is enough evidence supporting her conviction. Through
Malapit’s actions, such as, but not limited to: persuading the complainants to apply for work;
receiving money as fees from complainants; and deceiving them by saying that they are to be
sent to work for a job abroad, despite having no such authority to recruit individuals for work
abroad, she committed acts constituting illegal recruitment as defined by the law. In the same
manner, she was also found guilty of estafa by purporting to have the authority to send
individuals for overseas placement which consequently caused the complainants to part with
their money; the elements of deceit and damage are thus committed. It is similar to the case of
People vs. Agustin, we see how the Court strictly imposes the laws on and the punishments for
illegal recruitment and estafa. This reflects the serious gravity of the aforesaid crimes as well as
the sizable concern the courts consider in cases revolving labor.