DIWA, JOBELLE G.

20180170109

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT CASES

1. People v Navarra
G.R. No. 119361. Feb. 19, 2001.

DOCTRINE:
The two essential elements of illegal recruitment:
1. First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
2. Second, 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.

FACTS:
In this case, Job and Rodolfo, along with Rodolfos wife Corazon, operated an agency which
purported to have the authority to recruit and place workers for employment in Taiwan. The
agency was named Rodolfo Navarras Travel Consultant and General Services (RNTCGS), which
in the course of its operation was able to victimize several hapless victims who never left
Philippine soil, and in due time, filed complaints with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency against accused for illegal recruitment.
Merlie Villesca identified Rodolfo as the one with whom she applied for employment in Taiwan
on May 6, 1992, at the RNTCGS office in Novaliches, Quezon City. As a placement fee she paid
P15,000.00 to Inday Padawan (Rodolfo’s cook and laundrywoman), at Corazon and Rodolfos
house, and another P15,000.00 on December 22, 1992. GLICERIA MARINAS singled out Job as
the one who recruited her for employment in Taiwan as a factory worker. She testified that she
was recruited by Job on April 24, 1992 at RNTCGS where she was told that she and her co-
applicants would leave for Taiwan two months after they applied on April 24, 1992. She gave
Job all the requirements the agency asked for including her passport and birth certificate. She
was also required to pay a placement fee of P20,000.00, although the receipt given to her was
only for the amount of P15,000.00. She gave her passport to Job and she handed the placement
fee to Inday who gave it to Corazon in her presence.
BEINVENIDA AMUTAN testified that while in Rodolfo’s house in Novaliches, Quezon City, on
May 11, 1992, Rodolfo promised her that she would be able to leave for Taiwan upon payment
of a P20,000.00 placement fee. On April 11, 1992, Beinvenida paid the amount to Inday who
gave it to Corazon in Beinvenidas presence. She never had the chance to go to Taiwan. Upon
investigation with the POEA, she discovered that RNTCGS was not registered.
ERNESTO AMUTAN testified that in April 1992, he filed an application to work at a factory in
Taiwan before Corazon in the RNTCGS office. It was Corazon who interviewed him and asked
him to submit some requirements. While at the said office, he saw Rodolfo there, who gave him
the assurance that he would be able to leave for Taiwan immediately. He was never deployed
to Taiwan, despite paying a placement fee of twenty thousand pesos P20,000.00.
FLORIE ROSE RAMOS testified that she applied with RNTCGS as a factory worker for Taiwan and
that she paid a placement fee of P25,000.00 and another payment of P1,000.00 as medical fee.
She went to RNTCGS during the last weeks of February, March and April 1992 and was
interviewed by Job. She was introduced to Rodolfo by her co-complainant Evelyn Llacas. She
was not able to leave for Taiwan, neither was she able to retrieve her payments from RNTCGS
for when she went to the office on December 23, 1993, it had already been raided by the CIS
and POEA for recruiting for overseas employment without license or authority.
LIWAYWAY CRUZ testified that she visited Rodolfo and Corazons house and came to know that
Rodolfo was the President of RNTCGS, an agency which deported itself to her as and agency
purporting to have authority to recruit workers for placement in Taiwan. That on April 1993,
she went to Rodolfos house to inquire about the processing of her papers for employment in
Taiwan. There she was assured by Rodolfo that Corazon was in Taiwan and was already taking
care of her application.
LOIDA MACASO testified that she came to know Rodolfo when she visited Inday on December
3, 1991, at Rodolfos house and Rodolfo and Corazon recruited her to work as a factory worker
in Taiwan. For this purpose she paid the spouses P10,000.00 placement fee on January 8, 1992.
She was never sent to Taiwan.
The accused-appellants were charged and found guilty by the RTC of illegal recruitment
committed in a large scale resulting to economic sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in disregarding their defense of denial and in
finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged?

Held:
No. Illegal recruitment has two essential elements: First, the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers. Second, 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.
A nonlicensee or nonholder of authority means any person, corporation or entity without a
valid license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement from the Secretary of Labor, or
whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration or the Secretary of Labor. Under Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code, 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 employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.”

From the evidence adduced, accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement,
such as promises to the complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of
placement fees. Accused-appellants gave the impression that they had the power to send the
complainants to Taiwan for employment. With the certification from the Department of Labor
and Employment stating that RNTCGS was not authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment, and promises by the accused of employment abroad for complainants on
payment of placements fees, the conclusion is inescapable that accused are liable for illegal
recruitment.

Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P. D. No. 2018 provides that illegal
recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the
following qualifying circumstances exists: First, when illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate. For purposes of the law, a syndicate exists when three or more persons conspire or
confederate with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or
scheme. Second, there is economic sabotage when illegal recruitment is committed in a large
scale, as when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

The acts of accused-appellants showed unity of purpose. All these acts establish a common
criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves.
Even assuming that there was no conspiracy, the record clearly shows illegal recruitment
committed in a large scale, since at least 6 complainants were victims, which is more than the
minimum number of persons required by law to constitute illegal recruitment in a large scale,
resulting in economic sabotage.

2. People of the Philippines vs. Dolores Ocden

G.R. No. 173198 June 1, 2011
DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send
complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in
order to be employed.

FACTS: The RTC rendered a Decision finding Ocden guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa.

(This is based from complaints of several persons accusing her of promising to the applicants
employment to a stuffed toy factory in Italy, wherein she asks for 70k from each as placement
fee. After the applicants pay, they will be sent to Zamboanga on the assurance that they will be
first sent to Malaysia for easier processing of their visas, and then to Italy, which never
materialized.

Ocden asserts that she was also just an applicant for overseas employment; and that she was
receiving her co-applicants’ job applications and other requirements, and accepting her co-
applicants’ payments of placement fees, because she was designated as the applicants’ leader
by Ramos, the real recruiter. )

Aggrieved by the above decision, Ocden filed with the RTC a Notice of Appeal. Ocden’s appeal
was sent to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court promulgated its Decision, dismissing the
appeal and affirming Ocden’s conviction.

Hence, this appeal

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting accused-appelant of Illegal Recruitment
commited in large scale although the crime was not proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Held:
No. The court, after a thorough review of the records of the case, finds nothing on record that
would justify a reversal of Ocden’s conviction. 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.
Ocden’s aforementioned contentions are without merit.
Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code defines and enumerates the acts which constitute
recruitment and placement:

(b) “Recruitment and placement” refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract
services, promising for 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.

The amendments to the Labor Code introduced by RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal recruitment and
provided stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., illegal
recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. Pertinent
provisions of Republic Act No. 8042 are reproduced below:

SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether
for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated
under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be
deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any
person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

(m) Failure 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. Illegal recruitment when committed by
a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants
abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed.
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.”

Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even by a
licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is
inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal recruitment as described in said provision by
receiving placement fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s two sons, Jeffries and Howard,
evidenced by receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a, Ferrer,
and Golidan’s two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not able to leave for Italy,
through no fault of their own.

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MELISSA CHUA, appellant.

G.R. No. 184058. March 10, 2010

Doctrine:
From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that any recruitment activities to be undertaken by
non-licensee or non-holder of contracts, or as in the present case, an agency with an expired
license, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines. And illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three or more persons individually or as a group.

Facts:
Melissa Chua (appellant) was indicted for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and was convicted
thereof by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. She was also indicted for five counts of
Estafa but was convicted only for three. Appellant denied the charges.Claiming having worked
as a temporary cashier from January to October, 2002 at the office of Golden Gate, owned by
one Marilyn Calueng, she maintained that Golden Gate was a licensed recruitment agency and
that Josie, who is her godmother, was an agent. Admitting having receivedP80,000 each from
Marilyn and Tan, receipt of which she issued but denying receiving any amount from King, she
claimed that she turned over the money to the documentation officer, one Arlene Vega, who in
turn remitted the money to Marilyn Calueng whose present whereabouts she did not know.

The RTC convicted appellant of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and three counts of Estafa. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs decision holding that appellants defense that, as temporary
cashier of Golden Gate, she received the money which was ultimately remitted to Marilyn
Calueng is immaterial, she having failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship
between her and Marilyn, as well as the legitimacy of the operations of Golden Gate and the
extent of her involvement therein. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not Melissa Chua is guilty of illegal recruitment?

HELD:
The appeal is denied. The term recruitment and placement is defined under Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code of the Philippines as 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, illegal
recruitment is defined under Article 38, paragraph (a) of the Labor Code, as amended. From the
foregoing provisions, it is clear that any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee
or non-holder of contracts, or as in the present case, an agency with an expired license, shall be
deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.And illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group. Thus for illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the prosecution
has to prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity
under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the
accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more
persons individually or as a group.

In the present case, Golden Gate, of which appellant admitted being a cashier from January to
October 2002, was initially authorized to recruit workers for deployment abroad. Per the
certification from the POEA,Golden Gates license only expired on February 23, 2002 and it was
delisted from the roster of licensed agencies on April 2, 2002. Appellant was positively pointed
to as one of the persons who enticed the complainants to part with their money upon the
fraudulent representation that they would be able to secure for them employment abroad. In
the absence of any evidence that the complainants were motivated by improper motives, the
trial courts assessment of their credibility shall not be interfered with by the Court. Even if
appellant were a mere temporary cashier of Golden Gate, that did not make her any less an
employee to be held liable for illegal recruitment as principal by direct participation, together
with the employer, as it was shown that she actively and consciously participated in the
recruitment process.

Assuming arguendo that appellant was unaware of the illegal nature of the recruitment
business of Golden Gate that does not free her of liability either. Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale penalized under Republic Act No. 8042, or The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995, is a special law, a violation of which is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Intent
is thus immaterial. And that explains why the appellant was, aside from Estafa, convicted of
such offense.

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PANIS

G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1990

DOCTRINE: At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the
campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino
workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even
borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical
deception at the hands of their own countrymen.

Facts:
Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and
Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, “without first securing a
license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging
employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee
charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment
in Saudi Arabia” to four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation
to Article 39 of the Labor Code.

Motion to quash filed by respondent: 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. ”

Motion at first was denied but was subsequently granted. The prosecution is now before us on
certiorari.

Issue:
The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of 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.

Held:
Petitioner’s contention: 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; 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.
Respondent argues 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.

Neither interpretation is acceptable. As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a
condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a
presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and
placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of
a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. “

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and
placement 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.

In the instant case, the word “shall be deemed” should by the same token be given the force of
a disputable presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and placement.
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.

At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against
illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better
life in a foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of
their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own
countrymen.

5. People of the Philippines vs Comila

G.R. No. 171448, February 28, 2007

Doctrine:
Persons may be may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. llegal
recruitment is malum prohibitum wherein the criminal intent of the accused is unnecessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se, wherein such intent is necessary. Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code states provides that estafa 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.

Facts:
Through a consolidated decision 3 dated October 3, 2000, the trial court found both accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale
by a syndicate, as charged in Crim. Case No. 16427-R, and of estafa, as charged in Crim. Case
Nos. 16430-R; 16431-R, 16432-R, 16434-R, 16436-R, 16438-R, and 16439-R. The other
informations for estafa in Crim. Case Nos. 16428-R, 16429-R, 16433-R, 16435-R and 16437- R
were, however, dismissed for lack of evidence.
Pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by the two accused, the trial court forwarded the records
of the cases to the Supreme Court.
The Office of the Solicitor General recounted that a certain Annie Felix was introduced to to
appellant Aida Comila as the former was told she could be helped by the latter in finding work
abroad. Eventually she was introduced to a certain Erlinda Ramos, an agent of a Mrs. Indira
Lastra., whom was said to be responsible in processing the visas of the applicants. Upon being
briefed by Comila, Annie and the other applicants had paid the necessary fees for the
processing and forwarding the necessary documents. The flights of Annie Felix and other
applicants did not push through and their visas were not released despite being promised that
they were. Upon expressing doubts regarding their supposed promised job, the applicants were
brought to Lastra, who turned out to be an inmate of Manila City jail. Applicants tried t follow
up their respective job applications but Aida and Charlie Comila were already in jail.
A complaint was filed against appellants Aida Comila and Charlie Comila before the Criminal
Investigation Group (CIG).

Issue:
Whether or not the courts had erred in finding the accused appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa; and and had totally disregarded the
defense of denial “honestly advanced” by them.

Ruling:
No. The Court was convinced that both the trial and appellate courts did not err in finding both
appellants guilty beyond moral certainty of doubt of the crimes charged against them. It was
ruled that the prosecution had satisfactorily established that both appellants were then
engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement activities. When a person who is not duly
authorized according to law represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she is capable
of providing work abroad, being able to convince people to part with their money in assurance
of employment. According to Article 315, of the Revised Penal Code, estafa 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. It
was shown that appellants represented themselves to complainants as having capacity to send
them to Italy for employment, though they actually do not have the authority or license for the
purpose.

6. RODOLFO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

498 SCRA 377 (2006)

Doctrine: “Promises or offers for a fee employment” is sufficient to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.

FACTS: Petitioner Rosa C. Rodolfo approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and
Narciso Corpus individually and invited them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai.
Rodolfo, being their neighbor, Ferre and Corpus agreed and went to the former’s office. The
office bore the business name ―Bayside Manpower Export Specialist‖. In that office, Ferre
gave P1,000.00 as processing fee and another P4,000.00. Likewise, Corpus gave Rodolfo
P7,000.00. Rodolfo then told Ferre and Corpus that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai.
However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the
scheduled date as their employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was
rescheduled, but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, Ferre
and Corpus demanded of Rodolfo to return their money. Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to
Ferre, Rodolfo was not able to return Ferre’s and Corpus’ money. Ferre, Corpus and three
others then filed a case for illegal recruitment in large scale with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
against Rodolfo.
The RTC rendered judgement against Rodolfo but in imposing the penalty, the RTC took note of
the fact that while the information reflected the commission of illegal recruitment in large scale,
only the complaint of two (Ferre and Corpus) of the five complainants was proven. Rodolfo
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition but modified the penalty
imposed by the trial court. The CA also dismissed Rodolfo’s Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rodolfo is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale

HELD:
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. If another element is present that the 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 Rodolfo is authorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment. A Certification to that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo,
Chief of the Licensing Division of POEA. The second element is doubtless also present. The act
of referral, which is included in recruitment, 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.‖ Rodolfo’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.

Rodolfo issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the private
complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her
from liability. For the act of recruitment may be ―for profit or not.‖ It is sufficient that the
accused ―promises or offers for a fee employment‖ to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.
Parenthetically, why Rodolfo 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 Rodolfo’s reliance on
Señoron, true, the 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.
 7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JAMILOSA
G.R. No. 169076. January 23, 2007.

Doctrine:
Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the “services” of the
recruiter, he is still considered as being engaged in recruitment activities—it can be gleaned
from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be for
profit or not.

Facts:
Imelda D. Bamba testified that on January 17, 1996, she met the appellant in Cubao, Quezon
City on board an aircon bus. She was on her way to Shoemart (SM), North EDSA, Quezon City
where she was working as a company nurse. The appellant was seated beside her and
introduced himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad. The appellant told her
that his sister is a head nurse in a nursing home in Los Angeles, California, USA and he could
help her get employed as a nurse at a monthly salary of Two Thousand US Dollars ($2,000.00)...
and that she could leave in two (2) week time. He further averred that he has connections with
the US Embassy, being a US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent on official mission in the
Philippines for one month. According to the appellant, she has to pay the amount of $300.00
intended for the US consul. The appellant gave his pager number and instructed her to contact
him if she is interested to apply for a nursing job abroad.

January 21, 1996, the appellant fetched her then went to her house where she gave him the
photocopies.

January 28 or 29, 1996, she handed to the appellant the amount of US$300.00 at McDonalds
and showed to her a photocopy of her supposed US visa.

The appellant likewise got several pieces of jewelry which she was then selling and assured her
that he would sell the same at the US embassy. However, the appellant did not issue a receipt
for the said money and jewelry. Thereafter, the appellant told her to resign from her work at
SM because she was booked with Northwest Airlines and to leave for Los Angeles, California,
USA on February 25, 1996.

The appellant promised to see her, however, the appellant who was supposed to be with them
in the flight failed to show up, the appellant called and informed her that he failed to give the
passport and US visa because he had to go to the province because his wife died.

They went to the supposed residence of the appellant to verify, but nobody knew him or his
whereabouts. They tried to contact him at the hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no
avail. They also inquired from the US embassy and found out that there was no such person
connected with the said office. Thus, she decided to file a complaint with the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI).

Geraldine Lagman testified that she is a registered nurse by profession. In the morning of
January 22, 1996, she went to SM North EDSA, Quezon City to visit her cousin Imelda Bamba. At
that time, Bamba informed her that she was going to meet the appellant who is an FBI agent
and was willing to help nurses find a job abroad.

Lagman told the appellant that she had no working experience in any hospital but the appellant
assured her that it is not necessary to have one. The appellant asked for US$300.00 as payment
to secure an American visa and an additional amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Pesos
(P3, 400.00) as processing fee for other documents.

On January 24, 1996, wherein she handed to the latter her passport and transcript of records.

This prompted her to give the amount of US$300.00 and two (2) bottles of Black Label to the
appellant.

She became suspicious and told Bamba about the matter. One (1) week before her scheduled
flight on February 25, 1996, they called up the appellant but he said he could not meet them
because his mother passed away. The appellant never showed up, prompting her to file a
complaint with the NBI for illegal recruitment.

Alma Singh who is also a registered nurse, declared that she first met the appellant on February
13, 1996 at SM North EDSA, Quezon City when Imelda Bamba introduced the latter to her.

The appellant told her that he could help her and her companions Haidee Raullo, Geraldine
Lagman and Imelda Bamba find jobs in the US as staff nurses.

The following day or on February 15, 1996, she gave the appellant the amount of US$300.00
and a bottle of cognac as "grease money”.

The appellant was able to get a ticket confirmation and told her that they will meet again the
following day for her to give P10, 000.00 covering the half price of her plane ticket. Singh did
not meet the appellant as agreed upon.

The appellant avoided them and reasoned out that he could not meet them as he had many
things to do. When the appellant did not show up, they decided to file a complaint for illegal
recruitment with the NBI.

On November 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Accused is ordered to indemnify each of the complainants, Imelda Bamba, Geraldine Lagman
and Alma Singh the amount of Three Hundred US Dollars ($300.00).

Issues:
WHETHER OR NOT TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME
OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTER'S GUILT WAS
NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.

Ruling:
The Court notes that the trial court ordered appellant to refund US$300.00 to each of the
complaining witnesses. The ruling of the appellate court must be modified. Appellant must pay
only the peso equivalent of US$300.00 to each of the complaining witnesses.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES

G.R. No. 155831 February 18, 2008

Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo petitioner vs Rogelio I. Rayalaya Respondent

DOCTRINE:
Sexual Harassment; Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 7877); It is not necessary that
the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or
written statement it may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender.

FACTS:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo was a Stenographic Reporter III at the same office with Rogelio Rayala,
who was an appointee by the President of the Philippines as the Chairman of the NLRC.
Domingo filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala before the DOLE. Domingo
supplied an affidavit wherein the events of her claim was supported. She filed the Complaint for
sexual harassment on the basis of Administrative Order No. 250, the Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 7877 in the Department of Labor and Employment. The complaint of
Domingo was referred by DOLE to the Office of the President and ordered Secretary Ledezma
was ordered to investigate the said allegations of Domingo. The Office of the President, having
found that the allegations were true, found Rayala guilty and DISMISSED him from his office.
Domingo assailed the CA’s resolution. She argues that the power to remove Rayala, who is a
presidential appointee, is lodged with the President.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rayala is guilty of sexual harassment under RA7877.

HELD:
Yes. Rayala is guilty of Sexual Harassment. The court held that it is true that this provision calls
for a “demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor,” but it is not necessary that the
demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written
statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. It is not
essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition or continued
employment or for promotion to a higher position it is enough that the
respondent’s acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the
employee. Further, the court ruled that the all acts of Ralaya resound with deafening clarity the
unspoken request for sexual favor.