CASE:

SARMIENTO v TUICO; ATC v NLRC (1988)

FACTS:

Two cases were consolidated herein because of identity of factual antecedents.

1st case (Sarmiento v Tuico): Asian Transmission Corporation (ATC) terminated Catalino
Sarmiento, VP of Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATU) for allegedly carrying a
deadly weapon in company premises. Thus, BATU filed a notice of strike, claiming ATC
committed ULP.

ATC filed petition with MOLE asking it to assume jurisdiction or certify to NLRC. ATC being
an export-oriented company and to avoid adverse effects to national interest and welfare of
350 families of ATC’s workers, MOLE issued order certifying the labor dispute to NLRC and
enjoined lock-out and strike. Order was reiterated upon representation of ATC that some 40
workers still declared a strike and were picketing the company premises. Proceedings in
NLRC however could not continue because 8 NLRC commissioners resigned. Hence, MOLE
assumed jurisdiction. Upon BATU and ATC’s motion in view of appointment of new NLRC
commissioners, however, MOLE returned the case to NLRC.

NLRC finally ordered ATC to accept all striking workers or to reinstate them on payroll
immediately. MR was filed, which was denied. These orders are the subject of present
petition for certiorari. In the meantime, SC issued TRO against the orders.

2nd case (ATC v NLRC): Three criminal complaints were filed against ATC workers for
staging illegal strike, barricading the gates of the ATC plant, and preventing workers through
intimidation, harassment, and force from reporting for work. Warrant of arrest was issued,
but SC issued TRO.

ISSUES & RULING:

(TOPICAL) WON the NLRC validly issued the return to work order in the 1st case
YES. Under Art 264 (g) of the Labor Code, the MOLE may certify a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration.

ATC is an export-oriented enterprise and its annual export amounts to 90% of its sales
generating more than 12 million dollars per year. The corporation employs 350 workers with
a total monthly take home pay of about P1.3 million a month. Any disruption of company
operations will cause the delay of shipments of export-finished products which have been
previously committed to customers abroad, thereby seriously hampering the economic
recovery program which is being pursued by the government. It will also affect gravely the
livelihood of 350 families who will be deprived of their incomes.

The certification was therefore proper. In line with this, the return to work order was equally
valid as a statutory part and parcel of the certification order.
(TOPICAL) WON the return to work order should benefit all the workers, including those who
continued the strike
NO. The return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty; and while as
a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker's will.
Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation.
The worker must return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the
company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and promoting its interest.
That is the real reason such return can be compelled. So imperative is the order in fact that it
is not even considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude, as this Court held
in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills. The worker can of course
give up his work, thus severing his ties with the company, if he does not want to obey the
order; but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to
strike.

The records show that the return-to-work order was first issued on June 3, 1986, and was
reiterated on June 13, 1986. The strike was declared thereafter, if we go by the criminal
complaints in G.R. Nos. 75271-73, where the alleged acts are claimed to have been done on
June 9,1986, and July 15,1986.

These dates are not denied. In fact, the petitioners argue in their pleadings that they were
engaged only in peaceful picketing, which would signify that they had not on those dates
returned to work as required and had decided instead to ignore the said order. By their own
acts, they are deemed to have abandoned their employment and cannot now demand the
right to return thereto by virtue of the very order they have defied.

WON the criminal cases should be suspended

YES. The three criminal cases should be suspended until the completion of the compulsory
arbitration proceedings in the NLRC, conformably to the policy embodied in Circular No. 15,
series of 1982, and Circular No. 9, series of 1986, issued by the Ministry of Justice in
connection with the implementation of B.P. Blg. 227. 21These circulars, briefly stated,
require fiscals and other government prosecutors to first secure the clearance of the Ministry
of Labor and/or the Office of the President "before taking cognizance of complaints for
preliminary investigation and the filing in court of the corresponding informations of cases
arising out of or related to a labor dispute," including "allegations of violence, coercion,
physical injuries, assault upon a person in authority and other similar acts of intimidation
obstructing the free ingress to and egress from a factory or place of operation of the
machines of such factory, or the employer's premises." It does not appear from the record
that such clearance was obtained, conformably to the procedure laid down "to attain the
industrial peace which is the primordial objectives of this law," before the three criminal
cases were filed.

CASE:

G.R. No. 92742 May 6, 1991

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, petitioner,
vs.
NILDA S. JACINTO and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

Facts:

Private respondent Nilda S. Jacinto is an employee of petitioner PCI Bank assigned at its
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Branch as customer relation assistant (CRA) since
August 9, 1971. Her principal duties as CRA are described in the Desk Manual signed and
issued to her wherein it is also written that she acts as "alternate — FX Clerk or Teller."

On May 1, 1984, the bank discovered the loss of some travelers checks amounting to P
25,325.00 in peso equivalent transacted on April 30, 1984. As private respondent acted as
FX clerk on said day inasmuch as the regular FX clerk was on leave, an investigation was
conducted by petitioner of private respondent and other personnel who were interviewed and
allowed to explain their side.

As petitioner found private respondent to be guilty of gross negligence, she was meted ten
(10) days suspension without pay on March 7 to 20, 1984 and was required to pay the
amount of the loss of P25,325.00 by way of salary deductions of P200.00 a month plus 50%
of mid-year bonus; Christmas bonus and profit sharing. She was transferred to the Baclaran
branch of the bank on May 21, 1984.

ISSUE:

The responsibility of an employee of a bank for the loss of certain funds of the bank is the
issue in this case.

1. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING

THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO RESPONDENT JACINTO
AS SHE WAS NOT FORMALLY DESIGNATED TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN
FX CLERK.

2. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

SUSTAINING THE LABOR ARBITER'S FINDING OF NON-CULPABILITY IN FAVOR OF
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD
SHOWING THE CONTRARY.2

RULING:

The petition is impressed with merit.

Any employee who is entrusted with responsibility by his employer should perform the task
assigned to him with care and dedication. The lack of a written or formal designation should
not be an excuse to disclaim any responsibility for any damage suffered by the employer due
to his negligence. The measure of the responsibility of an employee is that if he performed
his assigned task efficiently and according to the usual standards, then he may not be held
personally liable for any damage arising therefrom. Failing in this, the employee must suffer
the consequences of his negligence if not lack of due care in the performance of his duties.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision of the public respondent
dated October 23, 1989 and its resolution dated January 31, 1990 are hereby reversed and
set aside, and the complaint of private respondent is dismissed. However, the penalty
imposed by petitioner on private respondent is hereby modified by requiring private
respondent to indemnify petitioner the amount of P 12,600.00, through regular payroll
deductions. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

CASE:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales &
Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO ABUG, respondents.

Facts:

Four informations were filed 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, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of
the Labor Code.

Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense
because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four
informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal
recruitment only “whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any
employment for a fee. ”

Issue:

How Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, reading as follows, should be be interpreted:

(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.

Whether or not all the acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or more
persons to constitute a crime.

Held:
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) will
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.

CASE:

ROSA C. RODOLFO

VS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

498 SCRA 377 (2006)

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

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 proffered 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.

CASE:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE
LA CRUZ, and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ, accused.

FACTS:

That on or about the period comprised from April 1990 to May 1990 in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, by falsely
representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and recruit workers for
employment abroad, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit
and promise employment/job placement abroad to LEODEGARIO MAULLON, BENY
MALIGAYA and ANGELES JAVIER, without first securing the required license or authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment, in violation of said law.

That the crime described above is committed in large scale as the same was perpetrated
against three (3) persons individually or as [a] group penalized under Articles 38 and 39 as
amended by PD 2018 of the Labor Code (P.D. 442).

The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of three counts of estafa and of illegal
recruitment in large scale.

ISSUE:

WON the appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.

HELD:

The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal.

The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38 (b) of the
Labor Code and penalized under Art. 39 of the same Code, are as follows:

(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under
Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;

(2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit
and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and

(3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group.[10]

The fact that accused-appellant did not sign all the receipts issued to complainants does not
weaken the case of the prosecution. A person charged with illegal recruitment may be
convicted on the strength of the testimonies of the complainants, if found to be credible and
convincing.[14] The absence of receipts to evidence payment does not warrant an acquittal
of the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions cause.[15]

It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both
illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum
prohibitum, whereas estafa is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is
not necessary for conviction in the former, but is required in the latter.[19]

WHEREFORE, the March 6, 1996 Decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa is
hereby AFFIRMED

CASE:

ROMULO SAULO, accused-appellant.

[G.R. No. 125903. November 15, 2000]

FACTS:
Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz,
were charged with violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code[1] illegal recruitment in large
scale and the accused were also charged with three counts of estafa.

During a meeting sometime in April or May, 1990, ROMULO SAULO told BENNY
MALIGAYA that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she gave
him the fees for the processing of her documents. Sometime in May, 1990, Maligaya also
met with AMELIA DE LA CRUZ and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ at their house in Baesa,
Quezon City and they assured her that they were authorized by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for Taiwan. Maligaya paid accused-
appellant and Amelia de la Cruz the amount of P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a receipt
signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz. Seeing that he had reneged on his
promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint against accused-appellant with
the POEA.

Meanwhile, ANGELES JAVIER was told by Ligaya, accused-appellants wife, to

apply for work abroad through accused-appellant. At a meeting in accused-appellants
Quezon City residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that he could get her a job in
Taiwan as a factory worker and that she should give him P35,000.00 for purposes of
preparing Javier’s passport. Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-
appellant, but she did not ask for a receipt as she trusted him. As the overseas employment
never materialized, Javier was prompted to bring the matter before the POEA.

On April 19, 1990, LEODIGARIO MAULLON, upon the invitation of his neighbor
Araceli Sanchez, went to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for
gaining employment abroad. As in the case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant
assured Maullon that he could secure him a job as a factory worker in Taiwan if he pays him
for the processing of his papers. Maullon pay to accused-appellants wife, who issued a
receipt. Thereafter, Maullon paid an additional amount in the presence of accused-appellant
and Amelia de la Cruz, which payment is also evidenced by a receipt. Finally, Maullon pay to
a certain Loreta Tumalig, a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt. Again,
accused-appellant failed to deliver on the promised employment. Maullon thus filed a
complaint with the POEA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not ROMULO SAULO is guilty of the act of Illegal Recruitment and
estafa.

HELD:
Yes. The Court finds that the trial court was justified in holding that accused-
appellant was engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement activities. The prosecution
clearly established that accused-appellant promised the three complainants - Benny
Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan as factory workers
and that he asked them for money in order to process their papers and procure their
passports.

It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor licensedby the Department of
Labor and Employment to engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of
the necessary license or authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities
criminal.

It is also well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and

convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment
is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction in the former, but is required in the latter.
WHEREFORE, Decision of the Trial Court is AFFIRMED subject to
MODIFICATIONS.

CASE:

C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Petitioner
- versus -

HON. UNDERSECRETARY JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., HON. SECRETARY LEONARDO A.

QUISUMBING and RIZAL INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING SERVICES,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 155903

FACTS:

In 1991, Louis Cruise Lines (LCL), a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of Cyprus, entered into a Crewing Agreement[3] with Papadopolous Shipping, Ltd.
(PAPASHIP). PAPASHIP in turn appointed private respondent Rizal International Shipping
Services (Rizal) as manning agency in the Philippines, recruiting Filipino seamen for LCLs
vessel.
Pending approval of the accreditation, Theodoros Savva and Adrias Tjiakouris of LCL
arrived in the Philippines and conducted a series of interviews for seafarers at C.F. Sharps
office. Rizal reported LCLs recruitment activities to the POEA on December 9, 1996, and
requested an ocular inspection of C.F. Sharps premises.

On December 17, 1996, POEA representatives conducted an inspection and found Savva
and Tjiakouris at C.F. Sharp interviewing and recruiting hotel staffs, cooks, and chefs for M/V
Cyprus, with scheduled deployment in January 1997.[4] The Inspection Report[5] signed by
Corazon Aquino of the POEA and countersigned by Mr. Reynaldo Banawis of C.F. Sharp
was thereafter submitted to the POEA.

On January 2, 1997, Rizal filed a complaint[6] for illegal recruitment, cancellation or

revocation of license, and blacklisting against LCL and C.F. Sharp with the POEA, docketed
as POEA Case No. RV-97-01-004. Then, on January 31, 1997, Rizal filed a Supplemental
Complaint[7] adding violation of Section 29 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, for
designating and/or appointing agents, representatives and employees, without prior approval
from the POEA.

ISSUE:

A. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT

PETITIONER IS IN ESTOPPEL IN QUESTIONING THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 19,
1997 AND THE RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1999.

B. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED WHEN IT RULED

THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 6[,] R.A. NO. 8042 IN
RELATION TO ARTICLE 13 (b) and (f) AND ARTICLE 66 (sic) OF THE LABOR CODE AS
AMENDED; RULE II (jj) BOOK I; AND SECTIONS 1 AND 6, RULE I, BOOK III POEA
RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED

THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 29 OF THE LABOR CODE,
AS AMENDED, IN RELATION TO SECTION II (k)[,] RULE I, BOOK VI OF THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT.[20]

HELD:

In holding C.F. Sharp in estoppel, the CA apparently relied on the April 15, 1999 Order of the
POEA, and, thus, declared:

[P]etitioner C.F. Sharp had already manifested its option to have the cash bond posted as
an answer for the alternative fines imposed in the Orders dated December 19, 1997 as
stated in the Order dated April 15, 1999 of the POEA, Adjudication Office x x x. Thus, for
voluntary execution of the Order of the Secretary of DOLE dated December 19, 1997 by
paying the adjudged fines, the petitioner was then estopped from assailing such Order
before Us by way of petition for certiorari. Where a party voluntarily executes, partially or
totally a judgment or acquiesces or ratifies the execution of the same, he is estopped from
appealing therefrom. x x x.[22]

The first issue having been settled, we now resolve whether C.F. Sharp is liable for illegal
recruitment.

The fact that C.F. Sharp did not receive any payment during the interviews is of no moment.
From the language of Article 13(b), the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. Notably, it
is the lack of the necessary license or authority, not the fact of payment, that renders the
recruitment activity of LCL unlawful.

C.F. Sharps claim that the interviews were not for selection and recruitment purposes does
not impress.

C.F. Sharp also denies violating Article 29 of the Labor Code. It insists that Henry Desiderio
was neither an employee nor an agent of C.F. Sharp. Yet, except for its barefaced denial, no
proof was adduced to substantiate it.

Although the rule admits of several exceptions, none of them are in point in this case. In any
event, we have carefully examined the factual findings of the CA and found the same to be
borne out of the record and sufficiently anchored on the evidence presented.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP. No. 53747 are AFFIRMED.

CASE:

PERT/CPM v. Vinuya, G.R. No. 197528, Sept. 5, 2012

FACTS:

Respondents were contracted by the agency for deployment to work as aluminum

fabricator/installer in Modern Metal in Dubai, UAE. The contract was for 2 years, approved
by POEA, providing 9 working hours a day, a salary of 1,350 AED with overtime pay, food
allowance, free and suitable housing, free transportation, free laundry, free medical and
dental services. However, in Dubai, Modern Metals gave them appointment letters with
terms different from those they signed in the Philippines – increasing their employment
terms, reducing salaries, allowances, and benefits. The working conditions were also not as
promised. They complained to their agency but to no avail. Due to unbearable living and
working condition, they resigned from their job and indicated personal/family problems as
their reasons. (except for Era who mentioned real reason). On March 15, 2008, respondents
file a complaint for illegal dismissal against PERT CPM. They agency alleged that they were
not illegally dismissed because they resigned voluntarily. Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint finding that they voluntarily resigned. Respondents appealed to NLRC which
reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter. NLRC pointed out that signing of different contract in
Dubai is illegal. NLRC ordered the payment of agency to pay the salary, placement fee, and
exemplary damages to respondents. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied by NLRC, but modified their judgment adjusting the awards, particularly their salaries,
in light of court’s ruling in Serrano striking down the clause in Sec 10, par 5, RA 8042 which
limits the entitlement of illegally dismissed OFW. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and
questioned the applicability of Serrano ruling. This was denied. CA upheld NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE:

W/N RA 10022, which was enacted on March 8, 2010, restoring the subject clause in Sec 10
of RA 8042 being amendatory in nature can be applied retroactively

HELD:

No. Amendment introduced by RA 10022 cant be given retroactive application because it will
result in an impairment of right that had accrued to the respondents by virtue of Serrano
ruling.

CASE:

PP vs. OCDEN DIGEST

DECEMBER 21, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ
PP vs. OCDEN

G.R. No. 173198

June 1, 2011

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:

WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL

RECRUITMENT COMMITTED IN LARGE SCALE ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WAS NOT
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

HELD:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant Dolores Ocden is DENIED.

NO

After a thorough review of the records of the case, we find nothing on record that would
justify a reversal of Ocden’s conviction.

Illegal recruitment in large scale

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:

xx

(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.

xxxx

**

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. As testified to by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan, Ocden gave such an impression
through the following acts:

(1) Ocden informed Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan about the job opportunity in Italy and the
list of necessary requirements for application;

(2) Ocden required Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard, to attend the
seminar conducted by Ramos at Ocden’s house in Baguio City;

(3) Ocden received the job applications, pictures, bio-data, passports, and the certificates of
previous employment (which was also issued by Ocden upon payment of P500.00), of
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard;

(4) Ocden personally accompanied Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and
Howard, for their medical examinations in Manila;

(5) Ocden received money paid as placement fees by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons,
Jeffries and Howard, and even issued receipts for the same; and (6) Ocden assured Mana-
a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard, that they would be deployed to Italy.

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.

NOTES:

Under the last paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in a large scale, that is,
committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.
In People v. Hu, we held that a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based
on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons, whether individually
or as a group. While it is true that the law does not require that at least three victims testify
at the trial, nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the
offense was committed against three or more persons.

Section 7(b) of RA 8042 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage.
The very same evidence proving Ocden’s liability for illegal recruitment also established her
liability for estafa.
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
under RA 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of
the RPC. It follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his
acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.

The penalty for estafa depends on the amount of defraudation.

CASE:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT

G.R. No. 187730
June 29, 2010

FACTS:

The accused-appellant Gallo, who introduced himself as a relative of MPM Agency and
several others, who were incorporators, board members and employees of MPM, were
charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and eighteen (18) counts of estafa committed
against eighteen complainants.

The present appeal concerns solely accused-appellant’s conviction for syndicated illegal
recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-206293 and for estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-206297
where he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Gallo, along with the others originally accused, made false misrepresentations and promises
in assuring the victims that after they paid the required placement fees, they will immediately
be deployed as factory workers in Korea. Dela Caza, one of the complainants, personally
gave Gallo his money to which the latter issued an official receipt.

Two weeks after paying MPM Agency, Dela Caza found that the agency changed its name
and moved to a new address. He then decided to withdraw his application and recover the
amount he paid but the other accused talked him out of it while Gallo even denied any
knowledge about the money. After two more months of waiting in vain to be deployed, Dela
Caza and the other applicants decided to take Action. The first attempt was unsuccessful
because the agency again moved to another place.

For his defense, accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of Dela Caza.
In fact, he testified that he also applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a
factory
worker. According to him, he gave his application directly with Mardeolyn because she was
his town mate and he could pay only Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP 10,000) as processing fee.

Further, to facilitate the processing of his papers, he agreed to perform some tasks for the
agency, such as taking photographs of the visa and passport of applicants, running errands
and performing such other tasks assigned to him, without salary except for some allowance.
He said that he only saw Dela Caza once or twice at the agencys office when he applied for
work abroad. Lastly, that he was also promised deployment abroad but it never materialized.

ISSUE:

Whether the lower court erred holding Gallo criminally liable for illegal recruitment when was
neither an officer nor an employee of the recruitment agency?

LAW:

Labor Code

Article 13, par. (b) Recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for

profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement.

Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A. 8042), otherwise known as the Migrants and Overseas Filipinos
Act
of 1995

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
nonholder 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 act,
whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority:

(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in
the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or
to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or
advance;

xxxx

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of
Labor and Employment; and (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually
take place without the workers fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in
large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three

(3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed
in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or
direction of their business shall be liable.

CASE HISTORY:

• RTC rendered its Decision convicting the accused of syndicated illegal recruitment
and estafa.

• CA affirmed RTC decision.

• Gallo appelled before the SC.

RULING:

The lower court was correct in holding Gallo criminally liable for illegal recruitment even
when he was neither an officer nor an employee of the recruitment agency.
SC ruled that evidence supports conviction of the crime of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment.

In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A.
8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in
consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of
Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations
concerning the agencys purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment,
and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly
committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.

Additionally, accused-appellant cannot argue that the trial court erred in finding that he was
indeed an employee of the recruitment agency. On the contrary, his active participation in
the
illegal recruitment is unmistakable. The fact that he was the one who issued and signed the
official receipt belies his profession of innocence.

The Court likewise finds the existence of a conspiracy between the accused-appellant and
the other persons in the agency who are currently at large, resulting in the commission of the
crime of syndicated illegal recruitment.

The nature and extent of the actions of accused-appellant, as well as with the other persons
in MPM Agency clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking.
The appeal is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed
decision. CA decision is AFFIRMED.

OPINION:

The Supreme Court was correct in holding Gallo liable for the acts he committed against the
complainant. It is so obvious that Gallo, although not an employee of the agency, was
connected with it and was aware of its illegal transactions being present when it was still
MPM to its further changing of names and addresses.

An employee or not, his actions constitute that of illegal recruitment in large scale, especially
being an active player in convincing the complainants of their immediate deployment in
Korea and personally receiving money from them for this reason.

As always, the court remains firm in its stand to protect the rights of the Filipino workers
against opportunists who will take advantage of their desire to aspire for better life by
dragging them into the illegal recruitment pit.