JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 1

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3)
BOOK ONE - PRE- 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.
EMPLOYMENT
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and
PART I - LAW ON RECRUITMENT / accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or
direction of their business shall be liable.
PLACEMENT

1. Migrant Workers &

Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
Migrant Act of 2010 (RA No. 10022)
(R.A. No. 8042)

Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of Section 2. Section 3, paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and hereby amended to read as follows:
includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority "(a) "Overseas Filipino worker" refers to a person who is to be engaged, is
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. Provided, that such non-license or non-
engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state of which he
holder, who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or or she is not a citizen or on board a vessel navigating the foreign seas other
more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, than a government ship used for miliatry or non-commercial purposes or on an
whether committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or installation located offshore or on the high seas; to be used interchangeably
holder of authority. with migrant worker."

(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the specified in the Section 4. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to amended to read as follows:
make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or
advance;
"SEC. 5. Termination or Ban on Deployment.  - Notwithstanding the provisions
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to of Section 4 hereof, in pursuit of the national interest or when public welfare so
recruitment or employment; requires, the POEA Governing Board, after consultation with the Department of
Foreign Affairs, may, at any time, terminate or impose a ban on the deployment
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of of migrant workers."
misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
Section 5. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in amended to read as follows:
order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from
oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
"SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not to employ any worker procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or
who has not applied for employment through his agency;
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of
(f) To engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code
morality or to dignity of the Republic of the Philippines; 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
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following
Employment or by his duly authorized representative; acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder,
licensee or holder of authority:
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies,
remittances of foreign exchange earnings, separations from jobs, departures and such
other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and "(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that
Employment; specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay or acknowledge any amount
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved
greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without "(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation
the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment; to recruitment or employment;

(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or

"(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any
member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged
directly on indirectly in the management of a travel agency; act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority
under the Labor Code, or for the purpose of documenting hired workers with
the POEA, which include the act of reprocessing workers through a job order
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for
monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code
that pertains to nonexistent work, work different from the actual overseas work,
and its implementing rules and regulations; or work with a different employer whether registered or not with the POEA;

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the Department of "(d) To include or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
Labor and Employment; and employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the "(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any
deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault. Illegal recruitment worker who has not applied for employment through his agency or who has
when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving
economic sabotage.
formed, joined or supported, or has contacted or is supported by any union or
workers' organization;
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 2

"(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to "(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning agency to engage in any kind of
public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines; recruitment activity including the processing of pending workers' applications;
and
"(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, "(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign principal/employer to pass
departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the on the overseas Filipino worker or deduct from his or her salary the payment of
Secretary of Labor and Employment; the cost of insurance fees, premium or other insurance related charges, as
provided under the compulsory worker's insurance coverage.
"(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts
approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the "The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having
the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and ownership, control, management or direction of their business who are
Employment; responsible for the commission of the offense and the responsible
employees/agents thereof shall be liable.
"(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an
officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or "In the filing of cases for illegal recruitment or any of the prohibited acts under
to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of travel agency; this section, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the POEA Administrator
or their duly authorized representatives, or any aggrieved person may initiate
"(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before the corresponding criminal action with the appropriate office. For this purpose,
departure for monetary or financial considerations, or for any other reasons, the affidavits and testimonies of operatives or personnel from the Department
other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules of Labor and Employment, POEA and other law enforcement agencies who
and regulations; witnessed the acts constituting the offense shall be sufficient to prosecute the
accused.
"(l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; "In the prosecution of offenses punishable under this section, the public
prosecutors of the Department of Justice shall collaborate with the anti-illegal
recruitment branch of the POEA and, in certain cases, allow the POEA lawyers
"(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with to take the lead in the prosecution. The POEA lawyers who act as prosecutors
his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where in such cases shall be entitled to receive additional allowances as may be
the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal determined by the POEA Administrator.
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage; and
"The filing of an offense punishable under this Act shall be without prejudice to
the filing of cases punishable under other existing laws, rules or
"(n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a licensed regulations."1avvphi1
recruitment/manning agency.

"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.

"In addition to the acts enumerated above, it shall also be unlawful for any
person or entity to commit the following prohibited acts:

"(1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino worker with interest exceeding eight
percent (8%) per annum, which will be used for payment of legal and allowable
placement fees and make the migrant worker issue, either personally or
through a guarantor or accommodation party, postdated checks in relation to
the said loan;

"(2) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas

Filipino worker is required to avail of a loan only from specifically designated
institutions, entities or persons;

"(3) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by an overseas Filipino

worker after the latter's employment contract has been prematurely terminated
through no fault of his or her own;

"(4) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas

Filipino worker is required to undergo health examinations only from
specifically designated medical clinics, institutions, entities or persons, except
in the case of a seafarer whose medical examination cost is shouldered by the
principal/shipowner;

"(5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas

Filipino worker is required to undergo training, seminar, instruction or schooling
of any kind only from specifically designated institutions, entities or persons,
except fpr recommendatory trainings mandated by principals/shipowners
where the latter shoulder the cost of such trainings;
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 3

ISSUE: Whether all the acts mentioned in Article 13(b) of PD 442

are indispensable requirements in order to constitute illegal
recruitment and placement.

RULING: NO. Article 13(b) states that “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
People vs. Panis, 142 SCRA 664 entity which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1990 recruitment and placement”.
[Link]
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts
vs. HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the CFI of mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(B) will constitute
Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is
ABUG, respondents. involved.

CRUZ, J:

FACTS: On January 9, 1981, four information were filed in the ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Article
Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales and Olongapo City 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code.
alleging that herein private respondent Serapio Abug, "without first
securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of HELD: Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor
authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then Code, states that, "(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to any
and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or
charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
(from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
separate individuals. 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
Abug filed a motion to quash contending that he cannot be more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
charged for illegal recruitment because according to him, Article placement."
13(b) of the Labor Code says there would be illegal recruitment
only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a
or offered any employment for a fee.” condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but
merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the
Denied at first, the motion to quash was reconsidered and granted individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement
by the Trial Court in its Orders dated June 24, 1981, and whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in
September 17, 1981. In the instant case, the view of the private consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made
respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."
more persons as an indispensable requirement. On the other
hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force
persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which
consists of an offer or promise of employment to such persons and has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a
always in consideration of a fee. foreign land, and investing hard-earned savings or even borrowed
funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.
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 ISSUE: SHOULD THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUIT BE
penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper authority, which COMMITTED AGAINST TWO OR MORE PERSONS?
is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of
recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable.
Ruling: The Court ruled that the number of persons is not an
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 13(b) of the Labor Code provides essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of
for the innocence or guilt of the private respondent of the crime of workers. — “As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to
illegal recruitment 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
RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the CFI’s Orders and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons
reinstated all four information filed against private respondent. to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of
The Article 13(b) of the Labor Code was merely intended to create employment is made in the course of the “canvassing, enlisting,
a presumption, and not to impose a condition on the basic rule nor contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.”
to provide an exception thereto. The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of
the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts
Where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute
employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is
entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that
of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
the said presumption. employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or
entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 4

of recruitment and placement. The words ‘shall be deemed’ create JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. (JMM for brevity) and Kary
that presumption.” International, Inc. (Kary for brevity) filed a motion for intervention in
the civil case which was granted by the trial court on February 15,
SYLLABUS 1995. However, on February 21, 1995, the trial court issued an
order denying petitioner's prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction and dismissed the compliant. An appeal was
Labor; Recruitment and placement; Interpretation; Article 13(b) of made to the trial court regarding its decision but it was also
P.D. 442, interpreted; Presumption that the individual or entity is however, dismissed. As a consequences, ARB requirement was
engaged in recruitment and placement whenever two or more issed. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision and
persons are involved; Number of persons, not an essential concluded that the said issuance constituted a valid exercise of
ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers.—As Police power.
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 ISSUE: Whether or not the the said issuance is a valid exercise of
entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it Police Power.
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 RULING: Yes, the ARB requirement and questioned Department
the “canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring Order related to its issuance were issued by the Secretary of
or procuring (of) workers.” The number of persons dealt with is not Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of Police Power by the State.
an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of The proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade
workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise
13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one of police power by the state particularly when their conduct afffects
prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a either the execution of a legitimate governmental functions, the
rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public
promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective morals. According to the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non
workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed laedas  (use your property in such a fashion so as to not disturb
to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words others) it must of course be within the legitimate range of
“shall be deemed” create that presumption. legislative action to define the mode and manner in which every
one may so use his own property so as not to pose injury to
Words “shall be deemed” in Art. 13(b) of P.D. 442, meaning of.—In himself or others.
the instant case, the word “shall be deemed” should by the same
token be given the force of a disputable presumption or of prima In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the right
facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and placement. (Klepp v. of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is
Odin Tp., McHenry County 40 ND N.W. 313, 314.) certainly much wider. To pretend that licensing or accreditation
requirements violates due process clause is to ignore the settled
practice, under the mantle of the police power, of regulating entry
to the practice of various trades or profession. Professional leaving
for abroad are required to pass rigid written and practical exams
JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. et al. vs. CA, G.R. No. before they are deemed fit to practice their trade. It is not claimed
120095, 5 August 1996 that these requirements pose an unwarranted deprivation of a
property right under the due process clause. So long as
[Link] professionals and other workers meet reasonable regulatory
standards no such deprivation exists.
G.R. No. 120095 August 5, 1996

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and KARY

INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, FACTS: Due to the death of one Maricris Sioson in 1991, Cory
vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MA. NIEVES banned the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other
CONFESSOR, then Secretary of the Department of Labor and destinations. This was relaxed however with the introduction of the
Employment, HON. JOSE BRILLANTES, in his capacity as acting Entertainment Industry Advisory Council which later proposed a
Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment and HON. plan to POEA to screen and train performing artists seeking to go
FELICISIMO JOSON, in his capacity as Administrator of the abroad. In pursuant to the proposal POEA and the secretary of
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, respondents. DOLE sought a 4 step plan to realize the plan which included an
Artist’s Record Book which a performing artist must acquire prior
KAPUNAN, J.: to being deployed abroad. The Federation of Talent Managers of
the Philippines assailed the validity of the said regulation as it
violated the right to travel, abridge existing contracts and rights
FACTS: The Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the
and deprives artists of their individual rights. JMM intervened to
Philippines (FETMOP for brevity) filed a class suit on January 27,
bolster the cause of FETMOP. The lower court ruled in favor of
1995 assailing that the Department Order No. 3 which establishes
EIAC.
various procedures and requirements for screening performing
artists under a new system of training, testing, certification and
deployment of the former and other related issuance, principally ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation by EIAC is valid.
contending that the said orders, 1.)violated the constitutional right
to travel; 2.) abridged existing contracts for employment; and 3.) HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the lower court. The regulation is a
deprived individual artists of their licenses without due process of valid exercise of police power. Police power concerns government
law. FETMOP also averred that the issuance of the Artist Record enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or
Book (ARB) was discriminatory and illegal and in gross violation of property in order to promote the general welfare or the common
the constitutional right to life liberty and property. FETMOP prayed good.
for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against the
orders. As the assailed Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, it
follows that the burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that
the said order,  particularly, its ARB requirement, does not
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 5

enhance the public welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or Constitution provides: Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a
unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists, primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers
particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of and promote their welfare. More emphatically, the social justice
Department Order No. 3. Short of a total and absolute ban against provision on labor of the 1987 Constitution in its first paragraph
the deployment of performing artists to “”high risk”” destinations, a states: The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
measure which would only drive recruitment further underground, overseas, organized and unorganized and promote full
the new scheme at the very least rationalizes the method of employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
screening performing artists by requiring reasonable educational
and artistic skills from them and limits deployment to only those Same; Same; Protection to labor does not indicate promotion of
individuals adequately prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment alone.—Obviously, protection to labor does not
employment as artists abroad. It cannot be gainsaid that this indicate promotion of employment alone. Under the welfare and
scheme at least lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous social justice provisions of the Constitution, the promotion of full
individuals and agencies. employment, while desirable, cannot take a backseat to the
government’s constitutional duty to provide mechanisms for the
protection of our workforce, local or overseas.

SYLLABUS Same; Same; A profession, trade or calling is a property right

within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees.—A
Constitutional Law; Police Power; The latin maxim salus populi est profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of
suprema lex embodies the character of the entire spectrum of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right
public laws aimed at promoting the general welfare of the people to work and the right to make a living because these rights are
under the State’s police power.—The latin maxim salus populi est property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which
suprema lex embodies the character of the entire spectrum of normally constitutes an actionable wrong.
public laws aimed at promoting the general welfare of the people
under the State’s police power. As an inherent attribute of Same; Same; No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a
sovereignty which virtually “extends to all public needs,” this “least profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a
limitable” of governmental powers grants a wide panoply of legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the
instruments through which the state, as parens patriae gives effect state.— Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper
to a host of its regulatory powers. regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always
been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the
Same; Same; Police power concerns government enactments police power by the state particularly when their conduct affects
which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order either the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the
to promote the general welfare or the common good.—Thus, preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public
police power concerns government enactments which precisely morals. According to the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the laedas, it must of course be within the legitimate range of
general welfare or the common good. As the assailed Department legislative action to define the mode and manner in which every
Order enjoys a presumed validity, it follows that the burden rests one may so use his own property so as not to pose injury to
upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said order, particularly, its himself or others.
ARB requirement, does not enhance the public welfare or was
exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Same; Same; So long as professionals and other workers meet
reasonable regulatory standards no such deprivation exists.—
Same; Same; The Artist Record Book requirement and the Locally, the Professional Regulation Commission has begun to
questioned Department Order related to its issuance were issued require previously licensed doctors and other professionals to
by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of the police furnish documentary proof that they had either re-trained or had
power.—A thorough review of the facts and circumstances leading undertaken continuing education courses as a requirement for
to the issuance of the assailed orders compels us to rule that the renewal of their licenses. It is not claimed that these requirements
Artist Record Book requirement and the questioned Department pose an unwarranted deprivation of a property right under the due
Order related to its issuance were issued by the Secretary of process clause. So long as professionals and other workers meet
Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of the police power. reasonable regulatory standards no such deprivation exists.

Same; Same; The welfare of Filipino performing artists, particularly Same; Same; The equal protection clause of the Constitution does
the women was paramount in the issuance of Department Order not forbid classification for so long as such classification is based
No. 3.—Clearly, the welfare of Filipino performing artists, on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to
particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of the subject of the particular legislation.—The equal protection
Department Order No. 3. Short of a total and absolute ban against clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or
the deployment of performing artists to “high-risk” destinations, a class privilege. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is
measure which would only drive recruitment further underground, limited to the object to which it is directed or by the territory in
the new scheme at the very least rationalizes the method of which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but
screening performing artists by requiring reasonable educational merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both
and artistic skills from them and limits deployment to only those as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. We have held,
individuals adequately prepared for the unpredictable demands of time and again, that the equal protection clause of the Constitution
employment as artists abroad. It cannot be gainsaid that this does not forbid classification for so long as such classification is
scheme at least lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable
individuals and agencies. relation to the subject of the particular legislation. If classification is
germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of the
class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the
Same; Same; Apart from the State’s police power, the Constitution classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee. JMM
itself mandates government to extend the fullest protection to our Promotion and Management, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA
overseas workers.—In any event, apart from the State’s police 319, G.R. No. 120095 August 5, 1996
power, the Constitution itself mandates government to extend the
fullest protection to our overseas workers. The basic constitutional
statement on labor, embodied in Section 18 of Article II of the
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 6

Isalyn Echavez vs. Bonto-Perez, G.R. No. 109808, 1 March 1995 SYLLABUS

[Link] Labor Law; Court holds that the managerial commission

agreement executed by petitioner to authorize her Japanese
G.R. No. 109808 March 1, 1995 employer to deduct Two Hundred Fifty U.S. Dollars from her
monthly basic salary is void because it is against our existing laws,
morals and public policy.—Firstly, we hold that the managerial
ESALYN CHAVEZ, petitioner, commission agreement executed by petitioner to authorize her
vs. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, HON. ROGELIO T. RAYALA, Japanese employer to deduct Two Hundred Fifty U.S. Dollars
HON. DOMINGO H. ZAPANTA, HON. JOSE N. SARMIENTO, (US$250.00) from her monthly basic salary is void because it is
CENTRUM PROMOTIONS PLACEMENT CORPORATION, JOSE against our existing laws, morals and public policy. It cannot
A. AZUCENA, JR., and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE supersede the standard employment contract of December 1,
COMPANY, INC. respondents. 1988 approved by the POEA with the following stipulation
appended thereto: “It is understood that the terms and conditions
PUNO, J.: stated in this Employment Contract are in conformance with the
Standard Employment Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the
FACTS: Chavez is a dancer who was contracted by Centrum POEA under Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. Any
Placement & Promotions Corporation to perform in Japan for 6 alterations or changes made in any part of this contract without
months. The contract was for $1.5k a month, which was approved prior approval by the POEA shall be null and void”; (Emphasis
by POEA. After the approval of said contract, Chavez entered into supplied.)
a side contract reducing her salary with her Japanese employer
through her local manager-agency (Jaz Talents Promotion). The Same; The basic salary of One Thousand Five Hundred U.S.
salary was reduced to $500 and $750 was to go to Jaz Talents. In Dollars guaranteed to petitioner under the parties’ standard
February 1991 (two years after the expiration of her contract), employment contract is in accordance with the minimum
Chavez sued Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents for employment standards with respect to wages set by the POEA.—
underpayment of wages before the POEA. Clearly, the basic salary of One Thousand Five Hundred U.S.
Dollars (US$1,500.00) guaranteed to petitioner under the parties’
The POEA ruled against her. POEA stated that the side standard employment contract is in accordance with the minimum
agreement entered into by Chavez with her Japanese employer employment standards with respect to wages set by the POEA.
superseded the Standard Employment Contract; that POEA had Thus, the side agreement which reduced petitioner’s basic wage to
no knowledge of such side agreement being entered into; that Seven Hundred Fifty U.S. Dollars (US$750.00) is null and void for
Chavez is barred by laches for sleeping on her right for two years. violating the POEA’s minimum employment standards, and for not
having been approved by the POEA. Indeed, this side agreement
is a scheme all too frequently resorted to by unscrupulous
ISSUE: Whether or not Chavez is entitled to relief.
employers against our helpless overseas workers who are
compelled to agree to satisfy their basic economic needs.
HELD: Yes. The SC ruled that the managerial commission
agreement executed by Chavez to authorize her Japanese
Civil Law; Laches; Definition of Laches.—Laches has been defined
Employer to deduct her salary is void because it is against our
as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained
existing laws, morals and public policy. It cannot supersede the
length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could
standard employment contract approved by the POEA with the
or should have been done earlier, thus giving rise to a presumption
following stipulation appended thereto:
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined
to assert it. It is not concerned with mere lapse of time; the fact of
It is understood that the terms and conditions stated in this delay, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute laches.
Employment Contract are in conformance with the Standard
Employment Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the POEA
Same; Same; There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes
under Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. Any
laches.—The doctrine of laches is based upon grounds of public
alterations or changes made in any part of this contract without
policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement
prior approval by the POEA shall be null and void;
of stale claims, and is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
The side agreement which reduced Chavez’s basic wage is null There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches; each case
and void for violating the POEA’s minimum employment is to be determined according to its particular circumstances. The
standards, and for not having been approved by the POEA. Here, question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the
both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents are solidarily liable. court, and since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is
controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be worked to
Laches does not apply in the case at bar. In this case, Chavez defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice.
filed her claim well within the three-year prescriptive period for the
filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code.
For this reason, laches is not applicable.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 7

Same; Same; Court holds that the doctrine of laches is

inapplicable to petitioner.—In the case at bench, petitioner filed her
claim well within the three-year prescriptive period for the filing of
money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code. For this
reason, we hold the doctrine of laches inapplicable to petitioner.
Chavez vs. Bonto-Perez, 242 SCRA 73, G.R. No. 109808 March
1, 1995

2. Ban on Deployment

3. Who may engaged

4. Prohibited Practices
Article 34 LC

5. Ban on Direct Hiring

Article 18 LC

PART II - ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

1. Elements

The RTC found Sison guilty (1) illegal recruitment involving

economic sabotage, and (2) estafa under Article 315 of the RPC.
People vs Sison, G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017
FACTS: Sometime in November or December 1999, Darvy M.
[Link] Castuera (Castuera) was introduced to Sison by her husband, a
certain Col. Alex Sison (Col. Sison), a police officer assigned at
G.R. No. 187160 Camp Crame, Quezon City. Castuera's aunt, Edna Magalona, was
then teaching police officers at Camp Crame and Col. Sison was
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, one of her students. Col. Sison happened to mention that his wife
vs. ERLINDA A. SISON@ "MARGARITA S. AGUILAR,", Appellant. can facilitate papers for workers in Australia. Castuera and
Magalona then proceeded to Col. Sison's home in Las Pinas.
There, they met Sison and she briefed Castuera on the
CARPIO, J.: requirements for working as a fruit picker in Australia.

During that meeting, Sison introduced Castuera to another man

who related that he was able to go to Australia with Sison's help.
She also showed Castuera pictures of other people she had
supposedly helped to get employment in Australia. Sison further
narrated that a couple she had helped had given her their car as
payment. Because of Sison's representations, Castuera believed in
her promise that she could send him to Australia.

Sison asked Castuera for P180,000 for processing his papers. After
some negotiations, Sison agreed to lower the fee to P160,000.
Castuera was to pay half before he leaves the Philippines and the
other half will be taken from his salary in Australia.

On 16 June 2000, Castuera met Sison at McDonald's in SM

Megamall to give the P80,000 down payment. Sison issued a
signed document as proof of payment. Castuera's companions, his
aunt Edna Magalona and cousin Mark Magalona, also signed the
document as witnesses. Sison promised Castuera that she would
personally process his visa application.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 8

Sison, however, failed to secure an Australian visa for Castuera. employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
She told him that it was difficult to get an Australian visa in the recruitment and placement."
Philippines so they had to go to Malaysia to get one. She also said
that Castuera's Australian visa was already in Malaysia and his Illegal recruitment, on the other hand, is defined in Article 38: Article
personal appearance was required there. 38. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT . - (a) Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
On 28 June 2008, Sison and Castuera left Manila for Zamboanga this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
City by plane and from there, rode a boat to Sandakan, Malaysia. authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of
Sison told Castuera that he only needed to stay in Malaysia for a this Code. The Department of Labor and Employment or any law
week then he would proceed to Australia. enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. x x x x

Twice, they nearly overstayed in Malaysia. Each time, Sison and RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
Castuera would leave for Brunei, stay there for three days, and then 1995, approved on 7 June 1995, further strengthened the protection
go back to Malaysia. The second time they returned to Malaysia, extended to those seeking overseas employment. Section 6, in
they met several of Sison's other recruits - other Filipinos who have particular, extended the activities covered under the term illegal
come in through Thailand - as well as Sison's co-accused, Rea recruitment:
Dedales (Dedales) and Leonardo Bacomo (Bacomo). Castuera was
told that the group would be proceeding to Indonesia to process Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment
their Australian visas there. The group then left for Indonesia. [shall xxx] include the following acts:
However, the day after arriving in Indonesia, Sison went back to the
Philippines, leaving Castuera and the other recruits with Dedales (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in
and Bacomo. connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take
Subsequently, Castuera's application for an Australian visa in place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed
Indonesia was denied. Dedales said it was harder to get an by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense
Australian visa from Indonesia and told Castuera to apply for a U.S. involving economic sabotage.
visa instead. Dedales asked for US$1,000 for the processing of his
U.S. visa, which he paid. However, when his U.S. visa came,
Castuera saw that it was in an Indonesian passport bearing an Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out
Indonesian name. Because of this, Castuera decided to just return by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
to the Philippines. He asked for his US$1,000 back but Dedales with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
would not return it. His Philippine passport was also not returned against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
immediately causing him to overstay in Indonesia. He found out
then that the extension papers that Dedales and Bacomo procured Simply put, illegal recruitment is "committed by persons who,
for him were fake. without authority from the government, give the impression that they
have the power to send workers abroad for employment
Castuera sought the help of the Philippine Embassy in Indonesia purposes." To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that "the
and was able to return to the Philippines using his own funds. accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had
the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner
that they were convinced to part with their money for that end."
Upon returning to the Philippines, Castuera filed a complaint against
Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo at the Philippine Overseas Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either non-license or
Employment Administration (POEA). The agency verified that license holders. Non-license holders are liable by the simple act of
Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo did not have any license or permit to engaging in recruitment and placement activities, while license
hire and recruit for overseas employment. holders may also be held liable for committing the acts prohibited
under Section 6 of RA 8042.
ISSUE: 
Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits
Is the accused guilty of illegal recruitment and placement via a illegal recruitment for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by any
syndicate? act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract
Is the accused guilty of estafa? services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether
for profit or not; or (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated
under Section 6 of RA 8042.
Can the accused be held guilty of both illegal recruitment and
estafa?
In this case, Sison herself admits that she has no license or
authority to undertake recruitment and placement activities. The
Court has held in several cases that an accused who represents to
others that he or she could send workers abroad for employment,
HELD: The appeal has no merit. The assailed decision of the Court even without the authority or license to do so, commits illegal
of Appeals is affirmed, with modification as to the penalty imposed recruitment.
in the estafa case.
Illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, as in the present case,
Illegal Recruitment by a Syndicate - Economic Sabotage. Under has the following elements: (a) the offender does not have the valid
Article 13(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, also license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the
placement refers to "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, "recruitment and placement" activities defined in Article 13(b) of the
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes Labor Code, or engages in any of the prohibited practices
referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for employment, enumerated under now Section 6 of RA 8042; and (c) the illegal
locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any recruitment is "carried out by a group of three or more persons
person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 9

unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme." In the third Castuera, whom she only met at that time, that she was a legitimate
element, it "is not essential that there be actual proof that all the recruiter.
conspirators took a direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they
acted in concert pursuant to the same objective." Third, Castuera relied on Sison's representations. He believed that
she could send him to Australia because of the pictures and
testimonials she showed him. He also relied on the fact that his aunt
knew Sison's husband, a police officer, adding to her
The acts of Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo show a common purpose trustworthiness. Sison banked on that trust to convince Castuera to
and and each undertook a part to reach their objective. Their part with his money and be "recruited" into overseas employment.
concerted action is evident in that either Sison or Dedales was Castuera believed that Sison had the same ability to send him to
receiving payments from the recruits; that Dedales signed the Australia. He did not even ask for her authority or check for himself
acknowledgment receipt from Sison; and that the three with the POEA, relying instead on her word. This tells us that he
accompanied their recruits together in seeking out their visas in was fully convinced based on Sison's representations.
Malaysia and Indonesia. Further, the impression given to Castuera
and other recruits was that the three were indeed working together. Fourth, Sison's misrepresentation resulted in damage to Castuera.
He paid the P80,000 down payment that Sison required of him as
Since it was proven that the three accused were acting in concert processing fee, but the purpose for which it was paid never
and conspired with one another, their illegal recruitment activity is materialized. Likewise, said amount was never reimbursed to
considered done by a syndicate, making the offense illegal Castuera despite his demands for its return.
recruitment involving economic sabotage. The penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.

Estafa. The Court affirmed Sison's conviction for estafa under

Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. It is settled that a person, for the same
acts, may be convicted separately for illegal recruitment under RA
8042 and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. In People v.
Daud, the Court explained:

The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the

criminal intent of the accused is not necessary. for conviction, while
estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is
crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code
does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. 

The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a)

of the RPC are:

(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent

representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such
false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the FACTS: On November 6, 2008, Sison appeal to the SC the decision
fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, of CA finding her guilty of illegal recruitment involving economic
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his sabotage and Estafa.
money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage Sometime in November or December 1999, Darvy Castuera was
introduced to Sison by her husband to Col. Alex Sison that time
All these elements are present in this case. assigned at Camp Crame in Quezon City. Edna Magalona,
Castuera’s aunt was then teaching police officers and one of them
First, Sison misrepresented her qualifications and authority to send was Col. Alex Sison. Col. Alex Sison mentioned that his wife can
Castuera to work in Australia. She actively made Castuera believe facilitate papers for workers in Australia.
that she had the ability to do so — she showed pictures of her
"recruits," had one of them give a testimonial, and told him stories to Castuera and Magalona meet Sison.
convince him of such ability. It did not matter that "they had no
agreement"that their transaction was for recruitment or deployment. During the meeting, Sison asked Castuera 180,000 for processing
All her acts were calculated to convince Castuera that Sison was his papers but it was lowered to 160, 000 pesos. On June 16, 2000,
qualified to send him abroad for employment. It is enough that she Castuera and Sison met at Sm Megamall to give 80,000 as down
"gave the impression that [she] had the power to send workers payment and Sison promissed to personally processed his visa
abroad for employment purposes." apllication.

Second, Sison's false representation was made prior to or Sison, however, failed to secure an Australian Visa for Castuera,
simultaneous to the commission of the fraud. Sison used these instead informed Castuera to proceed to Malaysia.
false representations to convince Castuera that he would be able to
go to Australia and be a fruit picker, just like her other recruits.
These representations were clearly mere devices to convince
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 10

On June 28, 2008, Sison and Castuera travelled to Malaysia, Brunei ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of syndicated estafa.
and returned to Malaysia. When in Malaysia, Castuera met other
recruits and cohorts of Sison. Castuera was told to proceed to RULING: YES. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
Indonesia. syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. Under RA 8042, a
Upon arriving at Indonesia, Sison went back to the Philippines, non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment
leaving Castuera and other recruits with Dedales and Bacomo. for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
Subsequently, Castuera' s application for Australian Visa was workers, and includes referring, contract services, promising or
denied. Dedales, however, informed Castuera that it is better and advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not; or (2)
easier to acquire US Visa but for $1000 as processing fee, where by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under Section 6 of RA
Castuera paid. 8042.

When his US Visa arrived it was an Indonesian passport bearing In this case, appellant herself admits that she has no license or
Indonesian name, because of this Castuera decided to return to the authority to undertake recruitment and placement activities. Since it
Philippines and demanded to Dedales the return of $1000 as will a was proven that the three accused were acting in concert and
his passport but to no avail and causing Castuera to overstay and conspired with one another, their illegal recruitment activity is
later he found out that the papers that Dedales and Bacomo considered done by a syndicate, making the offense illegal
produced were fake. recruitment involving economic sabotage.

Castuera sought the help of the Philippine Embassy and was able
to return to the Philippines using his own funds.
Ratio Decidendi: It is not essential that there be actual proof that all
Castuera then filed a complaint against Sison, Dedales and the conspirators took a direct part in every act.
Bacomo before POEA. Sison et all has no license or permit to hire
and recruit for overseas employment. Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed
the Decision of the RTC finding Sison guilty beyond reasonable
In RTC's decision, Sison found guilty of the crime charged. doubt of (1) violation of Section 6, in relation to Section 7, of
Republic Act No. 8042 or illegal recruitment involving economic
sabotage.
CA dismissed Sison’s appeal.

People vs Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015

ISSUE:  WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF SISON WAS
ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
[Link]
RULING: The appeal has no merit. The assailed decision of CA is
affirmed with modification as to the penalty imposed in the Estafa PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
Case. Sison is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years, 2 months vs. ALELIE TOLENTINO a.k.a. "Alelie Tolentino y Hernandez," Appellant.
of prision correccional as minimum to 13 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum. Sison is also ordered to pay Darvy Castuera CARPIO, J.:
the amount of 80, 000 as actual damages with legal interest of 6%
per year until the amount is fully paid.

FACTS: Casuera and Magalona met appellant and the latter briefed PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO
Castuera on the requirements for working as a fruit picker in
Australia. She introduced Castuera to another man who related that
he was able to go to Australia with her help. She also showed SUMMARY:
Castuera pictures of other people she had supposedly helped to get
employment in Australia. Appellant further narrated that a couple RTC- GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMANT AT
she had helped had given her their car as payment. Because of her LARGE SCALE AND 5 COUNTS ESTAFA
representations, Castuera believed in her promise that she could
send him to Australia. Appellant asked Castuera for ₱180,000 for CA- AFFIRMED RTC’S DECISION
processing his papers.
SC- AFFIRMED RTC’S ND CA’S DECISION WITH
Appellant, however, failed to secure an Australian visa for Castuera. MODIFICTIONS ON PENALTIES
Together with Dedales and Bacomo, appellant convinced
Castueara that that it was difficult to get an Australian visa in the
ANTECEDENTS:
Philippines so they had to go to Malaysia or in Indonesia to get one.
Subsequently, Castuera's application for an Australian visa in
Indonesia was denied. Dedales asked for US$1,000 for the ALELIE TOLENTINO a.k.a. "Alelie Tolentino y Hernandez was
processing of his U.S. visa, which he paid. However, when his U.S. charged at RTC Muntinlupa with illegal recruitment and five (5)
visa came, Castuera saw that it was in an Indonesian passport counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
bearing an Indonesian name. Because of this, Castuera decided to Penal Code
just return to the Philippines.
Accused represented to the 5 complainants that she could secure
work at Korea and she is capable of processing the travel visa and
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 11

other documents for their travel and employment at Korea and a. induced them to pay placement fees, which included
demanded from the said complainant to pay the amount of the expenses for medical examination and the
₱80,000.00 as placement fee, except for LEDERLE PANESA, processing of their documents
which is 75, 000.00
b. showed pictures of previous applicants, whom she
Complainants gave and delivered a partial payment to the allegedly helped find work abroad
appellant, however upon learning of the accused’s arrest for illegal
recruitment, they demanded their money be returned but failed to c. also explained to them the procedure for overseas
recover such amounts. , private complainants were able to secure a employment and promised them that she would secure
certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment their visas and employment contracts within three
Administration (POEA) that appellant was not licensed to recruit months
workers for overseas employment.
3. There are at least three victims in this case which makes
RTC’S DECISION: Court finds accused Alelie guilty beyond appellant liable for large-scale illegal recruitment.
reasonable doubt of the offense of

a. large scale illegal recruitment, which constitutes economic 4. Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the
sabotage in Criminal Case Case No. 02-755 and sentences opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor
her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00; during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the
witnesses and their testimonies. 17 Appellant’s mere denial
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of
b. and five counts of estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the RPC,
the complainants.18 The trial court’s findings are accorded
great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or
APPEAL AT COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed the trial court’s misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered
decision might affect the result of the case. 19 Furthermore, factual
findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of
Contentions AND Observations: Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.

Appellant admitted that she had no authority or valid license to

engage in recruitment and placement of workers.
AS TO ESTAFA
The testimonies and the documentary evidence submitted by the
prosecution showed that appellant led complainants to believe that 1. In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
she had the power or ability to send private complainants to Korea that appellant deceived private complainants into believing
to work as factory workers and that the latter were convinced to give that she had the authority and capability to send them to
their payment to appellant in order to be employed Korea for employment, despite her not being licensed by the
POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Appellant even issued petty cash vouchers acknowledging receipt
of private complainants’ payment and she made them sign Trainee a. She even showed them pictures of past applicants
Agreements, which were purportedly their contract with their Korean whom she allegedly sent abroad for work.
employer.
b. She also assured them that she would be able to
Appellant’s claim that it was Narcisa Santos who recruited the secure their visas and employment contracts once they
private complainants and who profited from the illegal transaction pay the placement fee.
was disregarded by the Court of Appeals for lack of evidence. The
Court of Appeals noted that it was appellant who dealt directly with
private complainants. c. Because of the assurances given by appellant, private
complainants paid appellant a portion of the agreed
The Court of Appeals ruled that a person may be charged and placement fee, for which appellant issued petty cash
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. vouchers24 with her signature, evidencing her receipt of
8042 (RA 8042) in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under the payments. Clearly, these acts of appellant
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. constitute estafa punishable under Article 315 (2)(a) of
the Revised Penal Code.
APPEAL AT SUPREME COURT: AFFIRMED CA AND RT’C
DECISION WITH MODIFICATION ON PENALTIES

Contentions AND Observations: BASIS OF ESTAFA RULING BY SC:

AS TO ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT The elements of estafa are present:

1. Appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority as (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
evidenced by POEA Certification and as admitted by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered
appellant, she has no valid license or authority required by damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers. BASIS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AT LARGE SCALE RULING
BY SC:
2. Despite the absence of a license or authority, appellant gave
the impression that she has the power or ability to secure RA 8042,12 otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas
work for private complainants in Korea. Filipinos Act of 1995,"
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 12

 established a higher standard of protection and promotion of (f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs
the welfare of the migrant workers, their families and harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic
overseas Filipinos in distress. of the Philippines;

(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of

 RA 8042 also broadened the concept of illegal recruitment for Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
overseas employment and increased the penalties, especially
for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment
Committed by a Syndicate, which are considered offenses (h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
involving economic sabotage.13 vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation
from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may
be required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
  Part II of RA 8042 defines and penalizes illegal recruitment
for employment abroad, whether undertaken by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority or by a licensee or holder (i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment
of authority. contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties
up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without
Section 6 of RA 8042 provides for the definition of illegal the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
recruitment, while
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to
Section 7 enumerates the penalties therefor, thus: become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation
engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in
SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment the management of a travel agency;
shall mean any act of
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers
1. canvassing, before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than
2. enlisting, those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules
3. contracting, and regulations;
4. transporting,
5. utilizing, (l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by
6. hiring, or the Department of Labor and Employment; and
7. procuring workers and includes
a. referring,
b. contract services, (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
c. promising or connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
d. advertising for employment abroad, 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.
-whether for profit or not,
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT DEEMED COMMITTED BY A
when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority SYNDICATE AND IN LARGE SCALE
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  if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad for two or conspiring or confederating with one another.
more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include
the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a  It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority: against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group.
(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 PERSONS LIABLE OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
advance;
The persons liable for the above offenses are the principals,
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the
in relation to recruitment or employment; officers having control, management or direction of their business
shall be liable.
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or
commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a *** the maximum penalty shall be imposed If the person illegally
license or authority under the Labor Code; recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to
quit his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer DIFFERENCE OF LABOR CODE AND RA 8042
is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and
conditions of employment;
Except for the last two acts [(l) and (m)] on the list under Article 6 of
RA8042, the first eleven acts or practices are also listed in Article
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to 3414 of the Labor Code under the heading "Prohibited practices."
employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his But such acts or practices do not constitute illegal recruitment when
agency; undertaken by a licensee or holder of authority, ONLY if committed
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 13

by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, liable for illegal That in or about and sometime between the months of April 2006
recruitment-Article 38(A) of the Labor Code. RA 8042 broadened and June 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the
the definition of illegal recruitment whether committed by licensee or jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused,
holder of authority; non-licensee or non-holder of authority. being authorized by the DOLE to recruit workers for overseas
employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits recruit and promise 8 complainants, namely:
illegal recruitment for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by 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; and (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated
under Section 6 of RA 8042. On the other hand, a licensee or
holder of authority is also liable for illegal recruitment for overseas for overseas job placement and in consideration of said promise,
employment when he or she undertakes any of the thirteen acts or said complainants paid and delivered to accused sums of money as
practices [(a) to (m)] listed under Section 6 of RA 8042. T placement/processing fees and having failed to actually deploy said
complainants without any valid reason and without the latter’s fault,
Illegal recruitment, as defined under Article 38 of the Labor Code, the said accused failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the
encompasses recruitment activities for both local and overseas said private complainants in connection with the documentation and
employment. However, illegal recruitment under this article is limited processing of their papers for purposes of their deployment, to the
to recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders damage and prejudice of the above named complainants.
of authority.10 Thus, under the Labor Code, to constitute illegal
recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: Contrary to law.

1. The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under In Crim. Case No. 07-3108 for illegal recruitment in a large scale
Art. 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of with another accused Vincent Zulueta (the case against the latter
the Labor Code. was sent to the archives as he was at large):

2. He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in That in or about the months of April and May 2006, in the City of
the recruitment and placement of workers. Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and
3. He committed the same against three or more persons, confederating together and both of them mutually helping and
individually or as a group.11 aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously recruit and promise employment/job placement to
RICHARD COLLAMAR, CAROL COLLAMAR, and CECILLE M.
BARTOLOME as factory workers in Korea, and in consideration of
said promise collected from complainants the total amount of
P225,000.00 as placement/processing fees and both accused
despite receipt of the fees from complainants failed to actually
deploy said complainants without valid reasons and without the
workers’ fault, and despite demand to reimburse expenses to said
complainants, thus, in large scale amounting to economic sabotage.

Contrary to law.

In Criminal Case No. 08-066 for illegal recruitment:

That in or about the period from April to June 2006, in the City of
Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, being then authorized by the
People vs Cabral, G.R. No. 207811, June 1, 2016 POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise
People vs. Molina, 792 SCRA 14, G.R. No. 207811 June 1, 2016 complainants ROSEMARIE A. RESPUETO and LEO JOHN M.
ALDAY overseas employment as factory workers in South Korea,
and in consideration of said promise, complainants paid and
Peralta, J.
delivered to accused sums of money as placement/processing fees,
and having failed to actually deploy complainants without any valid
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 14, 2012 of reason and without the latter’s fault, the accused failed to reimburse
the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming with modification the Decision2 the expenses incurred by complainants in connection with the
dated May 31, 2010 of the RTC, Branch 143, Makati City, in two documentation and processing of their papers for purposes of
cases, Criminal Case No. 07-1399 and Criminal Case No. 07-3108 deployment, in violation of the aforecited law.
against appellant Delia Molina for the crimes of illegal recruitment in
a large scale and illegal recruitment, respectively.
Contrary to law.

The facts follow.

Three informations were filed against appellant alleging the

At the respective arraignment of the cases mentioned above,
following:
appellant pleaded not guilty to each of the charges. Thereafter, trial
on the merits ensued.
In Crim. Case No. 07-1399 for illegal recruitment in a large scale:
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 14

The following are the factual findings of the CA based on the trial P75,000.00 placement fee each. Bartolome tendered the said
conducted in the RTC: amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash
voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Bartolome. It
Re: Criminal Case Number 07-1399. also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing
fee for Korea. In July 2006, Bartolome and her companions went
back to the SCLMC office to inquire about the progress of their
The following persons testified for the prosecution: Elisa Escobar application.
(hereafter, “Escobar”); Geraldine Cariño (hereafter, “Cariño”); and
Diony Aragon (hereafter, “Aragon”). The evidence for the
Prosecution is summarized thus: sometime in April 2006, Escobar Accused-appellant told Bartolome to wait. Bartolome was still not
went to the office of the Southern Cohabite Landbase Management employed by November 2006, so she decided to withdraw her
Corporation (hereafter, “SCLMC”) located at Makati City to meet money from accused-appellant. Accused-appellant did not return
Zulueta, an agent of the SCLMC. Zulueta introduced Escobar to the P75,000.00, so Bartolome reported the matter to the National
accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told Escobar she will be Bureau of Investigation (hereafter, “NBI”). The NBI arrested
employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3 months from accused-appellant on 5 January 2007. Accused-appellant issued
payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Escobar tendered the PNB check number 7381 in favor of Bartolome. The check bounced
said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash for being drawn against a closed account.4
voucher dated 28 April 2006 signed by SCLAMCOR (Southern
Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation). The cash voucher
acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Escobar. It also
stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing fee Re: Criminal Case Number 08-066
for Korea. A month after paying the placement fee, SCLMC
informed Escobar she had to undergo Korean Language Training.
Escobar complied. When Escobar did not hear from accused- Leo John Alday (hereafter, “Alday”) and Rosemarie Respueto
appellant for another month, she decided to withdraw her placement (hereafter, “Respueto”) testified for the Prosecution. The evidence
fee. Accused-appellant failed to return her money, thus Escobar of the Prosecution is summarized, thus: sometime in April 2006,
filed the suit for illegal recruitment. Alday went to the SCLMC to look for employment abroad. At the
SCLMC office, Alday met with Rolando Salilin (hereafter, “Salilin”),
an agent of the SCLMC. Salilin promised Alday he will be employed
Cariño testified she came to know accused-appellant sometime in as factory worker in Korea with a monthly salary of P80,000.00.
April 2006, when Zulueta brought her to the office of the SCLMC at Alday paid the placement fee of P75,000.00. A month after paying
Makati City. Zulueta and accused-appellant told Cariño she will be the placement fee, Alday was still not deployed for employment
employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3 months from abroad. Alday thus filed this case against accused-appellant.
payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Cariño tendered the said
amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash
voucher dated 28 April 2006 signed by SCLAMCOR. The cash Rosemarie testified in May 2006, he went to the SCLMC to look for
voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Cariño. It employment abroad. At the SCLMC office, Respuesto met with
also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing Loreta Gasi (hereafter, “Gasi”), an agent of the SCLMC. Gasi
fee for Korea. Accused-appellant was beside Zulueta when the promised Respuesto she will be employed as factory worker in
latter gave the cash voucher to Cariño. Cariño was then asked to Korea with a monthly salary of P80,000.00. Respueto paid the
submit a medical examination and undergo Korean Language placement fee of P90,000.00. Two months after paying the
Training to expedite her application. placement fee, Respueto was still not deployed for employment
abroad. In August 2006, Repuesto decided to withdraw her money.
Respuesto filed this case when accused-appellant failed to return
Three months after complying with the requirements, Cariño was her money.5
still not deployed for employment abroad. Cariño then filed this case
against accused-appellant.

Sometime in 2006, Aragon was convinced by his friends to apply at

the SCLMC. Zulueta brought him to the SCLMC office. Zulueta On the other hand, accused-appellant DENIED all the allegations
introduced Aragon to the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told against her and presented the following defense:
Aragon he will be employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3
months from payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Aragon The SCLMC is a recruitment agency, registered with the Securities
tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Philippine Overseas
by the cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Employment Administration (POEA). Accused-appellant is the
Aragon. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the President of the SCLMC. The SCLMC employed only three staff
processing fee for Korea. Three months after paying the placement members, i.e., Amelita Plabay (secretary), Pedrito and Leonora
fee, Aragon was not deployed for Korea. Aragon then asked (liaison officers). Zulueta is not connected with the SCLMC but he
accused-appellant to return his P75,000.00. Accused-appellant told was at the SCLMC office because he tried to convince accused-
Aragon she would give him P50,000.00, while Zulueta will give him appellant to be a distributor of Presense Green Tea. Accused-
P25,000.00. Aragon filed the case because accused-appellant appellant denied all the allegations against her. She denied meeting
failed to return the P75,000.00. all of the private complainants prior to the filing of the case. She
added SCLMC could not have conducted recruitment activities in
April and May 2006 because its license to conduct business was
temporarily suspended by the POEA during that period. The
suspension was lifted on July 31, 2006. Accused-appellant
Re: Criminal Case Number 07-3108 surmised private complainants filed cases against her upon the
prodding of Alan Basa. She testified when she was arrested by the
Cecille Bartolome (hereafter, “Bartolome”) testified for the NBI, Alan Basa asked her for P300,000.00, in exchange for the
prosecution. The evidence of the Prosecution is summarized, thus: dropping of the complaints against her. When accused-appellant
Bartolome met accused-appellant at the SCLMC office on 27 April refused to give Alan Basa the money, the latter made sure
2006. In the office, accused-appellant and Zulueta told Bartolome complainants filed the cases against her.
and her companions (namely Carol Collamar, Sosen Fernandez,
and Michelle Fernandez) they would be deployed to Korea as
factory workers within three months from payment of the
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 15

The RTC, on May 31, 2010, promulgated the Decision convicting All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are
accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 07-1399 for large scale present, namely:
illegal recruitment and Criminal Case Number 07-3108 for illegal
recruitment. Accused-appellant was, however, ACQUITTED in (1) the offender has no valid license or authority
Criminal Case No. 08-066. The dispositive portion of the said required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
Decision reads: recruitment and placement of workers;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within
finding accused DELIA MOLINA y CABRA GUILTY beyond the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and she is hereby Article 13(b)6 of the Labor Code, or any of the
sentenced as follows: prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the
said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and
a. In Crim. Case No. 07-1399, she is sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment, to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (3) the offender committed the same against three (3)
(Php500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of or more persons, individually or as a group. More
insolvency, and to indemnify the offended party Elisa Escobar, importantly, all the said elements have been
Geraldine Cariño, and Diony Castillo Aragon the amount of established beyond reasonable doubt.
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) each as actual
damages and the costs;
It was accused-appellant herself who testified that SCLMC did not
have authority to operate its business on April and May, 2006,
b. In Criminal Case No. 07-3108, to suffer the indeterminate penalty covering the dates that are alleged in the Informations filed against
of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prisión correccional, as her, proving that the first element of the crime is present. She
minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and claimed the SCLMC’s license was temporarily suspended by the
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of prisión mayor as maximum and to POEA, during the alleged date when the crimes were committed
indemnify the offended party Cecille Bartolome the amount of and that the suspension was lifted on July 31, 2006. Accused-
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) and the costs; appellant further admitted that the SCLMC had NO AUTHORITY to
recruit workers for Korea because it had no job order to do so, thus:
In Criminal Case No. 08-066, she is hereby ACQUITTED for
insufficiency of evidence. _______________

SO ORDERED. 6  [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; 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 or placement.

Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA and the latter, on

December 14, 2012, rendered a Decision affirming the RTC with Atty. Tacorda: I noticed, Madam Witness, that this Job Order are all
modification, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows: for Malaysia. Do you have any job order for Korea?

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision convicting accused-appellant Witness: We don’t have Job Order from Korea, ma’am.
in Criminal Case Number 07-1399 (for large scale illegal
recruitment) and Criminal Case Number 07-3108 (for illegal Atty. Tacorda: Have you ever had job order from Korea before July
recruitment) is AFFIRMED with Modification: 2006?

1. Criminal Case Number 07-1399 (for large scale illegal Witness: We don’t have job order from Korea because only 7
recruitment): accused-appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment, agencies are allowed to deploy workers to Korea.
pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to indemnify the offended party Elisa Escobar, Atty. Tacorda: So are you saying that Southern Cotabato Landbase
Geraldine Cariño, and Fiony Castillo Aragon the amount of Management Corporation is not allowed to recruit workers from
P75,000.00 each as actual damages, and the costs; Korea for purposes of overseas employment?

2. In Criminal Case Number 07-3108 (for illegal recruitment), Witness: Yes, ma’am.7
accused-appellant is sentenced to imprisonment of six (6) years
and one (1) day as minimum to 12 years as maximum, and to pay a
fine of P200,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of Without any authority, accused-appellant still engaged in
insolvency, and to indemnify Bartolome the amount of P75,000.00, recruitment activities by offering and promising jobs, and collecting
and the costs. placement fees as testified to by private complainants Escobar,
Cariño and Aragon.8 Thus, the second element of the crime is
present. Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code, reads as follows:
SO ORDERED.
(b) “Recruitment and placement” refers to any act of canvassing,
Hence, the present appeal. enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising and
advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or
not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner,
Accused-appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove the offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons
elements of the crime charged and that her guilt has not been shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal must fail.

 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 16

In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that accused- (g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and
appellant was engaged in the recruitment and placement of the Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
private complainant as the accused was the one who told the
private complainants that they will be sent to Korea as factory (h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
workers within three months from payment of the placement fees vacancies, remittances of foreign exchange earnings, separations from jobs,
and that the placement fees were made in the office of the SCLMC departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment;
in the presence of the accused-appellant or on her instruction.

(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of  the worker, employment contracts

Anent the third element, accused-appellant committed the illegal approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the
recruitment against three or more persons, namely, Anthony time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of
Galiste, Romulo Nones, Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño, Diony the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor
Aragon, Maribel Rosimo, Gilbert Rosimo and Eric Valdez. and Employment;

Petitioner was also properly found guilty of the crime of simple (j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an
illegal recruitment, there being one complainant and the officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or
to be engaged directly on indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
concurrence of the two essential elements of illegal recruitment, to
wit:
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before
departure for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized
(a) the accused-appellant had no valid license or authority required under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations;
by law to enable her to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers per her testimony that SCLMC did not have (l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the
authority to operate its business on April and May 2006 as its Department of Labor and Employment; and
license was temporarily suspended by the POEA at that particular
time.9 Accused-appellant further testified that SCLMC had no (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with
authority to recruit workers for Korea because it had no job order for his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases
that purpose.10 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
(b) the accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and placement of considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
private complainant Bartolome when she told the latter that she will
be sent to Korea as a factory worker after payment of the placement
fee11 which private complainant Bartolome paid in the office of the
SCLMC in the presence of accused-appellant.12 Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out
by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
Furthermore, it is worthy to emphasize that under Section 6 (13) of with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment is defined as against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

13  Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the
mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical
hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising persons, the officers having control, management or direction of
or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when
their business shall be liable.
undertaken by a non-license 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 such non-license or non- Acused-appellant that she was a holder of a license to operate as a
holder, who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad recruiter during the alleged period when the crimes were committed
to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged, it shall likewise include does not matter because she was still performing an act considered
the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-
to be an illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse the expenses
licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
incurred by the private complainants. Under Section 6(m) of R.A.
No. 8042, failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
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 deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take
that actually received by him as a loan or advance; place without the worker’s fault, is considered as performing illegal
recruitment.
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in
relation to recruitment or employment; It must also be noted that accused-appellant’s defense of denial
cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the witnesses
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit presented by the prosecution. As is well-settled in this jurisdiction,
any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused
under the Labor Code; by the prosecution witnesses than the accused’s denial and
explanation concerning the commission of the crime.14
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to The CA was also correct in modifying the penalty imposed by the
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
RTC in Criminal Case No. 07-3108. The RTC mistakenly imposed
the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not to employ prisión correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eight (8)
any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency;
months and twenty-one (21) days of prisión mayor as maximum.
Under Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042, a person found guilty of illegal
(f) To engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs harmful to recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
public health or morality or to dignity of the Republic of the Philippines; six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years,
including any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority. Thus, the contention of ac-
and a fine of not less than two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00). Thus, the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 17

and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years as maximum, that she will be sent to Korea as a factory worker after payment of
and the payment of a fine of two hundred thousand pesos the placement fee which private complainant Bartolome paid in the
(P200,000.00) as imposed by the CA is more in accordance with office of the SCLMC in the presence of accused-appellant.
the law penalizing the crime of simple illegal recruitment.
Same; Same; Under Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042,
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the CA Decision illegal recruitment is defined as including any person, whether a
dated December 14, 2012 of the Court of Appeals, affirming with non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.—It is
modification the Decision dated May 31, 2010 of the Regional Trial worthy to emphasize that under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042,
Court, Branch 143, Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 07-1399 and illegal recruitment is defined as including any person, whether a
Criminal Case No. 07-3108, against appellant Delia Molina for the non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Thus, the
crimes of illegal recruitment in a large scale and illegal recruitment, contention of accused-appellant that she was a holder of a license
respectively, is AFFIRMED. to operate as a recruiter during the alleged period when the crimes
were committed does not matter because she was still performing
SO ORDERED. an act considered to be an illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse
the expenses incurred by the private complainants. Under Section
6(m) of R.A. No. 8042, failure to reimburse expenses incurred by
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Mendoza** and Reyes, JJ., the workers in connection with his documentation and processing
concur. for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does
not actually take place without the worker’s fault, is considered as
Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed. performing illegal recruitment.

Notes.—Illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without Same; Denials; Accused-appellant’s defense of denial cannot
authority from the government, give the impression that they have overcome the positive testimonies of the witnesses presented by
the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. the prosecution.—It must also be noted that accused-appellant’s
(People vs. Rea, 698 SCRA 191 [2013]) defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the
witnesses presented by the prosecution. As is well-settled in this
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, the offense of illegal jurisdiction, greater weight is given to the positive identification of
recruitment must be committed against three (3) or more persons, the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused’s denial
individually or as a group. (People vs. Tolentino, 761 SCRA 332 and explanation concerning the commission of the crime.
[2015]) People vs. Molina, 792 SCRA 14, G.R. No. 207811 June 1,
2016

People vs Abella, G.R. No. 195666, January 20, 2016

SYLLABUS [Link]

Criminal Law; Illegal Recruitment; Illegal Recruitment in Large G.R. No. 195666
Scale; Elements of.—All the elements of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale are present, namely: (1) the offender has PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully vs. FE ABELLA y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code
(now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and (3) the offender committed FACTS: Abella and her co-conspirators enlisted and transported
the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a Filipinos for jobs abroad and promised them employment by
group. More importantly, all the said elements have been charging them excess fees without securing required license from
established beyond reasonable doubt. It was accused-appellant DOLE.
herself who testified that SCLMC did not have authority to operate
its business on April and May, 2006, covering the dates that are Imelda Miguel, as witness, were informed by Abella to get work
alleged in the Informations filed against her, proving that the first abroad and Miguel met Abella in Rofema Business Consultancy
element of the crime is present. She claimed the SCLMC’s license (RBC) who offered him a job as laundrywoman in Turkey but she
was temporarily suspended by the POEA during the alleged date was required to undergo training and pay a placement fee of
when the crimes were committed and that the suspension was lifted P100,000 but she only paid P30,000.
on July 31, 2006. Accused-appellant further admitted that the
SCLMC had no authority to recruit workers for Korea because it had Miguel was issued certification after training but she was unable to
no job order to do so. be deployed in Turkey and her placement fee was not returned.

Same; Same; Simple Illegal Recruitment; Elements of.—Petitioner Marcelino knew Abella through her Co-conspirators who charged
was also properly found guilty of the crime of simple illegal her a total of P50,000 and nothing happened to her application and
recruitment, there being one complainant and the concurrence of the amount was not returned.
the two essential elements of illegal recruitment, to wit: (a) the
accused-appellant had no valid license or authority required by law
to enable her to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of Callang was recruited by Abella’s agent who promised him a job of
workers per her testimony that SCLMC did not have authority to laundryman with a salary of $600 but with placement fee of P65,000
operate its business on April and May 2006 as its license was but he only paid P40,000 that was not returned.
temporarily suspended by the POEA at that particular time.
Accused-appellant further testified that SCLMC had no authority to Versoza who was under POEA, verified from the database that
recruit workers for Korea because it had no job order for that Abella had no license to recruit workers for employment abroad and
purpose. (b) the accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and signed a certification to it.
placement of private complainant Bartolome when she told the latter
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 18

Abella argued that she worked as a cashier at RBC who was an possess authority to recruit job applicants for employment abroad
authorized travel agency under DTI ad she was allowed to receive without first having secured the required authority from the POEA,
payments and issue cash vouchers. illegally collect and receive from GEPHRE 0. POMAR the amount of
(₱5,500.00), as partial payment of processing and placement fees
The RTC ruled her guilty and she appealed to the CA but CA for overseas employment, which illegal recruitment activities is
affirmed RTC. considered an offense involving economic sabotage, it being
committed in large scale under Sec. 6(m) paragraph 2 of Republic
Act [No.] 8042, having committed the same not only against Gephre
ISSUES: W/N Abella and her co-conspirators are guilty of illegal O. Pomar but also against seven (7) others.
recruitment
Appellant denied meeting any of the private complainants while she
RULING: was in Iloilo and maintained that her purpose in going to Iloilo was
only to assist Shirley in processing the latter's business license.
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must Appellant likewise denied that she received money from the private
concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by complainants; she claimed that it was Shirley who was engaged in
law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment placement of recruitment activities.
workers: (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the
meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in
Filipinos Act of 1995); and (c) the offender committed the same large scale.
against three or more persons, individually or as a group. Legal
recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a Ruling: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed group.
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
In this case, private complainants Pomar, Pastolero, Cathedral,
The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are all obtaining in Orias, Suobiron, Bueron, and Pelipog testified that appellant went to
this case and that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that Pavia, Iloilo and represented herself as a recruiter who could send
Abella is guilty of said offense. them to Brunei for work; that appellant impressed upon them that
she had the authority or ability to send them overseas for work by
The private complainants Miguel, Marcelino, and Callang were showing them a job order from Brunei and a calling card; and
positive and categorical in their testimonies that Abella promised appellant collected processing or placement fees from the private
them employment abroad in exchange for their payment of complainants in various amounts ranging from ₱5,000.00 to
placement fees. Abella herself provided Miguel with a Certification ₱20,000.00; and that she did not reimburse said amounts despite
proving Abella’s registration of the business name RBC; hence, demands. In addition, it was proved that appellant does not have
negating Abella’s claim that RBC is actually owned by another any license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment
person, Reyes. The private complainants’ testimonies were as shown by the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas
consistent and corroborative of one another on material points. Employment Administration.

DECISION: AFFIRMED Finally, appellant recruited seven persons, or more than the
minimum of three persons required by law, for illegal recruitment to
be considered in large scale.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment becomes illegal when undertaken by

non-licensees or non-holders of authority.

Gist: This is an appeal from Decision of the CA which affirmed the

Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale.

People vs Abellanosa, G.R. No. 214340, July 19, 2017 People vs Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 198795, June 7, 2017

[Link] [Link]

PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs. GILDA ABELLANOSA, Accused-Appellant vs. MERCEDITAS MATHEUS DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellant

DEL CASTILLO, J. TIJAM, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in large scale

in an Information alleging that that accused falsely representing to
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 19

Facts: Appellant was charged with six counts of Estafa in an ascertained and mutually helping each other, did, then and there
Information which alleges that accused conspiring together with willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud THELMA SURATOS y
other unidentified accused, feloniously defraud the complainants on NARAG, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by
different occasions, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which
representation to the effect that they had the power and capacity to they made to Thelma Suratos to the effect that they had the power
recruit and employ the complainants for employment abroad, and and capacity to recruit and employ Thelma Suratos for employment
could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the abroad, and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if
necessary amount to meet the requirements thereto, and given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereto, and
succeeded in inducing said complainants to give and deliver, as in by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in
fact gave and delivered to said accused the sum of money, which inducing said Thelma Suratos to give and deliver, as in fact gave
amount once in possession, with intent to defraud, willfully, and delivered to said accused the amount of P55,000.00, Philippine
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and Currency, on the strength of said manifestations and
converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were
prejudice of the complainants. false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they
did obtain the amount of ₱55,000.00, which amount once in
For her part, appellant admitted that she was the Overseas possession, with intent to defraud Thelma Suratos willfully,
Marketing Director of All Care Travel & Consultancy, with All Care unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and
Travel & Consultancy as its affiliate. She claimed that she did not converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and
know Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Gloria. She prejudice of said Thelma Suratos y Narag in the aforesaid amount
likewise claimed that she neither signed nor issued any receipt of ₱55,000.00 Philippine Currency. 
using the name "Manzie delos Reyes" in favor of the complainants.
She further claimed that she was not engaged in any recruitment That on or about the period comprised from January 31, 2003 to
and placement activities. During the pre-trial, she admitted that she June 18, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused
had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment. conspiring together, confederating with another person whose true
name, identity and personal circumstances have not as yet been
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty for the crime of estafa. ascertained and mutually helping each other, by representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract enlist and recruit
Ruling: Yes. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded workers for employment abroad, did, then and there willfully,
another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise
offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice employment/job placement abroad to THELMA SURATOS y
capable of pecuniary estimation. NARAG; GLENDA GUILLARTE y RONDILLA; MERLY ALAYON y
Here, appellant deceived private complainants into believing that ORO; CELSO BAGAY JORGE, JR.; DORIZA GLORIA y PUJEDA;
she had the authority and capability to send them abroad for and ROGELIO DULDULAO y LE, without first securing the required
employment, despite her not being licensed by the POEA to recruit license and authority from the Department of Labor and
workers for overseas employment. Because of the assurances Employment, in violation of said law. Each made their complaints
given by accused-appellant, the private complainants parted with which made Merceditas in grave liability. On November 26, 2008,
their hard-earned money for the payment of the agreed placement the RTC rendered its Decision, convicting accused-appellant of the
fee, for which accused-appellant issued petty cash vouchers and crime of large scale illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa.
used fictitious names evidencing her receipt of the payments. The complaint docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-03- 119667 filed
by Doriza P. Gloria (Gloria), however, it was dismissed due to
Ratio Decidendi: A person, for the same acts, may be convicted Gloria's failure to testify and the prosecution's failure to prove
separately of illegal recruitment and estafa. appellant's guilt for the crime of estafa. 
Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed
the Joint Decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of Estafa and one count of
Large Scale Illegal Recruitment. ISSUE:  WHETHER OR NOT the court a quo gravely erred in
finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
illegal recruitment and estafa. 

HELD:  YES. Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale – The offense of

illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the
person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under
Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3)
accused committed the same against three or more persons
individually or as a group. These elements are obtaining in this
case. 

First, the RTC found accused-appellant to have undertaken

recruitment activity when she promised the private complainants
overseas employment for a fee. This factual finding was affirmed by
FACTS:  Accused-appellant was charged with six counts of Estafa the CA. As consistently adhered to by this Court, the matter of
under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and one assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and
count of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042, based on most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the
the affidavit-complaints made by the following: Thelma N. Suratos; unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their
Glenda R. Guillarte; Merly 0. Alayon; Celso J. Bagay, Jr.; Rogelio credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the
Duldulao; and Doriza P. Gloria.  record. And when his findings have been affirmed by the CA, these
are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 
That on or about the period comprised from February 19, 2003 to
February 26, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused Second, the March 1, 2004 Certification issued by the Philippine
conspiring together, personal circumstances have not as yet been Overseas Employment Administration unmistakably reveals that the
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 20

accused-appellant neither had a license nor authority to recruit persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
workers for overseas employment. Notably, instead of assailing the Appellant’s act of offering and promising to deploy the complainants
certification, she admitted during the pre-trial that she did not have a to East Timor for work and collecting placement fees from more
license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement than three (3) persons, despite not being authorized to do so,
of workers.  renders her liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. In this
relation, her defense of denial cannot overcome complainants'
Third, it was established that there were five complainants, i.e., categorical and positive testimonies against her/.
Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Duldulao. It must be
noted, that both the RTC and the CA failed to award interest on the Ratio Decidendi: A person or entity engaged in recruitment and
money judgment on the charge of five counts of estafa and one placement activities without the requisite authority is engaged in
count of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.  illegal recruitment.

Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court, therefore, imposes a Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed
legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the time of demand, the Decision of the RTC convicting appellant of Illegal Recruitment
which shall be deemed as the same day the Informations were filed in Large Scale under Republic Act No. 8042.
against appellant, until the amounts are fully paid. Merceditas
Matheus y Delos Reyes is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of five counts of Estafa and one count of Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED SYLLABUS
with MODIFICATION.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Settled is the rule that an
appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review and the
reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed
judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on grounds other
than those raised as errors by the parties.—Settled is the rule that an appeal
in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review and the
reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed
People vs Somera, G.R. No. 227505, October 2, 2017 judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on grounds other
than those raised as errors by the parties. “The appeal confers the appellate
court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
vs. ERLINDA RACHO y SOMERA, accused-appellant. penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.”

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Criminal Law; Illegal Recruitment; Illegal Recruitment in Large

Scale; “Illegal Recruitment” and “Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale,”
FACTS: Appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Defined.—Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale is defined under
Scale in an Information which alleges that the accused, did then Section 6 of RA 8042, to wit: Section 6. Definition.—For purposes of
and there without first obtaining a license or authority to recruit this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,
workers for overseas employment from the POEA, feloniously enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
recruit and promise employment/job placement and collect fee[s] workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or
from the fifteen (15) complainants as contract workers, without any advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when
license/authority from the POEA or by the DOLE to recruit workers undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
for overseas employment. The senior Labor and Employment contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as
Officer from the POEA confirmed that appellant was neither amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines:
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for employment abroad Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any
as certified in a document. manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or
more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include
Appellant denied the charges against her and argued that she was the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a
an auditor of PET Plans, Inc. from March 23, 2000 to August 31, non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority: x x x x
2005, making it highly unlikely for her to have engaged in the Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
business of recruitment and promised employment abroad. 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and of Estafa.
Elements of.—The elements of the offense are: (a) the offender has
no valid license or authority to enable him to lawfully engage in
RULING: YES. The elements of the offense are: (a) the offender recruitment and placement of workers; (b) he undertakes any of the
has no valid license or authority to enable him to lawfully engage in activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under
recruitment and placement of workers; (b) he undertakes any of the Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practices
activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practices RA 8042); and (c) he commits the same against three or more
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of persons, individually or as a group. Illegal recruitment when
RA 8042); and (c) he commits the same against three or more committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
persons, individually or as a group. offense involving economic sabotage.

In this case, the POEA certification sufficiently established that A person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities
appellant is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for without the requisite authority is engaged in illegal recruitment.—
overseas employment. The definition of "recruitment and Clearly, a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement
placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code includes activities without the requisite authority is engaged in illegal
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether recruitment. The definition of “recruitment and placement” under
for profit or not, provided, that any person or entity which, in any Article 13(b) of the Labor Code includes promising or advertising for
manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not, provided,
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 21

that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises Article 38 LC
for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement. Thus, Racho’s act of
offering and promising to deploy the complainants to East Timor for
work and collecting placement fees from more than three (3)
persons, despite not being authorized to do so, renders her liable A. Syndicate
for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. In this relation, her defense of
denial cannot overcome complainants’ categorical and positive People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780 (1995)
testimonies against her. Therefore, the Court finds no cogent
reason to deviate from the lower courts’ findings on this score.
Racho is therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of life G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995
imprisonment and penalized with a fine of P1,000,000.00.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
Although Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 has been vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN,
amended by Section 6 of RA No. 10022 which, accordingly, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
increased the penalty for the crime, the old law, i.e., RA No. 8042 —
which is more advantageous to the accused — still applies REGALADO, J.:
considering that the crime was committed from 2004 to 2005 when
the old law was still in effect.—As to the penalty, although Section 7 FACTS:
of RA 8042 has been amended by Section 6 of RA 10022 which,
accordingly, increased the penalty for the crime, the old law, i.e., RA
8042 — which is more advantageous to the accused — still applies On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed
considering that the crime was committed from 2004 to 2005 when by a syndicate nd in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and
the old law was still in effect. Thus, the courts a quo correctly 39 of the labor code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and
imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P1,000,000.00. Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin in the RTC of Manila, alleging that in
or about during the period comprised between May 1986 and June
25, 1987, both dates inclusive in the City of Manila, the accused
Estafa; Estafa By Means of Deceit; Elements of.—Under this provision,
conspired and represent themsleves to have the capacity to recruit
Estafa by means of deceit is committed when these elements concur: (a) the
accused used fictitious name or false pretense that he possesses power, Filipino workers for employment abroad.
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or other similar deceits; (b) he used such deceitful means prior January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused
to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party bot none of them was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the RTC
relied on such deceitful means to part with his money or property; and (d) the
offended party suffered damage.
prdered the case archived but issued a standing warrant os arrest
against the accused.
Same; Estafa By Means of Deceit; Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; Case
law holds that the same pieces of evidence that establish liability for illegal Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio
recruitment in large scale confirm culpability for Estafa.—Case law holds that Salado requested for a copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually
the same pieces of evidence that establish liability for illegal recruitment in Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's
large scale confirm culpability for Estafa. In People v. Chua, 680 SCRA 575 counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested to set a
(2012): [W]e agree with the appellate court that the same pieces of evidence hearing for purpose of due process and for accused to immediately
which establish appellant’s liability for illegal recruitment in large scale
likewise confirm her culpability for estafa. It is well-established in
have her day in court. On the arraignment, Agustin pleaded not
jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal guilty and the trial went on with four complainants testified for the
recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal prosecution and reciepts of the processing fees they paid.
recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second,
Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed
such intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by recruiters but denied her participation in the recruitment and denied
using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, knowledge of the receipts as well.
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or
by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that
commission of fraud. Records show that Racho defrauded Odelio, Simeon,
Bernardo, Renato, and Rodolfo by representing that she can provide them
Agustin as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large
with jobs in East Timor even though she had no license to recruit workers for scale with sentence of life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.
employment abroad. She even collected the irrelevant documents and
placement fees of varying amounts. Although complainants were able to fly to
East Timor, they remained unemployed there due to Racho’s failure to obtain
their working visas. When they returned to the country and looked for Racho,
complainants could not locate her to recover the amounts they paid. Un - ISSUES:
deniably, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Racho committed Estafa against the five (5) complainants.
Agustin appealed witht the follwing arguments:
Damages; A party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly proved.—For another, the Court (1) her act of introducing the complainants to the couple does
reduces the actual damages awarded to Rodolfo in Criminal Case No. 05- not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and
1951 to P35,000.00. Even though the amount alleged in the Information was placement under Article 13 in relation to Article 34 of the
P60,000.00, Rodolfo’s testimony revealed that he paid only P35,000.00 as labor code;
placement fee. “A party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly proved.” People vs. Racho, 841
SCRA 449, G.R. No. 227505 October 2, 2017 (2) there is no proof of conspiracy and

(3) there is no proof that appellant offered/promised overseas

employment to the complainants.
2. Offenses involving Economic Sabotage
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 22

RULING: The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity,
further committted acts constitutive of illegal recruitment because, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said
the complainants had a previous interview with Agustin (as Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall
employee of the Goce couple) about fees and papers to submit that be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The
may constitute as referral. Agustin collected the payments of the same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be
complainants as well as their passports, trainning fees, medical considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these
tests and other [Link] the issue of proof, the court held that qualifying circumstances exist, namely,
the receipts exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to prove
the payments and transaction made. (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
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large
accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN,accused-appellant. scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group.
FACTS: On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment
committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing,
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code as amended by Section 1(b) enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
of Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5. 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
On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.  On the other hand,
three accused but not one of them was arrested. Hence, on referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for
February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
issued a standing warrant of arrest against the [Link], employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, at around midday of
February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having
Parañaque police. the ability to send a worker abroad." It is undisputed that appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were
herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so
recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty employed.
of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00.

In her appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments:

SYLLABUS
(1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce
couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal Labor Law; Criminal Law; Illegal Recruitment; Circumstances that
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in qualify illegal recruitment as an offense involving economic
relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; sabotage.—Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and
39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by
(2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity,
recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said
and 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
(3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these
overseas employment to the complainants. qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment
is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of
Appellant counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale,
Appellant, however, denies that she was in any way guilty of illegal i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons individually or
recruitment. as a group.

It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Recruitment and
complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said Placement” and “Referral,” Defined.—Under said Code, recruitment
couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
was processed and facilitated by them, the complainants asked her transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
her heart, she complied with their request. 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
ISSUES: Whether or not appellant Agustin actions in relation with
employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
the Goce couple constitute illegal recruitment.
employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.

HELD: Appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the

Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 23

Same; Same; Same; An employee who actually makes referrals to

the agency of which she is a part is engaged in recruitment activity.
—Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Denials; The positive
merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions and affirmative statements of the prosecution witnesses is more
went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving
indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All denials of the accused.—Indeed, the trial court was justified and
four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their
initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more
was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving
well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare
talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by
placement agency. As correctly held by the trial court, being an the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to
introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of
the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the issue
agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in essentially involves the credibility of witnesses, this is best left to the
recruitment activity. judgment of the trial court.—The presence of documentary evidence
notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility of
witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the
Same; Same; Same; There is illegal recruitment when one gives the absence of abuse of discretion therein. The findings of fact of a trial
impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad.—There is court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can
illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses,
ability to send a worker abroad. It is undisputed that appellant gave certainly deserve respect by an appellate court. Generally, the
complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or findings of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of
ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.
convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so
employed.
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection; Criminal Law; Criminal
Procedure; The non-prosecution of another suspect provides no
Same; Same; Same; The act of collecting from each of the ground for the accused to fault the decision of the trial court
complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, convicting him.—In People vs. Sendon, we held that the non-
placement fees, medical tests and other sundry expenses prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the
unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting
of the law.—It cannot be denied that Agustin received from her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable
complainants various sums for purpose of their applications. Her act than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and
of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly
respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule
and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of and course of procedure should not apply in this case. People vs.
recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact, appellant Goce, 247 SCRA 780, G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995
demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the
allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is true
that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the REGALADO, J.:
amount allowed by law was not considered per se as “recruitment
and placement” in contemplation of law, but that was because the On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a
recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor
Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of
conspire with her co-accused in defrauding the victims. That is not Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma
the case here. Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 5, alleging —
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Xerox
Copies; Where original copies of the receipts/vouchers were lost, That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and
xerox copies thereof may be presented and admitted.—Apparently, June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another,
xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under the representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and
circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad,
writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio
upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de
its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8)
some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses. Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or
authority from the Department of Labor. 1
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Even in the absence
of receipts, the testimonies of complainants that the accused was On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three
accused but not one of them was arrested. 2 Hence, on February 2, 1989, the
involved in recruitment may suffice to establish the factum trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing warrant of arrest
probandum.—Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies against the accused.3
presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not
allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the
Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the
acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, where this particular offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on March 17, 1989 for a copy of
issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants’ failure to the warrant of arrest.4 Eventually, at around midday of February 26, 1993,
ask for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Parañaque police. 5 On March 8, 1993,
as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court her counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for
as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The hearing "for purposes of due process and for the accused to immediately
complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said have her day in court" 6 Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial court reinstated the
case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993, 7 on which date of Agustin
accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their
pleaded not guilty8 and the case subsequently went to trial.
testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared
sufficient to establish that factum probandum.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 24

Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan
first to take the witness stand and he declared that sometime in March or and Loma Goce were her neighbors at Tambo, Parañaque and that they were
April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency. Previously,
co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi
Parañaque, Metro Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo
Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to which
readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to request she acceded. 18
pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or
May of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt. 9
Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the
recruitment was perpetrated only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any
Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the
were his relatives, went to the office of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel
Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma her to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce spouses. She failed to do so
Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from because in truth, so she claims, she does not know the present address of
Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of the couple. All she knew was that they had left their residence in 1987. 19
P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher
sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they
Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and
could leave for abroad.10
Alvarez, she explained that it was entirely for different reasons. Salado had
supposedly asked for a loan, while Alvarez needed money because he was
Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency sick at that time. 20
showing that Salado and his aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00,
instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein
passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment.
appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale,
Hence, in October, 1987, along with the other recruits, he decided to go to the
and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real
a fine of P100,000.00. 21
status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was
not duly licensed to recruit job applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin
had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the return of In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1)
the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00. 11 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
Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her
illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no
brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly Agustin. Accompanied by her husband,
proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the
Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin
complainants. 22 These three arguments being interrelated, they will be
persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her
discussed together.
husband. Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she and her husband could
live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give
Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the total sum of Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code.
P4,000.00. 12 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-
Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement
holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39
agency requiring them to report to its office because the "NOC" (visa) had
thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be
allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave
considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying
P2,000.00 as payment for his and his wife's passports. Despite follow-up of
circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a
their papers twice a week from February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed
syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons
to leave for abroad. 13
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
Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles more persons individually or as a group.
Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover Placement Agency at
Parañaque, the agency's former office address. There, Masaya met Nelly
At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were
Agustin, who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce
not authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as evidenced by a
spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted
certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation
several pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials. 14
Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, on November
10, 1987. Said certification states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin
In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment are neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
for the placement fee, and in September of that same year, he gave an employment. 23 Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her
additional P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts and was counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed nor authorized to
advised to go to the placement office once in a while to follow up his recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies that
application, which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay and chagrin, he failed she was in any way guilty of illegal recruitment. 24
to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that
his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 in
It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce
installments. 15
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
As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said
stand on June 7, 1993. He testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their
Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Parañaque. She request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the meaning of
informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman " and offered him "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment.
a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly
salary of about $600.00 to $700.00. 16
Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and
On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment,
processing fee to Agustin at the latter's residence. In the same month, he locally or abroad, whether for profit or not;  provided, that any person or entity
gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the placement agency. which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
Agustin assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. 25 On the
He returned several times to the placement agency's office to follow up his other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant
application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
he had paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. 26
for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find her. 17
Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely
introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions went beyond that.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 25

The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially
constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it involves the credibility of witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the
was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working trial court, in the absence of abuse of discretion therein. The findings of fact of
overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually
well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve
that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency. respect by an appellate court. 38 Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court
on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. 39
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, In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that
they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually making there is no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce couple as to make
referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging her liable for illegal recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence presented by
in recruitment activity. 27 the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in
their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have
not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis for
Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce
appellant's conviction as discussed above.
couple, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses paint a different picture.
Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented
herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect
was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while therein provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of
Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter the trial court convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or
represented herself as " nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman ." 28 Indeed, Agustin more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities
played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agency, working and addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly taken
together with the Goce couple. into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course of
procedure should not apply in this case.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the
ability to send a worker abroad." 29 It is undisputed that appellant gave WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby
complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D. Agustin.
people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the
money she demanded in order to be so employed. 30
SO ORDERED.

It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for
Narvasa, C.J., Puno, 
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. In fact, appellant demanded
and received from complainants amounts beyond the allowable limit of
P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is true that the mere act of a People vs. Avendano, 216 SCRA 187 (1992)
cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not
considered per se  as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, G.R. Nos. 96277-82 December 2, 1992
but that was because the recipient had no other participation in the
transactions and did not conspire with her co-accused in defrauding the
victims. 31 That is not the case here. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ABELARDO C. AVENDAÑO, accused-appellant,
Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of
collections/payments from complainants to appellant." On the contrary, xerox GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented by the prosecution. For
instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D, 32 showing the receipt of
P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed by appellant, was presented by Criminal Law; Labor Law; Illegal recruitment on a large scale; Illegal
the prosecution. Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and recruitment by a syndicate.—In Crim. Cases Nos. 6113-MN and
signed by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of P4,000.00 6114-MN where Avendaño acted in conspiracy with his co-accused
from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of documents for Oman." to fleece three (3) job applicants in each case of their placement
Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in evidence as
fees for non-existent overseas jobs, and in Crim. Case No. 6125-
Exhibit F, shows that appellant received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for
"processing of documents for Oman." 34 MN where they victimized five (5) persons, the crimes committed
were illegal recruitmentby a syndicate (Art. 38, Labor Code). When
illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, it
Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only
xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under the circumstances, becomes an offense involving economic sabotage (Art. 38, Labor
were admissible in evidence. When the original writing has been lost or Code) and shall be penalized with life imprisonment and a fine of
destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and P100,000 (Art. 39, par. [a], Labor Code). In Crim. Case No. 6131-
loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy or MN where only two persons were defrauded, and in Crim. Cases
a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of Nos. 6143-MN and 6148-MN where there was only one victim in
witnesses. 35 each case, the crimes committed were simple illegal recruitment
penalized in par. (c), Art. 39. People vs. Avendaño, 216 SCRA 187,
Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution G.R. Nos. 96277-82 December 2, 1992
as secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still the absence thereof
does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, 36 where this
particular issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants' failure to GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
ask for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their
consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the Six (6) separate information for Illegal Recruitment of some 38
said payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by
workers were filled against appellant Abelardo Avendaño y Crespo
their respective testimonies that said accused was involved in the entire
recruitment process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, which were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6113-MN, 6114-MN,
were declared sufficient to establish that  factum probandum. 6125-MN, 6131-MN, 6143-MN and 6148-MN in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 170, at Malabon, Metro Manila. The information
Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the alleged the following:
prosecution witnesses, their statements being positive and affirmative in
nature. This is more worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self- The undersigned Assistant Fiscal accused Abelardo Avendaño of
serving denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare the crime of Illegal Recruitment, committed as follows:
denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the
prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 37
1. Criminal Case No. 6113-MN
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 26

That sometime in the months of June and July, 1986, in the That sometime in the year 1986 covering the months of January,
Municipal of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the March, April and September, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
conspiring, confederating, with accused CARMELITO SORIANO, Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with
JR., yet known and helping with one another, representing himself accused CARMELITO SORIANO, JR. whose whereabout is not yet
to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers known and helping with one another, representing himself to have
for employment abroad, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for
feloniously, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job employment abroad, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
placement abroad to MARINO NOVESTRO y RONATO, RONALDO feloniously, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job
CRUCENA y RONO, ZOCIMO DEL ROSARIO y CUBILLA, placement abroad to DOMINGO ESCUBIN y ECUBI, RODOLFO
RUPERTO LEGASPI y DIGMA and GUILLERMO ROMASANTA y LAUZON y SERRANO, ANGELO ROBLES y MENESES,
LEGASPI without first securing the required license or authority WILFREDO MORA y ARMEROLA, BERNARDO CANILANG y
form the Department of Labor and Employment. (p. 8, Rollo.) AQUINO, LEOPOLDO CO y FERNANDEZ, MARLINO CANILANG
y COLOMA, JESSI SORIANO y MANUEL and MAURO CABARDO
2. Criminal Case 6114-MN y SANTOS, JR., without first securing the required license of
authority from the Department of Labor and Employment." (p.
15, Rollo.)
That sometime in the months of June, 1986, in the Municipality of
Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, 6. Criminal Case No. 6148-MN
confederating with accused CARMELITO SORIANO, JR. whose
identity and whereabout are not yet known and helping with one That on or about the 15th day of April, 1985, in the Municipality of
another, representing himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did, then and Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit and confederating with accused CARMELITO SORIANO, JR., MANUEL
promise employment/job placement abroad to FELICIANO BAGO, CALANOG and RENATO M. SORIANO whose whereabouts are not
FEDERICO MOJICA Y DEROY, DANILO PANGANIBAN y yet known and helping with one another, representing himself to
LEGASPI and ALBERTO ESPINELLI y LEGASPI, without first have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers
securing the required license for authority from the Department of for employment abroad, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
Labor and Employment. (p. 10, Rollo.) feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement
abroad to HENRY CAMBA y LIVARA, without first securing the
3. Criminal Case No. 6125-MN required license or authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment. (p. 17, Rollo.)
That sometime in the year 1986 covering the months of June,
October, and November, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro Upon arraignment, Avendaño pleaded not guilty to the six (6)
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable informations. His co-accused, Carmelito Soriano, Jr., Renato M.
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, with Soriano and Manuel Calonog have remained at large. (pp. 8-
accused CARMELITO SORIANO, JR. whose identity and 17, Rollo.)
whereabout is not yet known and helping with one another,
representing himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and The cases were consolidated and jointly tried.
transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit and Except for the amounts, the circumstances, and the names of the
promise employment/job placement abroad to ELIODORO BAGO y victims, the factual scenario of these six criminal cases are
RONO, PAMFILO LLAMADO y ROMASANTA, LEOPOLDO summarized in the decisions of the trial as follows:
CUBILLA y EMELO, TOMAS LIVETA y FERRERA, VIRGILIO
FLORALDE y CAGITLA, RUBEN AMBAT y LIVETA, ARTEMIO
PEÑUS y PARANTAL, EDGARDO RODIL y RAMOS, JAIME The accused (Abelardo C. Avedaño) is the Treasurer of MCBRAJ
FERRERA y MIRANDA, ZOCIMO FERRERA y EYAYA, IRENEO Agro-Industrial Development Company (MAINDECO), with offices
RAMOS y NOCEDA, LOPE COSTELO y DELALUYA, REYNALDO at 26 Sta. Cecilia St., Sto. Rosario Village, Malabon, Metro Manila,
PANGANIBAN y FERRERA and APOLONIO MOJICA y VIDALLO, which is also his residence. The company is not licensed nor
without first securing the required license or authority from the authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Carmelito
Department of Labor and Employment. (p. 11, Rollo.) Soriano, Jr. is the President of the said Company, Manuel Calanog
is the personnel manager (pp. 17-18, tsn, June 21, 1988; pp. 22-23,
Rec. );
4. Criminal Case No. 6131-MN
In Criminal Case No. 6113, the evidence shows that Rolando
That sometime in the year 1984, 1985, 1987 covering the months of Crucena and Zosimo del Rosario went to the house of the accused
November, September and May in the Municipality of Malabon, sometime in June, 1986 to apply as plumber as steel bender,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this respectively, in Papua, New Guinea. Guillermo Romasanta likewise
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, applied for a job as a plumber when he went to the house of accuse
confederating with accused CARMELITO SORIANO, JR. whose in July, 1986. They were all required to submit papers, such as bio-
identity and whereabout is not yet known and helping with one data, birth certificate, marriage contract and certification of previous
another, representing himself to have the capacity to contact, enlist employment and clearances. Each one of them was asked by the
and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did, then and accused to give P5,500.00. After giving said amount to the accused,
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit and the latter told them that they could leave within ninety days. Said
promise employment/job placement abroad to HILARION PASIA y period expired but they were not able to leave and were asked to
ROBLES, FELIPE EDILLOR y EDILLON, BAYANI AFABLE y wait, with a promise that they would be able to leave later, and they
BONDOC, LEODEGARIO ROBLES y RAMOS, AND NEL-JUNE waited for almost one year, until they got tired of waiting and filed a
EVANGELISTA y SARMIENTO, without first securing the required complaint against the accused.
license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.
(p. 13, Rollo.)
In Criminal Case No. 6114, Feliciano Bago, Federico Mojica and
Alberto Espinelli went to the house of the accused to apply for jobs
5. Criminal Case No. 6143.-MN in Papua, New Guinea as steel fixer and plumbers sometime in
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 27

June, 1986, submitted their papers and paid P5,500.00 to the and Manager and his duty was only to issue receipts to the
accused, who told them they could leave within ninety days but complainants upon payment of their shares in the corporation.
which did not materialize. However, the joint venture with Papua, New Guinea did not
materialize because the President had already disappeared. He
In Criminal Case No. 6125, Reynaldo Panganiban and Apolonio admitted that he joined MAINDECO because of the offer made to
Mejica applied as steelman and warehouseman, respectively, with him by the Vice-President to go to Papua, New Guinea.
MAINDECO in June, 1986, submitted documents and paid
P5,500.00 to the accused, who assured them that they could leave It is admitted that MAINDECO is not licensed or authorized by the
for Papua, New Guinea, which did not materialize despite a long Department of Labor and Employment to engage in recruitment of
period of time. Ruben Ambat applied with MAINDECO as electrician persons for overseas employment. Consequently, the recruitment
in November, 1986 and submitted documents and paid P5,500.00 activities undertaken by MAINDECO are illegal. Illegal recruitment,
to the accused , who told him he could leave for Papua, New when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
Guinea before Christmas or three months thereafter, but was not considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal
able to do so. However, Pamfilo Llamado and Tomas Liveta, who recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
likewise applied with MAINDECO for jobs in Papua, New Guinea in group of three (3) of more persons conspiring and/or confederating
June, 1986 and October, 1985, respectively, admitted that the with one another in carrying out any lawful or illegal transaction,
accused only received the placement fee of P4,500.00 from them enterprise or scheme, and it is deemed committed in large scale if
and issued receipts thereof, but did not promise them jobs in committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
Papua, New Guinea, which promise was made to them by the group. (Article 38, paragraphs [a] and [b], Labor Code). The penalty
President and Personnel Manager of MAINDECO. of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 shall be imposed if
illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Any person who
In Criminal Case No. 6131, Bayani Afable and Lodegario Robles is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority found violating any
went to MAINDECO in March, 1987 and applied as electricians in provision of the Code shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not
Papua, New Guinea and talked with the accused, who asked them less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less
to give P5,000.00 each. They gave the money and the documents than P20,000.00 nor more than 100,000.00 or both such
required by the office in connection with their job applications to the imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court. If the offender
accused, who assured them that they could leave for abroad. is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the the penalty
shall be imposed upon the officer or officers of the corporation,
partnership, association or entity responsible for violation. (Article
In Criminal Case No. 6143, Rodolfo Lauzon applied on March 5, 39, paragraphs [a], [c] and [d], Labor Code.)
1986 with MAINDECO for a job as janitor in Papua, New Guinea
and was asked to pay a placement fee of P5,500.00. He paid said
amount to the accused, who then told him that he could leave after The accused admitted that the complainants, who paid for
three months. certificates of stock of MAINDECO, were told by the President of
the corporation that they would be sent to Papua, New Guinea
pursuant to the joint venture tuna industry (tsn, Feb. 13, 1990, p. 5).
In Criminal Case No. 6148, Henry Camba applied in April, 1985 with In other words, the accused was aware that the complainants were
MAINDECO for a job as electrician in Papua, New Guinea, offered job opportunities in Papua, New Guinea. The assurance that
submitted the papers required by said company and paid the they would be sent abroad, in addition to being stockholders of the
amount of P4,000.00 to the accused and he was told that he could corporation, impelled the complainants to give their money to the
leave within three to six months. However, two years lapsed and accused. Thus, aside from being required to pay for the certificates
Henry Camba was still not able to leave and he demanded for the of stock, the complainants were likewise required to submit
reimbursement of the money he paid, to no avail. documents, such as bio-data, birth certificates, marriage contracts,
clearances and certificate of previous employment. With respect to
It appears that the receipts issued by the accused to the complaints the complainants who paid P5,500.00, only the amount of
show that the payments made by them were in the form of trust P4,500.00 was receipted as trust deposit by the accused, who told
deposit for one unit of share in the company. The receipts were them that the balance of P1,000.00 was intended for the processing
subsequently surrendered to the company in exchange of of their passport and for their physical examination. Some of the
certificates of common share in MCARM Agro-Industrial complainants underwent physical examination and attended
Development Corporation, making the complainants stockholders of orientation seminars while waiting for their departure. In view of the
the corporation. However, Henry Camba refused to surrender his fact that MAINDECO is not a licensed or authorized recruitment
receipt in exchange for a certificate of common share as he was entity and, therefore, not authorized to recruit anyone for
insisting that the money he paid be returned to him. Moreover, while employment, said corporation made it appear that the payment
some of the complainants paid P5,500.00, the receipts issued to made to it was for the purchase of certificates of stock and that
them reflected only the amount of P4,500.00 as the balance of complainants were stockholders of the corporation was a cover-up
P1,000.00 was allegedly for the processing of their passport and to their illegal activities.
physical examination. Some of the complainants underwent
physical examination and made to attend orientation seminars while On October 2, 1990, the trial court rendered a single decision
waiting for their departure to Papua, New Guinea. The complainants convicting Avendaño of the crime charged and sentenced as
finally got tired of waiting for the promised employment abroad and follows:
filed their complaints against the accused.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgement is hereby
On the other hand, the accused tried to show that MAINDECO, rendered finding accused Abelardo Avendaño Y Crespo guilty
which was engaged in the construction business, was duly beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He was committed in large scale, thus constituting economic sabotage,
appointed treasurer of the corporation and, as such, he received defined and penalized in Article 39, paragraph (a) of the Labor
payments and issued receipts. MAINDECO was invited by the Code, in Criminal Case Nos. 6113, 6114 and 6125 and sentences
government of Papua, New Guinea to a joint venture tuna industry him to imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 in each case.
(Exh. "3"), for which reason, it sold stocks to private individuals with In Criminal Case Nos. 6131, 6143 and 6148, accused Abelardo
the promise that they would be sent to Papua, New Guinea should Avendaño Y Crespo is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
the joint venture materialize. He denied having talked to the crime of Illegal Recruitment defined and penalized in Article 38,
complainants regarding jobs in Papua, New Guinea, claiming that paragraph (c) of the Labor Code and sentenced to suffer the
the officials who talked to them were the President, Vice-President
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 28

penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, as minimum to eight (8) (b) Illegal recruitment when committed be a syndicate or in large
years as maximum and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, in each case. scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage
and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Cost against the accused in all the above-entitled cases.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate  if carried out
Let the accused be credited with whatever preventive imprisonment by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
he has undergone by reason of these cases, pursuant to Article 29 confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
of the Revised Penal Code. (pp. 43-44, Rollo.) transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph
hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against (3) or more persons individually or as a group ."
Because the accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment in three (3) of the Six (6) cases, he appealed to this
Court, assigning the following errors against the judgement of the Art. 39. Penalties. — (a) The penalty of life imprisonment an a fine
lower court: of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed if
illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein:
1. The trial court erred in appreciating only the evidence of the
prosecution and in disregarding the evidence of the defense. xxx xxx xxx

2. The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime (c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority
charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt under this Title found violating any provision thereof or its
beyond reasonable doubt. (p. 56, Rollo.) implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof,
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor
more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor more
The appeal has no merit. than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion
of the court;
The trial court correctly fount Avendaño to have conspired with his
co-accused Carmelito Soriano, Jr., Manuel Calanog and Renato M. (d) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity,
Soriano, to illegally recruit some 38 persons for overseas the penalty shall be imposed upon the officer or officers of the
employment, charging and collecting a fee of P5,500.00 from each corporation, partnership, association or entity responsible for
job applicant although they (the accused) did not have the required violation; and if such officer is an alien, he shall, in addition to the
license and authority from the Department of Labor to engage in penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further
recruiting workers for overseas employment. They defrauded the proceedings; (Emphasis supplied)
job applicants of the "fees" (P5,500.00) which the latter paid for the
false hope of obtaining employment in Papua, New Guinea, which
was never realized. Appellant's pretext that the fee of P5,500.00 In Crim. Case Nos. 6113-MN and 6114-MN where Avendaño acted
paid by each job applicant was not a placement fee but payment for in conspiracy with his co-accused to fleece three (3) job applicants
a share of stock in MAINDECO, supposedly a prerequisite for the in each case of their placement fees for non-existent overseas jobs,
deployment of the "stockholder" in Papua, New Guinea, must be and in Crim, Case No. 6125-MN where they victimized five (5)
rejected for the simple reason that those who purchased the persons, the crimes committed were illegal recruitment by a
"shares" did not intend to invest, but to obtain a job placement, in syndicate (Art. 38 Labor Code). When illegal recruitment is
Papua, New Guinea. They were not investors but job seekers. committed by a syndicate or in large scale, it becomes an offense
Further proof that they were being swindled is that those who paid involving economic sabotage (Art. 38, Labor Code) and shall be
P5,500.00 each received a receipt for only P4,500.00 from the penalized with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000 (Art. 39,
appellant who informed them that the unreceipted amount of par. [a], Labor Code ).
P1,000.00 was to pay for their medical examination and the
processing of their passports, although no passports were ever In Crim. Case No. 6131-MN where only two persons were
issued to them. defrauded, and in Crim. Case Nos. 6143-MN and 6148-MN where
there was only one victim in each case, the crimes committed were
Appellant's allegation that he allowed his residence to be used as simple illegal recruitment penalized in par. (c), Art. 39.
MAINDECO's office because he was induced to join the corporation
by Gapuz, MAINDECO's Vice-President, who promised him a job WHEREFORE, as the trial court did not commit any reversible error
abroad, is unbelievable. At no time in the course of his testimony in finding Avendaño guilty of large scale illegal recruitment in
did he mention any attempt on his part to follow up his supposed Criminal Cases Nos. 6113, 6114 and 6125, and of simple illegal
application for overseas employment. recruitment in Criminal Case Nos. 6131, 6143 and 6148, and as the
penalties imposed are in accordance with the law, the appealed
Appellant's pretense that he was a "victim" like the complainants, is decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
absurd for it was he who collected the placement fees of the
complainants. SO ORDERED.

Appellant and his co-accused committed Illegal Recruitment on a

Large Scale as defined and penalized in Articles 38(b) and 39(a) of
the Labor Code, because they had victimized more than three (3)
job applications — thirty eight (38) in fact.
People vs. Badoza, 215 SCRA 33 (1992)
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of G.R. No. 96621 October 21, 1992
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of
this Code. This Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
enforcement officers may initiate complainants under this Article. vs. JOEY BODOZO y BULA, and NIMFA BODOZO y
NERI, accused-appellant.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 29

CAMPOS, JR., J.: for the crimes charged therein and hereby acquits them of said
charges.
This is an appeal 1 interposed by accused Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
Bodozo, husband and wife, from the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Both Accused are hereby ordered to refund, jointly and severally, to
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XLIX, Manila, in the following Private Complainants the amounts appearing opposite
Criminal Case Nos. 89-73608-SCC to 89-73613-SCC, finding them their respective names, as follows:
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment
defined in and penalized by Article 13 in relation to Article 38 of the 1. Prudencio Renon P19,000.00
Labor Code, as amended, and sentencing each of them to suffer
the penalty of Life Imprisonment.
2. Fernando Gagtan 20,000.00
Accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court
with five (5) counts of Estafa (docketed as Criminal Case No. 89- 3. Angelino Obiacoro 20,000.00
73609 to 89-73613) and a separate charge for Illegal Recruitment
(docketed as Criminal Case NO. 89-73608). 4. Ludovico Gagtan 10,000.00

With regards to the charge of Estafa, accused-appellants were With costs against the accused.
acquitted of the crime charged. hence this appeal refers only to the
crime of illegal recruitment. SO ORDERED. 4

On May 30, 1989, the Assistant Prosecutor filed the following Hence the instant appeal by the accused Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
information for illegal recruitment against Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo.
Bodozo, to wit:
Accused-appellants raised the following assignment of errors, to wit:
The undersigned accused JOEY BODOZO y BULA and NIMFA
BODOZO y NERI of a violation of Article 38 (a), Presidential Decree
I
No. 1412, amending certain provisions of Book I, Presidential
Decree No. 442 (New Labor Code of the Philippines), in relation to
Article 13 (b) and (c) of said Code, as further amended by IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN
Presidential Decree No. 1693 and Presidential Decree No. 1920, FAVOR OF THE CLAIM OF BOTH ACCUSED THAT THEY ONLY
committed in a large scale, as follows: HELPED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS APPLIED FOR JOB
ABROAD, THAT THEY WERE NOT RECRUITERS.
That in or about and during the period comprised between October
3, 1988 and April 8, 1989, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said II
accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each other, representing themselves to have the capacity to IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS MARSHALLED
contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment THE DEGREE OF PROOF WHICH PRODUCED THE
abroad, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit CONVICTIONS OF BOTH ACCUSED.
and promise employment/job placement abroad to Domingo
Obiacoro y Gagtan, Ludivico Gagtan y Lopez, Angelino Obiacoro y The main thrust of this case hinges on whether or not the guilt of the
Aspiras, Prudencio Renon y Lopez and Fernando Gagtan y Lopez, accused-appellants have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
without first having secured the required license or authority from
the Department of Labor and Employment.
As found by the trial court, the facts as could be gleaned from the
3 evidence on record, were as follows:
Contrary to Law. 

When the accused Nimfa Bodozo was in Luna, La, Union, she told
On arraignment, accused-appellants, Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
the private complainants, who are simple farmers, and at the time
Bodozo, assisted by their counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the unemployed, that she was recruiting workers for employment in
information. Saudi Arabia and Singapore. The accused Nimfa Bodozo required
the five (5) private complainants to submit to her, in addition to their
On July 6, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment, the decretal respective applications, NBI clearances and medical certificates in
portion of which reads as follows: connection with their applications. The private complainants
Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan were told by the accused
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in these cases as Nimfa Bodozo that their salary in Saudi Arabia was US$200.00 a
follows: month, while the accused Nimfa Bodozo assured private
complainant, Angelino Obiacoro, Ludovico Gagtan and Domingo
Obiacoro that they were going to be paid, by their respective
1. In People versus Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo, Criminal Case
employers, in Singapore, the amount of Singapore 16.00 dollars a
No. 89-73608, the Court finds both Accused guilty, beyond
day. The private complainant Prudencio Renon and Fernando
reasonable doubt, of the crime of illegal recruitment defined in and
Gagtan submitted their application forms, duly filled up, passports,
penalized by Article 13 in relation to Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
their NBI clearances and medical certificates to the accused Nimfa
amended, and hereby metes on each of them the penalty of LIFE
Bodozo in their residence at Quirino Avenue, Manila, Domingo
IMPRISONMENT and hereby condemns each of them "to pay" a
Obiacoro, Angelino Obiacoro and Ludovico Gagtan likewise
fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
submitted to the accused their NBI clearances and medical
insolvency.
certificates as required by the accused. Moreover, the accused
demanded from the private complainant Prudencio Renon the
2. In People versus Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo, Criminal Case amount of P19,000.00 in connection with his application for
Nos. 89-73609 to 89-73613 , the Court finds that the Prosecution employment abroad. Of the said amount, P15,000.00 was to be
failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt used by the accused as processing fee for the application and
papers of the private complainant for his employment abroad
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 30

Prudencio Renon paid to the accused Nimfa Bodozo, on October 3, under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and
1988, the amount of P15,000.00 for which the said accused signed Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints
a Receipt. 5 The mother of Prudencio Renon paid the balance of under this Article. (Emphasis supplied.)
P4,000.00 to the same accused but the latter did not issue any
receipt for said amount. Under Article 13 (b) Recruitment and Placement is defined as:

The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from the private Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting transporting, utilizing,
complainant Fernando Gagtan the amount of P20,000.00 in hiring or procuring workers and includes referrals, contract services,
connection with his application for employment abroad. Fernando promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether
Gagtan paid to the accused Nimfa Bodozo, also on October 3, for profit or not. Provided that any person or entity which, in any
1988, the amount of P12,000.00 for which the said accused signed manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
and issued Receipts 6 and the amount of P8,000.00 through persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement .
Maxima Gagtan the mother of Fernando Gagtan, for which the (Emphasis supplied.)
accused Nimfa Bodozo issued a Receipt dated April 8, 1989. 7
It should be noted that any of the acts mentioned in Article 13 (b)
The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from Domingo Obiacoro the can lawfully be undertaken only by the licensees or holders of
amount of P20,000.00 in connection with hi application for authority to engage in the recruitment and placement workers.
employment abroad. Of the amount, P10,000.00 will be used for the
purchase of a plane ticket for the private complainant for Singapore
and the balance of P10,000.00 was to be used as placement fee for The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements:
the application of the private complainant for employment abroad.
Domingo Obiacoro paid P10,000.00 to the accused Nimfa Bodozo 1 The offender is a non-license or non-holder of authority to lawfully
in the house of the friend of the accused in Luna, La Union but the engage in the recruitment or placement of workers; and
accused did not issue any Receipt for the amount at the time.
Domingo Obiacoro paid the balance of P10,000.00 to the accused 2 That the offender undertakes either any recruitment activities
Nimfa Bodozo in the house of the accused Joey Bodozo later defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated
signed and issued a Receipt for the said amount of P20,000.00. 8 under Article 34 of the Labor Code.

The accused Joey Bodozo demanded from Angelino Obiacoro the In this case at bar, it is undisputed that accused-appellants Joey
payment of P20,000.00 in connection with the latter's application for Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo are neither licensed not authorized to
employment abroad. Angelino Obiacoro gave to the accused Joey recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the
Bodozo the amount of P10,000.00 in two (2) installments on certification 14 issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment
different occasion for which the accused Joey Bodozo later signed Administration (POEA).
and issued a Receipt. 9
Accused-appellants want this Court to believe that they merely
The accused Joey Bodozo likewise demanded from Ludovico helped private complainants apply for overseas employment.
Gagtan the payment of the amount of P20,000.00 in connection Evidences on record, however, show otherwise. Accused-
with his application for employment abroad. Ludovico Gagtan, appellants not only asked private complainants to fill up application
through his mother, Maxima Gagtan, gave to the accused Nimfa forms but also to submit to them their NBI clearances, passports
Bodozo the amount of P10,000.00 but the latter failed to issue any and medical certificates. In addition thereto, accused-appellants
receipt at that time. However, considering that the private collected payment for processing fee and other sundry expenses
complainant did not have the amount of P10,000.00 to pay the from private complainants, all which constitutes acts of recruitment
balance of the P20,000.00 demanded by the accused, but the latter within the meaning of the law.
offered to advance the amount for the account of private
complainant for which the latter and his mother, Maxima Gagtan,
Accused-appellants point to a certain Belen Hernandez, a manager
signed a "Promissory Note" in favor of the accused Joey
of Mcgleo International Management and Service Contractor a duly
Bodozo.10 However, the accused added the amount of P4,000.00 to
registered and licensed recruiter, and Jing Evangelista of Ultragen,
the P10,000.00 purportedly advanced by the accused for the private
Inc. as the persons who were responsible for the recruitment of
complainant by the way of interests on said loan. The accused
private complainants. If such allegations were true, why did
Nimfa Bodozo later signed and issued a Receipt 11 for the amount of
accused-appellants not present any one of them as witness to
P10,000.00 remitted to her by the mother of Ludivico Gagtan. 12
corroborate their claim? For reasons only known to them, they
chose to suppress such testimony as evidence and instead risked
After a careful scrutiny of the evidence, We found no cause to the adverse inference and legal presumption that "evidence wilfully
disapprove the facts as stated above and we adopt the same as suppressed would be adverse if
Our findings of facts. In the absence of any substantial proof that produced. 15
the trial court's decision was grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures, the same must be accorded full
Besides, if it was Belen Hernandez and Jing Evangelista who were
consideration and respect. After all, the trial court is in a much
the recruiters, why did accused-appellants issue the
better position to observe and correctly appreciate the respective
receipts 16 acknowledging payments made by private complainants?
parties' evidence as they were presented. 13

Accused-appellants Nimfa Bodozo alleged that she was forced to

The crime of illegal recruitment is defined under Article 38 (a) in
issue and sign receipts marked as Exhibits J and N because private
relation to Article 13 (b) and 34, and penalized under Article 39 of
complainants Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan were mad
the Labor Code as amended by PD 1920 and PD 2018.
and refused to leave the house. On the other hand, accused-
appellant Joey Bodozo claimed that he, too, was forced to issue
Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code provides as follows: and sign Exhibits L and E at Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila because
private complainants Angelino Obiacoro and Domingo Obiacoro
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment would kill him.
activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by the non-licensees or
non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 31

We find accused-appellants' alibi not convincing. Such allegations acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and
are self-serving. No evidence of force was represented by accused- representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in
appellant Nimfa Bodozo to bolster her claim that she was forced Taiwan constitute recruitment and placements defined under the
except to state that she was afraid of private complainants' anger. In Labor Code. The same Labor Code prohibits any person or entity,
the case of accused-appellant Joey Bodozo, it will be noted that the not authorized by the POEA, from engaging in recruitment and
alleged force happened in a busy public street. Neither did the placement activities, thus, the POEA living certified that accused-
accused-appellants file any case against private complainants for appellant is not authorized to recruit workers for overseas
forcing them to sign and issue said receipts. At most, their claim of employment, it is clear that the offense committed against the six
force may be said to be merely an afterthought to exculpate (6) complainants in this case is illegal recruitment in large scale
themselves from the charges levelled against them by private punishment under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code with life
complainants. imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00). The argument that the deceit employed was not by
Moreover, We agree with the findings of the trial court that no accused-appellant is ridiculous. All the complainants agreed that it
improper motives may be attributed to private complainants to was accused-appellant Tan who assured them of jobs in Taiwan.
charge accused-appellants with a serious crime as illegal The assurances were made intentionally to deceive the would-be
recruitment. job applicants to part with their money.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; PERSON CONVICTED FOR ILLEGAL

Records show that private complainants are simple farmers, RECRUITMENT CAN ALSO BE CONVICTED FOR ESTAFA;
unemployed and natives of La Union, who see employment abroad ELEMENTS. — A person convicted for illegal recruitment under the
as a means to alleviate their living conditions, only to find out that Labor Code can be convicted for violation of the Revised Penal
they have been the victims of illegal recruiters preying on poor Code provision on estafa provided the elements of the crime are
workers. It has been held that "the abscence of evidence as to an present. Thus: a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution confidence or by means of deceit, and b) that damage or prejudice
strongly tends to sustain no improper motive existed and their capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. 17 third person. Both elements have been proven in this case.

Lastly , under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, the crime 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATE POLICIES; ON LABOR;
of illegal recruitment is qualified when the same is committed CAMPAIGN AGAINST ILLEGAL RECRUITERS. — The campaign
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. and drive against illegal recruiters should be continuous and
Accused-appellant having committed the crime of illegal recruitment unrelenting. Government should not be content with bringing to
against Prudencio Renon, Fernando Gagtan, Angelino Obiacoro justice but a number of these diabolic denizens of society who thrive
and Ludovico Gagtan, the penalty of life imprisonment and the fine on the dreams of our countrymen of having a better life. Only when
of P100,000.00 (Article 39 (a) Labor Code of the Philippines as the last of their tribe has been convicted and punished can the
amended) was correctly imposed by the trial court. government rightfully claim that it has fulfilled the constitutional
mandate to protect the rights and promote the welfare of workers.
In the light of foregoing findings and for reasons indicated, We hold
that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict finding the People vs Tan Tiong Meng
accused guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment as charged.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is hereby FACTS: Six(6) complainants went to Borja’s house to meet
AFFIRMED with no pronouncement to costs. accused, Tan Tiong Meng, allegedly a job recruiter . Accused
promised to complainants that they could get jobs as factory worker
SO ORDERED. in Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20K. Accused required them to
submit their passports, bio-data and their high school diploma as
well as to pay P15K each for placement and processing fees.
Accused kept on promising to complainants that they would be able
to leave, but the promises were never fulfilled. When complainants
B. In Large Scale
knew that accused was not a licensed or authorized overseas
recruiter, they filed for complaints for illegal recruitment and estafa
People vs. Tan Tiong Meng, G.R. No. 120835 against accused.

FIRST DIVISION Accused contend that he merely acted as a collector of money for
[G.R. Nos. 120835-40. April 10, 1997.] the principal recruiter Borja who made the representations that
he(accused) could give the applicants jobs in Taiwan.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAN TIONG
MENG alias "TOMMY TAN", Accused-Appellant.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of the offense of illegal
PADILLA, J.:
recruitment in large scale and 6 counts of estafa.

SYLLABUS
HELD: YES.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY;

Circumstances belie the version of accused: (1) Mascardo(one of
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; ESTABLISHED. —
the complainants) testified that accused could no longer return the
Several revealing circumstances belie the version for the defense.
money because he had already sent it to his brother-in-law in
And there is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives
Taiwan; (2) all the receipts issued to complainants were signed by
against Tan other than to bring him to the bar of justice. The
accused; (3) Accused admitted that he and his wife are respondents
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were straight-
in about 70 cases of estafa and illegal recruitment; (4) complainants
forward, credible and convincing. The constitutional presumption of
pointed to Tan and not Borja as the one who had represented to
innocence in Tan’s favor has been overcome by proof beyond
them that he could give them jobs in Taiwan.
reasonable doubt and we affirm his convictions.

2. LABOR LAW; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; The accused’ acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants
COMMITTED IN CASE AT BAR; PENALTY. — Accused-appellant’s and representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 32

Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement under the Labor Code

and is deemed illegal and punishable under Art. 39 of the Labor
Code.

The offense committed against the 6 complainants is illegal

recruitment in large scale. Accused is also guilty of 6 separate
crimes of estafa. A person convicted for illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code can be convicted for violation of the RPC provisions
on estafa provided the elements are present: (1) the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit;
and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or third person.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 33

relatives who were interested to work abroad. Accused, who also

operated a restaurant nearby at Padre Faura, informed Paguio that
People vs. Bautista, 241 SCRA 216 (1995) she knew somebody who could facilitate immediate employment in
Taiwan for Paguio's relatives. Accused Anita Bautista introduced
Rosa Abrero to Paguio. Abrero informed him that the applicants
G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 could leave for Taiwan within a period of one-month from the
payment of placement fees. They informed Paguio that the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, placement fee was P40,000.00 for each person. Paguio contacted
vs. ANITA BAUTISTA y LATOJA, accused-appellant. his relatives, complainants Remigio Fortes and Dominador Costales
who were his brothers-in-law, and Anastacio Amor, a cousin, who
PUNO, J.: lost no time raising the needed money and gave the same to
Paguio. The three were to work as factory workers and were to be
paid $850.00 monthly salary each. Paguio gave Rosa Abrero
Four (4) separate Informations1 were filed before the Regional Trial
P20,000.00, which would be used in following up the papers of the
Court of Manila (Branch XLI) against accused ANITA BAUTISTA y
complainants; later he gave accused P40,000.00 and P60,000.00 in
LATOJA, charging her with the crimes of Illegal Recruitment In
separate amounts, totalling P100,000.00, as the remaining balance.
Large Scale2 and Estafa.3
Abrero and accused Bautista promised Paguio and complainants
that the latter could leave for Taiwan before September 25, 1991.
Upon arraignment on January 29, 1992, accused pleaded NOT As September 25, 1991 approached, accused Bautista informed
GUILTY.4 The four (4) cases were tried jointly. Paguio and complainants that there was a delay in the latter's
departure because their tickets and visas had not yet been
After trial, the court a quo found accused guilty as charged. 5 In the released. Accused re-scheduled the complainants' departure to
illegal recruitment case, she was meted the penalty of life October 10, 1991. Came October 10, 1991, and complainants were
imprisonment and ordered to pay P 100,000.00 as fine. In the still not able to leave. Paguio then required accused Bautista to sign
estafa cases, she was sentenced from two (2) years, eight (8) the "Acknowledgment Receipt," dated October 11, 1991, in which
months and twenty one (21) days of  prision correccional  as accused admitted having received the sum of P100,000.00 from
minimum, to six (6) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days Paguio, representing payment of plane tickets, visas and other
of prision mayor  as maximum for each count of estafa, and pay travel documents (Exhibit A). Paguio asked accused to return
each complainant the amount of P40,000.00 as civil indemnity. complainants' money; accused, however, promised that
complainants could leave for Taiwan before Christmas. From
POEA, Paguio secured a certification, dated January 9, 1992
Accused, thru counsel, filed her Notice of Appeal, dated March 6,
attesting that Annie Bautista and Rosa Abrero are not licensed or
1992, indicating her desire to elevate her case to this Court. 6 The
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment (Exhibit B).
records of the case were, however, transmitted by the trial court to
Complainants Fortes, Amor and Costales, as well as Paguio, gave
the Court of Appeals. In its Decision7 dated November 26, 1993, the
their written statements at the Office of the Assistant Chief
appellate court affirmed appellant's conviction. However, it modified
Directorial Staff for Intelligence of the WPDC, complaining about
the penalty for the three (3) estafa cases. The dispositive portion of
their being victims of illegal recruitment by Rosa Abrero and Annie
the decision of the appellate court states:
Bautista (Exhibits C, D, E and F).

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 92-102377, the Court finds

The issue boils down to whether or not reasonable doubt exists to
accused Anita Bautista GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
warrant the acquittal of appellant Anita Bautista.
DOUBT  of the crime of illegal recruitment, described and penalized
under Article 13 (b), Article 38 (a) and (b) and Article 39 (a) of the
Labor Code, and imposes upon her the penalty of life imprisonment We find none.
and fine of P100,000.00. . . .
The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement  as referring to
Insofar as Criminal Case No. 92-102378, Criminal Case No. 92- "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
102379 and Criminal Case No. 92-102380, the Court renders hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract
judgment, finding accused Anita Bautista GUILTY BEYOND services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or
REASONABLE DOUBT  of the crime of estafa, described and abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided  that any person or entity
penalized under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to
and sentencing her in each criminal case to the indeterminate two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
penalty of (sic) from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of placement."8
prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to pay each complainants Remigio It is settled that the essential elements of the crime of illegal
Fortes, Anastacio Amor and Dominador Costales, the amount of recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in the
P40,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article 13
with costs. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon accused by the (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
lower court is MODIFIED. (2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
IT IS SO ORDERED. securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers,
either locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the same
against three (3) or more persons, individually or a group. 9
Pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 124, the appellate court elevated to
us the records of the case for review. Notice was given to appellant
for her to file additional Brief if she so desires. None was filed in her For her exculpation, appellant denied she recruited complainants for
behalf. employment abroad. She claimed Romeo Paguio was the one who
approached her and asked for someone who could help his
relatives work abroad. She thus introduced Rosa Abrero, a regular
The facts are as found by the appellate court:
customer at her restaurant, to Paguio. In turn, Paguio introduced
Abrero to complainants in their subsequent meeting. Further,
Sometime in August 1991, accused Anita Bautista approached appellant testified she was present during the recruitment of
Romeo Paguio at the latter's restaurant at 565 Padre Faura St., complainants since their meeting with Abrero was held at her
Manila, and offered job openings abroad. At that time, Paguio had restaurant. Appellant likewise stressed she did not receive the
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 34

amount of P100,000.00, as stated in the Acknowledgment Receipt, It is uncontroverted that appellant and Rosa Abrero
dated October 11, 1991, but merely acknowledged that said sum are not authorized or licensed to engage in recruitment
was received by Rosa Abrero from Romeo Paguio. activities.10 Despite the absence of such license or authority,
appellant participated in the recruitment of complainants. Since
Appellant's defense does not persuade us. there are at least three (3) victims in this case, appellant is correctly
held criminally liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. 11
Appellant's active participation in the recruitment process of
complainants belies her claim of innocence. Complainants' We shall now discuss appellant's culpability under the Revised
recruitment was initiated by appellant during her initial meeting with Penal Code, specifically Article 315 thereof, inasmuch as her
Romeo Paguio. She gave the impression to Romeo Paguio and the conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not avert
complainants that her cohort, Rosa Abrero, could send workers for punishment for offenses punishable by other laws. 12
employment abroad. She introduced Rosa Abrero to Romeo
Paguio. Both women assured the departure of complainants to The elements of estafa  are as follows: (1) that the accused
Taiwan within one month from payment of the placement fee of defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of
P40,000.00 per person. They even claimed that complainants would deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
work as factory workers for a monthly salary of $850.00 per person. estimation is caused by the offended party or third party.
Moreover, it was appellant who informed Romeo Paguio that
complainants' scheduled trip to Taiwan would be on October 10, In the case at bench, it is crystal clear that complainants were
1991, instead of the original departure date of September 25, 1991, deceived by appellant and Rosa Abrero into believing that there
due to some problems on their visas and travel documents. were, indeed, jobs waiting for them in Taiwan. The assurances
given by these two (2) women made complainants part with
Her close association with Rosa Abrero is further strengthened by whatever resources they have, in exchange for what they thought
the Acknowledgment Receipt, dated October 11, 1991, which was was a promising job abroad. Thus, they sold their carabaos,
prepared by Romeo Paguio for the protection of complainants. The mortgaged or sold their parcels of land and even contracted loans
receipt reads: to raise the much needed money, the P40,000.00 placement fee,
required of them by accused and Rosa Abrero.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
The penalty for estafa  depends on the amount defrauded. Article
P100,000.00 October 11, 1991 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "the penalty of prision
correccional  in its maximum period to prision mayor  in its minimum
period (or imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day
RECEIVED FROM: ROMEO PAGUIO, the amount of ONE to 8 years), if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does
HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS, Philippine not exceed  P22,000.00 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
Currency, representing the payment (of) plane ticket, visa and other latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed
travel documents. in its maximum period  (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
years), adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 pesos; but
CONFORME: the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty
years. In such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties
By: which may be imposed and for the purpose of other provisions of
this Code, the penalty shall be termed  prision mayor  or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
(Sgd.) ROMEO PAGUIO (Sgd.) MRS. ANNIE BAUTISTA

The amount defrauded in such estafa case (Criminal Case Nos. 92-
c/o Rosa Abrero
102378, 92-102379, 92-102380) is P 40,000.00. As prescribed in
Article 315, supra, the penalty should be imposed in the maximum
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: period  (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years)  plus one (1)
year, there being only one (1) P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00.
(Sgd.) Anastacio Amor Remigio Fortes Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty
should be taken from the aforesaid period, while the minimum term
of the indeterminate penalty shall be within the range of the penalty
Dominador Costales
next lower in degree, that is —  prision correccional  in its minimum
and medium periods which has a duration of 6 months, 1 day to 4
Said receipt shows that appellant collected the P100,000.00 for and year and 2 months.
in behalf of Rosa Abrero, and bolsters Romeo Paguio's allegation
that he gave P20,000.00 to Rosa Abrero, while the rest was
Considering the foregoing, the appellant court correctly imposed the
received by appellant. Notably, in its Decision, dated February 14,
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
1992, the trial court observed:
of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision
mayor, as maximum.
The denial(s) made by the accused of any participation in the
recruitment of the complainants do not persuade. The evidence at
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of
hand shows that she acknowledged in writing the receipt of
Appeals, finding appellant ANITA BAUTISTA guilty beyond
P100,000.00 from witness Romeo Paguio who was all along
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large
representing the complainants in securing employment for them in
Taiwan. Her denial of having actually received the money in the Scale  (Criminal Case Nos. 92-102377) and Estafa  (Criminal Case
Nos. 92-102378, 92-102379, 92-102380) is AFFIRMED. No Costs.
sum of P100,000.00, the receipt of which she voluntarily signed is
not convincing. By her own admission, she is a restaurant operator.
In other words, she is a business woman. As such, she ought to SO ORDERED.
know the consequences in signing any receipt. That she signed
Exh. "A" only goes to show that fact, as claimed by Romeo Paguio,
that she actually received the same.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 35

People vs. Coronacion, 237 SCRA 227 (1994) THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00); to pay to Zoilo Radam the
amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00); to Aristotle
G.R. No. 97845 September 29, 1994 Hilario the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) and
to Soledad Tadeo the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P10,000.00), also without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, insolvency and each to pay one-third (1/3) of the costs.
vs. NELIA CORONACION y NOQUE and EDUARDO AQUINO y
AQUINO, accused-appellants.
Trial as against the third accused, JUNE MENDEZ aka ANTONIO
MUNOZ y DE LA CRUZ, shall be held the moment he shall be
KAPUNAN, J.: Once again, the pernicious practice of illegal apprehended.
recruitment is the matter at hand. Nelia Coronacion, Eduardo
Aquino, and June Mendez were charged with the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale and by a syndicate for falsely In the meantime and in order that this case as against him will not
representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and appear pending for an indefinite period of time in the criminal docket
transport Filipino workers for employment abroad. We are now of this Court, as he has not been arrested from the time a warrant
asked to adjudge them guilty or not. for his arrest was issued last August 3, 1987, let the record of this
case as against said accused be sent to the files for archiving
without prejudice to its revival and subsequent prosecution the
The information was filed on July 29, 1987 before the Regional Trial moment he shall have been apprehended.
Court of Manila, Branch XII, and was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 87-56415. 1 The indictment reads:
SO ORDERED. 4
The undersigned accuses NELIA CORONACION y NOQUE,
EDUARDO AQUINO y AQUINO and JUN MENDEZ also known as The narration by the People of the prosecution's evidence as found
ANTONIO MUNOZ DELA ROSA of a Violation of Article 33(a) by the trial court concerning the recruitment activities of herein
Presidential Decree 1412, amending certain provisions of Book I, accused-appellants is hereby adopted, it being fully supported by
Presidential Decree 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code the testimonies of the complaining witnesses:
of the Philippines, in relation to Article 13(b) and (c) of said code as
amended by Presidential Decree 1693, 1920 and 2018 (ILLEGAL xxx xxx xxx
RECRUITMENT), committed in a large scale by a syndicate, as
follows: 2. RANDIE HILARIO, 21 years old, single, tricycle driver and a
resident of 195 Poblacion, Bustos, Bulacan testified that he came to
That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised between know the two accused, Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino,
June 18, 1987 and July 5, 1987, inclusive, in the City of Manila, when on July 2, 1987, he, together with Andres Ramos, Aristotle
Philippines, the said accused, representing themselves to have the Hilario, Rolando Laed and Soledad Tadeo, went to Room 1110,
capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for 11th Floor, Producers Bank Bldg., Dasmarinas corner Nueva Sts.,
employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a Binondo, Manila, where the two accused held office. June Mendez,
fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement in Saudi Arabia who gave them said address, was also in the office at that time.
to the following persons, namely: ARISTOTLE HILARIO y They were there, per earlier instructions of Mendez, to bring the
COLOCADO, ANDRES RAMOS y PEREZ, SOLEDAD TADEO y documents needed to support their applications to work abroad.
HILARIO, ROLANDO LAED y TABISOLA, ZOILO RADAN y RODA [TSN, September 9, 1987, pp. 5-6]
and RANDI HILARIO y ALCANTARA, without first having secured
the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor. At the office, Nelia Coronacion  and June Mendez  told them to sign
certain papers like their bio-data and they were told to prepare their
2
Contrary to law.  passports, NBI and police clearances. Once they can secure these
documents, they were told to come back and each to pay
However, only Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino were P10,000.00 as placement fee. [Ibid., p. 7]
apprehended. Accused June Mendez is still at large. Hence, on
August 11, 1987, the former were arraigned and each entered a On June 18, 1987, he gave to June Mendez the amount of
plea of not guilty. 3 Trial on the merits proceeded with respect to P3,000.00 as documentation fee in the office of the accused at
them. Producers Bank Bldg. Nelia Coronacion, sitting at her table, saw it.
Mendez issued a receipt for it (Exhibit 'E') and told him that the
In its decision promulgated on October 8, 1990, the trial court found amount will be used for the processing of his papers, after which
Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino guilty as charged and Mendez and Coronacion told him to come back after two weeks.
decreed as follows: When he returned, Mendez showed him some documents which
made him happy because he was assured they will leave after two
weeks. Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino, who was introduced to
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the them that day by Mendez, were also in the office. Some documents
Court finds the two (2) accused, NELIA CORONACION y NOQUE shown to him are (sic) the Travel Exit Pass (TEP) and the Medical
and EDUARDO AQUINO y AQUINO, guilty beyond reasonable Referral (Exhibit 'F') bearing the signature of Eduardo Aquino. He
doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment, committed in large scale, was told by Mendez that each must raise P10,000.00 and deliver it
as defined in Article 38 (a) & (b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, at their EAAALCO office. When he gave said amount at a date he
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended can no longer recall, the three accused were present. Actually, it
by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1693 and 1920 and further amended was Mendez who received the P10,000.00 from him and, in turn,
by Presidential Decree No. 2018, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c), Mendez delivered/handed it to Nelia Coronacion who kept the
and penalized under Article 39 (a), same Code, and as charged in money in her desk. No receipt was issued and he did not ask for
the information and, accordingly, hereby sentences each of them to one because he was confident he can already leave to work abroad
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment ( reclusion perpetua), with the just as his cousin, Fe Julian was able to work abroad through the
accessory penalties provided for by law; each to pay a fine of ONE efforts of the accused. But he was not able to leave on July 5, 1987
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00), without subsidiary as promised. Hence, when they failed to leave, they filed their
imprisonment in case of insolvency; to jointly and solidarily return complaint with the Western Police Department because the amount
and pay to Randie Hilario the amount of THIRTEEN THOUSAND of P13,000.00 he gave to the accused was never refunded or
PESOS (P13,000.00); to Rolando Laed the amount of FIFTEEN returned to him. [Ibid., pp. 7-8; TSN, October 7, 1987, pp. 1-11]
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 36

3. ROLANDO LAED, 28 years old, single, driver and a resident of know the three accused, Nelia Coronacion, Eduardo Aquino and
610 Pitong Gatang St., Tondo, Manila, testified that he met accused June Mendez, on June 2, 1987 at EAAALCO Construction Office,
Nelia Coronacion at the airport when they saw off Coronacion's Suite 1110 Prudential Bank Bldg., Damarinas office of accused
niece, Josephine Abelo [while] he met accused Eduardo Aquino at Eduardo Aquino while Coronacion and Mendez held office therein
their EAAALCO Office. [TSN, September 22, 1987; pp. 2-3] too. His companions in going to EAAALCO office were Andres
Ramos, Soledad Tadeo and Randie Hilario. He told the three
On June 2, 1987, he went to EAAALCO office and filed with accused of his desire to work abroad and after which he consented
Coronacion and Mendez his application as driver in Riyadh. He was to work as a janitor, he was told that his monthly salary at Riyadh,
told that accused Eduardo Aquino was out of town at that time. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, will be $260.00. Thereat, he and his
Mendez and Coronacion gave him the application papers to be filled companions were told to sign application forms and to prepare their
up and he was told to secure his NBI clearance, photographs and respective bio-data. After accomplishing them, they were instructed
passport. When he had all of them duly accomplished, he delivered to secure NBI and police clearances and other certification. [TSN,
them in the accused's office and he was told to pay P15,000.00. He December 22, 1988, pp. 2-5]
later gave said amount to Mendez who actually received it. Evelyn
Dalimot, his cousin, and Evelyn's mother, Leticia Dalimot, witnessed In consideration of his job placement abroad he was told to pay the
the payment. He was not issued a receipt. Notwithstanding his company the sum of P10,000.00. He paid the same in two
payment of P15,000.00 and the submission of the required installments to Mendez in the Office of the accused Eduardo
documents he, together with Randie Hilario, Aristotle Hilario, Zoilo Aquino, the first on June 18, 1987 in the amount of P2,500.00 and
Radam and others, was (sic) not able to leave as promised. So, the second on July 1, 1987 in the amount of P7,500.00. He saw
they went to the Western Police District where they filed a written Mendez hand the money to Nelia Coronacion. He was not given
complaint. His statement was taken down in writing (Exhibit 'C' and any receipt for said amounts. After he gave the money, the three
'C-1'). [Ibid., pp. 3-5] accused promised him and his companions that they will leave for
abroad after two (2) weeks which was to be on July 1, 1987. But it
He came to meet Nelia Coronacion because as a jeepney driver, was postponed to July 5, 1987. They were not able to leave on July
his services were contracted to bring the workers to work abroad 5, 1987 because Mendez did not appear. He saw Coronacion and
from the office to the airport. He stated that Eduardo Aquino had no Aquino in the ground floor of Producers Bank Building and so they
participation in his application but it was he who gave him a referral asked the two why they were not able to leave. The duo answered
note (Exhibit 'D') dated June 2, 1987, addressed to a physician for that Mendez did not appear anymore and they could not tell them
his medical examination. The note, already signed by Aquino, was where he was. On July 7, 1987, they went to the police
given to him by Coronacion in the presence of Mendez. In his headquarters to complain. He executed his sworn statement. Later,
several visits (from June 2 to 18, 1987) to EAAALCO Office, he did the police went to the house of Nelia Coronacion at Valenzuela,
not see Aquino but Coronacion and Mendez told him that Aquino is Metro Manila, and invited her to come to the headquarters for
their employer. [Ibid., pp. 6-7] interrogation. [Ibid., pp. 5-7]

4. ZOILO RADAM, 42 years old, tricycle driver and resident of 424- He identified the request for medical examination/check-up
B Ortega St., Tondo, Manila, testified that actually, accused Nelia (Exhibit 'J'), the original of which was lost in Bulacan when he lost
Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino were not formally introduced to his wallet, as the same request for medical examination/check-up
him. They were just pointed to by their co-accused, June Mendez. given to him by the accused. He pointed to the signature of accused
[TSN, November 19, 1987, pp. 2-3] Eduardo Aquino (Exhibit 'J-1"). [Ibid., pp. 8-9]

He declared further that per earlier instruction of Mendez, he went xxx xxx xxx
on June 2, 1987 to the EAAALCO Office at Room 1110, Producers
Bank Bldg. Dasmarinas, Binondo, Manila, which turned out to be In re-direct examination, he stated he was present when accused
the office of Eduardo Aquino, to get a referral for medical Eduardo Aquino signed on his table the medical referral before it
examination for his working abroad after Mendez and Coronacion was given to him. [TSN, December 23, 1987, p. 7]
told them they are in need of workers at Riyadh. So he gave his bio-
data, NBI clearance and passport on that day to Mendez who told 6. SOLEDAD TADEO, 26 years old, single, jeepney driver and a
them that they will be leaving for abroad on July 5, 1987. In resident of 71 Pitong Gatang, Bustos, Bulacan, testified that she
consideration thereof, he must pay them P13,000.00. Thus, he first knows the two accused, Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino. It
gave the amount of P12,500.00 on June 8, 1987 at 429 Padre was her cousin,
Ortega St., Tondo, Manila, which is the residence of his neighbor, Fe Juliano, who mentioned the name of Nelia Coronacion at the
Leticia Dalimot. A receipt (Exhibit 'H') was issued by June Mendez. airport when they say her off for Dubai. She finally met Nelia
Then, he and Mendez went to EAAALCO office and thereat, Coronacion through June Mendez, who is the right-hand man of
Mendez handed the money to Nelia Coronacion in her room. Eduardo Aquino, at EAAALCO Office, Dasmarinas St., Binondo,
Aquino was not around at that time. On July 2, 1987, Mendez went Manila. Mendez told that Coronacion is the secretary of Eduardo
to Dalimot's house to tell him that the balance of P2,500.00 was Aquino, manager of EAAALCO. [TSN, February 5, 1988, pp. 2-4]
already needed as they were to leave on that day. He gave him the
amount and he (witness) wrote the additional amount in the receipt
(Exhibit 'H') upon Mendez' instruction. [Ibid., pp. 4-9] She testified further that after seeing off her cousin at the airport,
she went to see Nelia Coronacion on June 2, 1987 at their
EAAALCO Office to fill up her bio-data. She was told there were
It was at Dalimot's house where they learned that Mendez was certain papers to be processed by the engineer although she can
recruiting workers for abroad. When they failed to leave on the not remember anymore what those papers were. But these papers
promised date, he, together with the others, went to complain at the are for her and her cousins to facilitate their working abroad. Engr.
Western Police District. They complained against Mendez, Nelia Aquino and Nelia Coronacion were the ones who asked her to fill up
Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino because if Mendez was not her bio-data and Aquino even told her that if she can recruit more
around, he was told to go to Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino. applicants, she will be given a discount. The last time she talked to
At the police station, he executed a sworn statement (Exhibits "I" Coronacion was on June 18, 1987 when she brought many recruits
and "I-1"). to her. [Ibid., pp. 4-6]

5. ARISTOTLE HILARIO , 22 years old and a resident of 250 El She was told that she will work as a driver at Dubai and in
Prado St., Poblacion, Bustos, Bulacan, testified that he came to consideration thereof, she was told to pay to the accused the sum
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 37

of P10,000.00. They told her that a part thereof will be used for OF THE COMPLAINANTS THAT ARE FULL OF SUBSTANTIAL
processing her papers and the balance as their fee. She gave it in AND MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES. 7
two installments, the first on June 18, 1987 in the amount of
P2,500.00 given to Coronacion. Aquino was then at the adjacent On the other hand, appellant Eduardo Aquino ascribed the following
room. She was not given a receipt for said amount because errors to the court a quo:
Coronacion told her that they ran out of receipts. Later, Aquino and
Coronacion told her that she will pay the balance of P7,500.00
when they will leave. Hence, she gave the same to Coronacion at I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING HEAVILY ON THE
their EAAALCO Office on July 1, 1987 and the latter placed it in her EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND IN TOTALLY
drawer. No receipt was issued by her because she claimed to be in DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE.
a hurry and, anyway, they were about to leave for abroad. She, too,
was excited when she was told that they were about to leave. But II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY
she was deceived by the three accused, Eduardo Aquino, Nelia ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED
Coronacion and June Mendez as she was not able to go abroad to AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDUARDO AQUINO.
work. When the three failed to comply with their promise, she and
the others went to the Western Police District to lodge their III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-
complaint against them. She was shown a sworn statement and APPELLANT EDUARDO AQUINO GUILTY OF THE CRIME
although she was not sure it is her statement, she admitted that the CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
signature appearing therein is her signature. [Ibid., pp. 6-10] PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.8

xxx xxx xxx The appeal lacks merit.

In (sic) re-direct examination, she admitted having given the money At the outset, we note some deficiency in the preparation of the
to Mendez but in the presence of Coronacion and Aquino and it was information thus filed. The information charges the appellants with
Mendez who told her that she will leave in 2-weeks time, the "a violation of Article 33(a) of Presidential Decree 1412, amending
promise made in the presence of his two co-accused. certain provisions of Book I, Presidential Decree 442, otherwise
known as the new Labor Code of the Philippines, in relation to
xxx xxx xxx Article 13(b) and (c) of said code as amended by Presidential
Decree 1693, 1920 and 2018 (ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT),
(Decision, pp. 2-10) 5 committed in a large scale by a syndicate." However, the said
decrees merely amended Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code by
making large scale illegal recruitment, i.e., committed against three
The prosecution likewise proved through the unrebutted testimony or more persons individually or collectively, a crime of economic
of Orlino Regualos, Assistant Chief of the Licensing Division of the sabotage and punishable by life imprisonment. More accurately,
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), that Nelia therefore, the information should have been for the violation of
Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino do not have any license or Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code, as amended.
authority from POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. 6 Although such inadvertence may seem insignificant as the body of
the complaint enumerates the requisites or elements of the crime of
Upon the other hand, the defense of accused-appellants rests on large scale illegal recruitment, it would not be amiss to articulate our
denial and alibi. Accused Eduardo Aquino maintained that he had observation by way of advice to all concerned to exercise extreme
not knowledge of the transactions between the complainants and care and prudence in preparing informations. 9
his co-accused as he was always out of town, hence out of the
office during the weeks when the alleged transactions took place Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No.
therein. On her part, accused Nelia Coronacion claimed that she did 2018, read as follows:
not know anything about the said transactions, reasoning that she
herself is a victim of June Mendez' nefarious activities.
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment.— (a) Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
After promulgation of the judgment, both accused appealed. this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of
Appellants, represented by their respective counsels, filed separate this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law
briefs. enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

In her brief, appellant Nelia Coronacion raised the following errors (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large
allegedly committed by the trial court: scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage
and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
A. ACCUSED CORONACION IS ALSO A VICTIM OF THE
DECEITFUL SCHEME OF JUN MENDEZ; THE TRIAL COURT Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
ERRED IN FINDING THAT CORONACION REPRESENTED by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
HERSELF AS A RECRUITER OF WORKERS AND THAT SHE confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
PROMISED JOBS TO THE COMPLAINANTS FOR A FEE. transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph
hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
CORONACION ACTED IN CONSPIRACY WITH AQUINO AND group.
MENDEZ. ACCUSED CORONACION WAS FRAUDULENTLY
USED BY MENDEZ IN HIS ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT SCHEME. xxx xxx xxx

C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE ARE ART. 39. Penalties.- (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF CORONACION of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if
AND AQUINO; ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE TESTIMONIES illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein:
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 38

(b) Any licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing While it may be true that appellant Eduardo Aquino had hardly any
another to violate any provision of this Title or its implementing rules personal dealings with herein private complainants, the following
and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of facts remain incontrovertible with respect to him, viz: (a) the illegal
imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than five years or transactions in question took place in his office; (b) the medical
a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000, or both such referral slips given to private complainants bore his signature; (c) he
imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court; was present when complainant Randie Hilario gave his payment in
the amount of P10,000.00 to Mendez; (d) he personally handed to
(c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority complainant Aristotle Hilario his medical referral slip; and (e) he told
under this Title found violating any provision thereof or its complainant Soledad Tadeo to prepare her bio-data and that if she
implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, could recruit more applicants, she would be given a
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor discount. 12 Though he may not have directly recruited private
more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000.00 nor complainants, he certainly made no disclaimer to private
more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the complainants of Coronacion and Mendez' authority to recruit
discretion of the court; workers for abroad in his office.

xxx xxx xxx Appellant Nelia Coronacion's feigned ignorance of the illegal
transactions by claiming that she too was a victim of co-accused
June Mendez is highly incredible, to say the least. The testimonies
Article 13(b) of the same Code defines recruitment as follows: of private complainants Randie Hilario, Rolando Laed, Aristotle
Hilario, and Soledad Tadeo are clear. They testified that it was
"Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, appellant Nelia Coronacion, together with June Mendez, who told
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring them (a) to fill up the appropriate application forms, (b) to prepare
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or their passports and bio-data, (c) to secure the requisite NBI, police
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or and other clearances, and (d) to pay documentation and processing
not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, fees, with respect to their application for work abroad. Moreover, the
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons same witnesses testified that it was appellant Coronacion who gave
shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. them the medical referral slips pre-signed by appellant Aquino and
that they saw Mendez hand the money they paid him to appellant
Evidently, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed Coronacion who, in turn, kept the same in her drawer. In fact, she
when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined even advised herein private complainants to be devoted to their
under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under work abroad and be loyal to their employers. Finally, the presence
Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or of the special power of attorney authorizing Evelyn Dalimot to
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of recruit workers for abroad 13 in her possession quickly douses any
workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, doubt in her favor. Clearly, she led private complainants to believe
individually or as a group. 10 that she was acting for somebody in authority when she extended
her recruiting services.
In the case at bench, the presence of the second and third elements
is not disputed. The appellants are neither licensees or holders of Appellants likewise assail the trial court's appreciation of the
any authority from POEA to engage in recruitment and placement testimonies of the private complainants and the latter's credibility.
activities as evidenced by a certification of the said agency dated However, it is a long-standing practice that when the issue is one of
September 8, 1987. 11 It was likewise established that the private credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb
complainants were unaware of the appellants' lack of authority the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better
when they transacted business with them. It was only later, upon position to decide the controversy, having heard the witnesses
inquiry at POEA, that they discovered the appellants' lack of themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
authority. Finally, the number of private complainants, certainly during the trial 14 unless it has overlooked certain facts of substance
more than three, is beyond dispute. and value that, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. In
the instant case, we find no reason to depart from the general rule.
The alleged inconsistencies appear to slight and insignificant to
Now, we resolve whether the first element of the offense of illegal
affect the credibility of the testimonies as a whole. Similarly, given
recruitment, i.e., that the appellants undertook any of the
the natural frailties of the human mind to assimilate all material
recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code,
details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in
as amended, or any of the prohibited activities defined under Article
private complainants' testimonies hardly weaken their probative
34 of the same Code, was successfully established by the
value. On the contrary, they strengthen their credibility.
prosecution.

Finally, no improper motives to testify falsely against herein

To satisfy the first element, the prosecution presented the
appellants and to impute a serious charge against them can be
testimonies of the complainants clearly pointing to the appellants as
attributed to herein private complainants. They did not know the
two of the three persons who promised them employment abroad
appellants before their illegal recruitment so they had no reason to
and who collected and received varying amounts from them. The
harbor any spite against them. It is difficult to believe that private
appellants, on the other hand, vigorously maintain that the lower
complainants would fabricate a story that would result in appellants'
court erred (a) in finding that there was conspiracy and (b) in giving
life imprisonment for no other reason than to vindicate their
credence to the conflicting testimonies of the private complainants.
frustrated dreams of employment abroad. "It is against human
nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another
We find the submission untenable. stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt
feelings." 15 The fact that complainants hail from rural areas with no
A careful examination and evaluation of the testimonies of the sophisticated education at all certainly militates against the
complaining witnesses lead to no other conclusion than that the imputation of any evil motive on their part.
appellants and their co-accused June Mendez who is still at large,
acted in concert in the illegal recruitment business conducted in the WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial
office of appellant Eduardo Aquino with each of them performing court is hereby AFFIRMED, with the sole modification that the
acts contributive to the success of an enterprise designed for penalty properly imposable and hereby imposed is life imprisonment
mutual benefit and advantage. and not reclusion perpetua. Costs against appellants.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 39

SO ORDERED. “Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing,

enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
Cruz, David 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.”
People vs. Comia, 236 SCRA 185 (1994)
It is clear from the foregoing provisions that there is illegal
G.R. No. 109761. September 1, 1994.* recruitment in large scale when a person (a) undertakes any
recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, [Link] practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does
PUERTOLLANO COMIA, accused-appellant. not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment
and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three
or more persons, individually or as a group.
Nature: APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Br. 141.
In this case, the presence of the second and third elements is
beyond dispute. That the accused is not authorized by the
FACTS: For falsely representing herself to have the capacity and
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to engage
power to contract, enlist, and recruit workers for employment
in the recruitment and placement of workers
abroad, Carmelita Puertollano Comia was charged with illegal
recruitment in large scale under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 38,
in relation to paragraph (a) of Article 39, of the Labor Code. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 91-6443 is hereby
AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification decreeing the
The complaining victims of the illegal recruitment activities of the
restitution of the amounts the accused had obtained from the
accused were Fe Dadap, Susana Belloso, Marilyn Bibar, Sandra
complainants.
Cosart, and Remedios Asis.

Note.—It is the lack of the necessary license or permit that renders

Complainants were supposed to work as janitress in Hong Kong.
the recruitment activities unlawful or criminal, which is qualified into
The accused told them that her employer has a hospital in Hong
large scale recruitment when three or more persons were
Kong and her name is Dr. Zenaida Andres. The complainants after
victimized. (People vs. Sendon, 228 SCRA 489 [1993])
paying the immigration fess and processing fee, were not given
receipts for their payments by the accused, who simply told them to
trust her.

At the airport, they arrived at about 12 noon, and the accused G.R. No. 109761 September 1, 1994
Comia told them to wait for her boss, Dra. Zenaida Andres. She,
together with her companions, waited until 7:00 in the evening. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
When the Doctora did not arrive. Nothing happened to her intended vs. CARMELITA PUERTOLLANO COMIA, accused-appellant.
employment in Hong Kong, and they were not able to leave, so they
complained at the Immigration Office at the NAIA and they were told DAVIDE, JR., J.:
that no such Zenaida Andres was leaving for abroad. They
complained to the police and the police arrested accused Comia
who was brought to the NBI. Then the NBI told them to go to POEA For falsely representing herself to have the capacity and power to
and there, they were able to verify that there was no person by the contract, enlist, and recruit workers for employment abroad,
name of Zenaida Andres registered as a recruiter. Comia is also not Carmelita Puertollano Comia was charged with illegal recruitment in
registered as a recruiter. large scale under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 38, in relation to
paragraph (a) of Article 39, of the Labor Code. The
information 1 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro
ISSUE: Whether the accused, Comia is guilty of illegal recruitment? Manila, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 91-6443, and
assigned to Branch 141 of the said court. After trial on the merits,
RULING: Article 38 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows: the court promulgated on 4 February 1993 its decision 2 finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and
“Illegal Recruitment.—(a) Any recruitment activities, including the sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be a fine of P100,000.00.
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be
deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The The complaining victims of the illegal recruitment activities of the
Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officers accused were Fe Dadap, Susana Belloso, Marilyn Bibar, Sandra
may initiate complaints under this Article. Cosart, and Remedios Asis. With the exception of Fe Dadap, who
withdrew her complaint because she had moved to the province
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large with her two children, they testified in open court that the accused
scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage defrauded each of them of sizeable cash on the assurance that they
and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. Illegal would be given janitorial jobs in Hongkong.
recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating The trial court summarized the evidence for the prosecution as
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, follows:
enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Susana
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.” Belloso came to know Carmelita Comia, the accused herein, thru
her husband who was selling ice candy within the premises of
Article 13(b) of the same Code defines recruitment as follows: Tambo Elementary School in Parañaque, M.M. She had known the
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 40

accused for five years. She was working as a janitress of the above- These papers were intended for Hong Kong for her to work as
mentioned school. It was her husband who applied to the accused janitress in one of the hospitals there and her employer would be
Comia for a job employment abroad as a janitress. She paid the one Dra. Zenaida Andres. This was told to her by the accused
following amounts to Comia: P2,600.00 at her house at Pulang Comia. She did not receive any receipts from the accused when
Lupa, Las Piñas; P450.00 at the elementary school; P750.00 at the she gave the amount of P2,600.00. The accused simply told her to
same school; again, P247.00 at her residence in Las Piñas; and trust her. She also gave the accused the additional sums of
P2,500.00 at the Chinese General Hospital in Blumentritt, Manila. P3,000.00, then P750.00, then P450.00, and then
After paying these amounts, the accused Comia told her to await for P3,000.00, 3 which payments she gave to the accused sometime in
a certain Doctora who will be coming from Hong Kong. This Doctora July and August of 1991. She paid these additional amounts to the
is her boss there. On a date which she cannot remember the accused in her house. The accused did not issue to her any
accused told her that they would be leaving for Hong Kong and to receipts and told her to just trust her. The additional amounts were
bring with her her personal belongings. At the airport, the accused for her plane ticket, visa and passport. Nothing happened to her
Comia told them that the Doctora will be coming at the airport. intended employment in Hong Kong, and in September of 1991 the
However, they were not able to leave and so they went to the accused Comia told her they will go to NAIA and it will be there
Immigration Office where she and her companions were told that where she will give her passport, ticket and visa. She was with
they were not scheduled to leave for abroad. A certain Sgt. Afuang Marilyn Bibar, Susana Belloso, Fe Dadap and Remedios Asis. They
brought them to the NBI were they were investigated. The were not able to leave and so she and her companions complained
payments she gave to Comia were never receipted by her and at the Immigration Office at the NAIA and they were told that no
everytime she would ask for receipts, accused Comia would get such Zenaida Andres was leaving for abroad. They complained to
angry and tell her that the money would be eventually given to the the police and the police arrested accused Comia who was brought
Doctora. to the NBI. Then the NBI told them to go to POEA and there, they
were able to verify that there was no person by the name of
The second complainant, Marilyn Bibar, had known the accused for Zenaida Andres registered as a recruiter. Comia is also not
two years, also thru her husband. It was the husband of the registered as a recruiter. She identified Exh. B, which is a
accused Comia who told her that the accused came from Hong certification to this effect.
Kong, and being interested to work in Hong Kong, she talked to the
accused. She was supposed to work as a janitress in Hong Kong. The fourth witness, Remedios Asis, after identifying the accused
The accused told her that her employer has a hospital in Hong Comia, stated that she came to know the accused because the
Kong and her name is Dr. Zenaida Andres. She was asked to latter was doing laundry work near their place sometime in the first
produce the originals of her birth certificate, NBI clearance, ECG, part of 1991. She and accused Comia talked about her employment
marriage contract and x-ray. She paid the amount of P2,600.00 in as a janitress in Hong Kong. For this reason, accused Comia
the month of March 1991. She also paid the amount of P720.00 for received money from her for her employment abroad as a janitress
immigration fee in the month of August 1991; P450.00 for in Hong Kong. She gave to the accused Comia P6,970.00 at her
processing fee of the passport in July 1991; and P2,500.00 in residence in 843 Manuyo St., Las Piñas, M.M. She gave the said
August of 1991. All these amounts were paid at Tambo Elementary amount last year. She did not demand any receipt from the accused
School in Parañaque. She was not given receipts for the payments because the accused just told her to trust her. She was not able to
she made to the accused, who told her that the receipts will be kept work as a janitress in Hong Kong. The accused Comia just told her
by her. When nothing happened to her promise for employment to wait for her employer, a certain Doctora, whose name she cannot
abroad, complainant, together with her other companions, asked recall. 4
when they would be leaving but the accused merely told her to wait
until they are finally scheduled. Then, the accused told her and her It also summarized the testimony of the accused, to wit:
companions that they were about to leave and were advised to pack
up to leave for abroad. She and her companions proceeded to NAIA
on September 31, 1991. Her companions were Susana Belloso, The defense did not introduce any documentary evidence and the
Sandra Cosart, Fe Dadap, and Remedios Asis. At the airport, they accused was the only witness. The accused denied having received
arrived at about 12 noon, and the accused Comia told her to wait for any money from any of the complainants. She claimed that since
her boss, Dra. Zenaida Andres. She, together with her companions, she did not receive any money from the complainants why should
waited until 7:00 in the evening. When the Doctora did not arrive, she give receipts? She claimed that she was also one of the victims
her husband inquired with the Immigration Office, but there was no of Dra. Zenaida Andres. She was applying with said Doctor in
such person by the name of Dra. Zenaida Andres. She has never Tramo in the same place where she (accused) resides. In fact, she
been introduced to Dra. Zenaida Andres by the accused. After that claimed to have given an application fee in the amount of P450.00
they agreed among themselves to call up Dra. Zenaida Andres but and P2,500.00. With respect to the P2,500.00 she was able to raise
the number they called was that of McDonald's. Accused Comia this amount because she also used to work with other families as
even called the same number but after waiting for a while for laundrywoman. This P2,500.00 was given to Dr. Andres in
somebody to answer the call, a policeman grabbed the telephone installment. Dr. Andres gave her a receipt before she was to leave
receiver and found out that there was nobody on the other line. The for abroad because her husband was demanding for a receipt.
policeman, after that, told them to bring accused Comia to the NBI. However, she could not produce this receipt because the NBI
Sgt. Afuang of the Immigration Office accompanied them to the NBI allegedly took all the contents of her bag, including the receipt. She
and accused Comia was handcuffed. At the NBI a certain Atty. claimed that she is only Grade II but could not read and can only
Vaplor informed them that they should proceed with their charges write her name. She denied that she told one of the complainants
against accused Comia but first, they should secure a certification that she had been in Hong Kong. 5
from the POEA regarding the accused's authority or license to
recruit. They were able to secure the certification dated October 1, The trial court accepted the version of the prosecution because the
1991, which is Exhibit B. statements of the complaining witnesses were positive and
affirmative in nature and were worthy of credit than the mere
The third witness for the prosecution and who is also a complainant, uncorroborated and self-serving denial of the accused. It further
Sandra Cosart, identified the accused Comia and stated that she observed that the accused had not shown any ill motive on the part
knew the accused a long time ago. The accused came to her house of the complainants and that the accused's reference to a certain
located at Fortunato Village, Feliciano Cpd., Sucat, Parañaque, Dr. Zenaida Andres as the employer and, therefore, the real
M.M. in March 1991. The accused received money from her in the recruiter does not inspire belief. As to the latter, it stated:
amount of P2,600.00 for the processing of her papers. The papers
are the NBI clearance, ECG, medical certificate, x-ray and visa. To the mind of the Court, Dr. Zenaida Andres is a non-existent
person invented by the accused to ward off suspicion from her
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 41

when the moment of truth came, that is, when the complainants or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
started to show their impatience to the accused as to their inability deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
to leave for Hongkong. To appease the complainants, the accused,
true to her criminal mind, made up the story about leaving for It is clear from the foregoing provisions that there is illegal
Hongkong on September 31, 1991 and even pretended to be one of recruitment in large scale when a person (a) undertakes any
them. In vain, they waited for the fictitious Dra. Andres to come, recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
after which they agreed to call her but the telephone number they practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does
dialed turned out to be McDonald's. Accused dialed the phone not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment
number again, pretending to be waiting for somebody to answer the and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three
call. A policeman grabbed the telephone from the accused and or more persons, individually or as a group.
found out that there was nobody on the other line. 6
In this case, the presence of the second and third elements is
The accused seasonably filed her notice of appeal which did not, beyond dispute. That the accused is not authorized by the
however, indicate the court to which she was appealing. 7 In its Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to engage
order of 23 February 1993, the trial court erroneously directed the in the recruitment and placement of workers is evidenced by a
elevation of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. 8 The certification of the said agency dated 1 October 1991. In fact, to
latter rectified the error by transmitting the records to this Court after abbreviate the proceedings, the parties duly stipulated on the due
its receipt thereof. 9 issuance, authenticity, and truth of the said certification. 13 There are
no less than four complainants who patiently endured the rigors of
In her Appellant's Brief, 10 the accused contends that the trial court trial to denounce the accused and expose her illegal recruitment
erred: activities.

I Proffered to satisfy the first element of the crime were the

testimonies of the complainants pointing to the accused as the
. . . IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES person who promised them employment abroad and who collected
OF THE FOUR COMPLAINANTS AND IN DISREGARDING THE and received various amounts from them. The accused questions
TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. the sufficiency of the said testimonies contending that Article 13(b),
which defines recruitment and placement, specifically provides that
the offer or promise of employment must be "for a fee" thereby
II making receipts indispensable in proving alleged payment. Since
none of the four complaining witnesses presented a single receipt to
. . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR ILLEGAL prove alleged payment of a fee, the accused contends that their
RECRUITMENT DESPITE OF [sic] THE FAILURE OF THE claim of payment without being issued receipts defies belief as this
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE fact is contrary to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary habits
DOUBT. 11 of life 14 and runs against the presumption that persons take
ordinary care of their concerns. 15
In the Appellee's Brief, 12 the Office of the Solicitor General
maintains that the trial court committed no error and prays that the The complainants' failure to ask for receipts for the fees they paid to
assailed decision be affirmed in toto. the accused, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts
before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to
The appeal is without merit. their case. The complainants duly proved by their respective
testimonies that the accused was involved in the entire recruitment
process. She gave the impression that she knows a certain Dr.
Article 38 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows:
Zenaida Andres who owns a hospital in Hongkong and has the
power to hire people for janitorial jobs thereat. She relayed the
Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment activities, including the requirements to them, monitored their compliance, and, most
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be especially, collected and received fees. Their testimonies in this
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be regard, being clear and positive, are sufficient. The accused's
deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The contention that she would not have hesitated to issue receipts if it
Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officers were true that she did transact with them is purely hypothetical and
may initiate complaints under this Article. hence, does not detract from the fact adduced by the complainants
that she got their money. In People vs. Naparan 16 and People vs.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large Sendon, 17 this Court did not fault the victims of illegal recruitment
scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage for not asking for receipts explaining that inasmuch as they were
and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. inexperienced and titillated by the prospect of earning easy money
abroad, they fell easy prey to the accused-appellant's glibness and
roseate promises and were deluded into relying on her assurance
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
that receipts for their money would be issued later.
by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph Nor is the lack of corroboration of the testimonies of the four
hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if complainants damaging to their case. Corroborative evidence is
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion
group. that the witness is prevaricating or that his observations were
inaccurate. 18 In the case at bench, the combined weight of the
complainants' testimonies, unerringly narrating how they were
Article 13(b) of the same Code defines recruitment as follows:
similarly wheedled by the accused to part with their money without
receipts, render unnecessary any corroborating evidence.
Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
Moreover, this matter essentially involves the credibility of the
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
complainants, the best judge of which is the trial court. It has long
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or
been settled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses,
not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 42

appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial Costs against accused Carmelita Puertollano Comia.
court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed SO ORDERED.
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it
plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if
considered, might affect the result of the case. 19 Since the trial
court found the positive declarations of the complainants more
credible than the sole testimony of the accused denying the
transactions, there must be a well-founded reason in order to deny
great weight to its evaluation of the complainant's testimonies. The
accused has failed to provide that reason.
3. Money Claims
The accused anchors her denial on another supposition, i.e., if it
were true that she had received money from the complainants, she
could have easily transferred or fled to an unknown address where
she could not be located or arrested after getting the complainants'
money. However, we have held that ATCI Overseas Corp., et. al. vs. Josefa Echin, G.R. No. 178551, 11
non-flight is not conclusive proof of innocence. 20 Unlike flight of an October 2010
accused, which is competent evidence against him as having a
tendency to establish his guilt, 21 non-flight is simply inaction, which FACTS: Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its
may be due to several factors. Hence, it may not be positively principal co-petitioner, Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, for the position of
construed as an indication of innocence. medical technologist under a two-year contract. Within a year, Respondent was
terminated for not passing the probationary period which was under the
The accused cannot feign innocence of the illegal recruitment by Memorandum of Agreement. Ministry denied respondent‘s request and she
claiming that she too was a victim of the illegal recruitment of Dr. returned to the Philippines shouldering her own fare. Respondent filed with the
Andres. Firstly, all the transactions from the beginning to the end NLRC a complaint against ATCI for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter rendered
were handled by the accused. In fact, none of the complainants judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her, her salary for the
ever met said Dr. Andres. Noteworthy is the fact that when the three months unexpired portion of the contract. ATCI appealed Labor Arbiter‘s
complainants asked to be introduced to Dr. Andres, the accused decision, however, NLRC affirmed the latter‘s decision and denied petitioner
brought them to the Chinese General Hospital only to be told by the ATCI‘s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court Appeals
accused that the doctor had already left. 22 Secondly, if the accused contending that their principal being a foreign government agency is immune
were a victim of Dr. Andres and she really felt aggrieved, she could from suit, and as such, immunity extended to them. Appellate Court affirmed
have filed a case against her for illegal recruitment. At the very NLRC‘s decision. It noted that under the law, a private employment agency
least, in order to save her own neck, she could have utilized the shall assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of
compulsory process of the court to summon Dr. Andres to appear employment of an overseas worker; hence, it can be sued jointly and severally
and testify as a hostile witness. The records of the case are bereft with the foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement or
of any indication that the said courses of action were taken. Nor contract of employment. Petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration was denied;
was there any allegation that said Dr. Andres was nowhere to be hence, this present petition.
found. All these raise a well-founded belief that said Dr. Andres is a
fictitious person conjured by the accused to support her nefarious ISSUE: Whether or not the Memorandum of Agreement which provided for the Kuwaits
scheme in the recruitment process. Civil Service Board Employment Contract No. 2 has a binding effect.

This Court is fully aware of the use of fictitious persons by illegal HELD: The petition is DENIED. No. The petitioners’ contention that Philippine labor laws
recruiters so as to give the impression that they have the power to on probationary employment are not applicable since it was expressly provided in
respondents employment contract was not substantiated. It is hornbook principle, that the
send people abroad for work. In People vs. Sendon, 23 we party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law, under the
considered the failure of the accused therein to present evidence doctrine of processual presumption which, in this case, petitioners failed to discharge. It
that the alluded person really existed and was not merely a figment was held in EDI-Staffbuilders Intl., v. NLRC that, in international law, the party who wants
of her imagination as the factor that assumed the crucial and to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign
decisive role against the former's bid for exculpation. law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as
Assuming arguendo, as it was similarly done in the aforecited case, the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to
that there is really such a person, still there is sufficient evidence to know only domestic or forum law. The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign
laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law,
hold the accused liable. The prosecution of other persons equally the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of
culpable or even more so than the accused herein may come later Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioners submit documents that whether
as soon as their true identities and addresses become known. The taken singly or as a whole, do not sufficiently prove that respondent was validly terminated
thrust of the defense to deflect liability from the accused by claiming as a probationary employee under Kuwaiti civil service laws. For it to have a binding effect,
that she is also a victim of Dr. Andres, who should be held the petitioners should prove and present the pertinent Kuwaiti labor laws duly
responsible for the whole mess, is unavailing. authenticated and translated by Embassy officials.

Affirmance of the appealed decision is thus inevitable. However, the Jurisdiction

dispositive portion thereof failed to adjudge the restitution of the
amounts the accused had obtained from the complainants which, as Respecting Ikdal’s joint and solidary liability as a corporate officer, the same is
proved, are P6,270.00 from Marilyn Bibar; P6,547.00 from Susana in order too following the express provision of R.A. 8042 on money claims, viz:
Belloso; P6,800.00 from Sandra Cosart; and P6,970.00 from
Remedios Asis. The accused is ordered to restore to each of them SEC. 10. Money Claims.—Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,
the above amounts. the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an
Makati, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 91-6443 is hereby employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving
AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification decreeing the Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual moral,
restitution of the amounts the accused had obtained from the exemplary and other forms of damages.
complainants.
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 43

The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for was granted by DOLE regional director. The alien employment is valid until
any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision December 1990.
shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a
condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the Private respondent BCAP appealed the issuance of said alien employment
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all permit to the secretary of labor who issued a decision ordering the cancellation
money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the of Cone's employment permit on the ground that there was no showing that
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and there is no person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing to
directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and perform the services required nor that the hiring of Cone redound to the
solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and national interest.
damages. (emphasis and underscoring supplied).

PART III - EMPLOYMENT OF NON-RESIDENT

ALIENS
GMC filed a motion for reconsideration and 2 supplemental motions for
reconsideration but were bothe denied by acting secretary Laguesma.
1. Resident vs. Non-resident

2. When may be employed

Issue: GMC before the court on a petition for certiorari alleging that: (1)
3. Employment Permit Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion when he revoked the alien
Article 40 LC employment permit and (2) labor code does not empower secretary to
determine if the employment of an alien would redound to national interest.
4. Prohibition against Transfer of Employment
Article 41 LC

5. Violation Ruling: Petition dismissed.

General Milling Corp. vs. Torres, G.R. No. 9366, April 22, 1991 Court considers that petitioners have failed to show any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of secretary. The alleged failure to notify petitioners of the
FACTS: Earl Timothy Cone is a US citizen, who was hired by General Milling appeal filed by BCAP was cured when petitioners were allowed to file their
as a SPORTS CONSULTANT and ASSISTANT COACH.   motion for reconsideration before secretary of labor.

He possessed an alien employment permit which was changed to pre-arranged

employee by the Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation. GMC's claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative has no
legal basis at all. Under article 40 of labor code, an employment permit is
GMC requested that Cone’s employment permit be changed to a full-fledged required to hire a foreigner, as it applies to "non-resident aliens".
coach, which was contested by The Basketball Coaches Association of the
Philippines. Alleging that GMC failed to show that there is no competent person
in the Philippines to do the coaching job. Secretary of Labor cancelled Cone’s
employment permit.
GMS can't claim that Secretary's decision would amount to an impairment of
the obligations of contracts because Labor code requires alien employment
ISSUE: WON the Secretary of Labor act with grave abuse of discretion in permits to enter a contract of employment for foreigners.
revoking Cone’s Alien Employment Permit?

HELD: NO. The Secretary of Labor did not act with grave abuse of discretion in
revoking Cone’s Alien Employment Permit. GMC’s claim that hiring of a foreign
coach is an employer’s prerogative has no legal basis. Under Section 40 of the GMC's contention that Secretary of labor should have deferred to the findings
Labor Code, an employer seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an of Comm. On Immigration and Deportation as to the necessity of employing
employment permit from the Department of labor. GMC’s right to choose whom Cone is also without basis. The labor code specifically empowers secretary to
to employ is limited by the statutory requirement of an employment permit. make a determination as to the availability of the services of a person in the
Philippines.
The Labor Code empowers the Labor Secretary to determine as to the
availability of the services of a “person in the Philippines who is competent,
able and willing at the time of the application to perform the services for which
an alien is desired.”

G.R. No. 93666             April 22, 1991

Facts: GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and EARL TIMOTHY CONE, petitioners,

vs.
May 1989, the [Link] and Employment issued Alien Employment HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and
permit in favor of petitioner earl cone, a US citizen as sports consultant and Employment, HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Acting
assistant coach for GMC. Dec. 1989 then GMC and Cone entered into a Secretary of Labor and Employment, and BASKETBALL COACHES
contract of employment. Then January 1990, the board of special inquiry of the ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
commission and deportation approved Cone's application for a change of
admission status from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee. On Feb. Sobrevinas, Diaz, Hayudini & Bodegon Law Office for petitioners.
1990, GMC requested for renewal of Cone's alien employment permit which Rodrigo, Cuevas & De Borja for respondent BCAP
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 44

RESOLUTION resident alien" and its obverse "resident alien," here must be given their
technical connotation under our law on immigration.
FELICIANO, J.: On 1 May 1989, the National Capital Region of the Department
of Labor and Employment issued Alien Employment Permit No. M-0689-3-535 Neither can petitioners validly claim that implementation of respondent
in favor of petitioner Earl Timothy Cone, a United States citizen, as sports Secretary's decision would amount to an impairment of the obligations of
consultant and assistant coach for petitioner General Milling Corporation contracts. The provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and
("GMC"). Regulations requiring alien employment permits were in existence long before
petitioners entered into their contract of employment. It is firmly settled that
On 27 December 1989, petitioners GMC and Cone entered into a contract of provisions of applicable laws, especially provisions relating to matters affected
employment whereby the latter undertook to coach GMC's basketball team. with public policy, are deemed written into contracts. 2 Private parties cannot
constitutionally contract away the otherwise applicable provisions of law.
On 15 January 1990, the Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation approved petitioner Cone's application for a Petitioners' contention that respondent Secretary of Labor should have
change of admission status from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee. deferred to the findings of Commission on Immigration and Deportation as to
the necessity of employing petitioner Cone, is, again, bereft of legal basis. The
Labor Code itself specifically empowers respondent Secretary to make a
On 9 February 1990, petitioner GMC requested renewal of petitioner Cone's determination as to the availability of the services of a "person in the
alien employment permit. GMC also requested that it be allowed to employ Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to
Cone as full-fledged coach. The DOLE Regional Director, Luna Piezas, perform the services for which an alien is desired." 3
granted the request on 15 February 1990.
In short, the Department of Labor is the agency vested with jurisdiction to
On 18 February 1990, Alien Employment Permit No. M-02903-881, valid until determine the question of availability of local workers. The constitutional
25 December 1990, was issued. validity of legal provisions granting such jurisdiction and authority and requiring
proof of non-availability of local nationals able to carry out the duties of the
Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines position involved, cannot be seriously questioned.
("BCAP") appealed the issuance of said alien employment permit to the
respondent Secretary of Labor who, on 23 April 1990, issued a decision Petitioners apparently also question the validity of the Implementing Rules and
ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone's employment permit on the ground Regulations, specifically Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing
that there was no showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is Rules, as imposing a condition not found in the Labor Code itself. Section 6 (c),
competent, able and willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing Rules, provides as follows:
of petitioner Cone would redound to the national interest.
Section 6. Issuance of Employment Permit –– the Secretary of Labor may
Petitioner GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and two (2) Supplemental issue an employment permit to the applicant based on:
Motions for Reconsideration but said Motions were denied by Acting Secretary
of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma in an Order dated 8 June 1990.
a) Compliance by the applicant and his employer with the requirements of
Section 2 hereof;
Petitioners are now before the Court on a Petition for Certiorari, dated 14 June
1990, alleging that:
b) Report of the Bureau Director as to the availability or non-availability of any
person in the Philippines who is competent and willing to do the job for which
1. respondent Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion when he the services of the applicant are desired.
revoked petitioner Cone's alien employment permit; and
(c) His assessment as to whether or not the employment of the applicant will
2. Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the redound to the national interest;
Labor Code is null and void as it is in violation of the enabling law as the Labor
Code does not empower respondent Secretary to determine if the employment
of an alien would redound to national interest. (d) Admissibility of the alien as certified by the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation;
Deliberating on the present Petition for Certiorari, the Court considers that
petitioners have failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or any act without (e) The recommendation of the Board of Investments or other appropriate
or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of respondent Secretary of Labor in government agencies if the applicant will be employed in preferred areas of
rendering his decision, dated 23 April 1990, revoking petitioner Cone's Alien investments or in accordance with the imperative of economic development;
Employment Permit.
x x x           x x x          x x x
The alleged failure to notify petitioners of the appeal filed by private respondent
BCAP was cured when petitioners were allowed to file their Motion for (Emphasis supplied)
Reconsideration before respondent Secretary of Labor. 1
Article 40 of the Labor Code reads as follows:
Petitioner GMC's claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's
prerogative has no legal basis at all. Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an Art. 40. Employment per unit of non-resident aliens. –– Any alien seeking
employer seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an employment admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and any domestic or
permit from the Department of Labor. Petitioner GMC's right to choose whom foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the
to employ is, of course, limited by the statutory requirement of an alien Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.
employment permit.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the
Petitioners will not find solace in the equal protection clause of the Constitution. applicant employer after a determination of the non-availability of a person in
As pointed out by the Solicitor-General, no comparison can be made between the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to
petitioner Cone and Mr. Norman Black as the latter is "a long time resident of perform the services for which the alien is desired.
the country," and thus, not subject to the provisions of Article 40 of the Labor
Code which apply only to "non-resident aliens." In any case, the term "non-
 JDLABOR1 | Book 1: Pre-employment | 45

2
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said  E.g., Pakistan International Airways Corporation v. Hon. Blas F. Ople et al.,
employment permit may be issued upon recommendation of the government G.R. No. 61594, 28 September 1990; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
agency charged with the supervision of said registered enterprise. (Emphasis United States Lines Co., 5 SCRA 175 (1962).
supplied)
3
 Article 40 of the Labor Code.
Petitioners apparently suggest that the Secretary of Labor is not authorized to
take into account the question of whether or not employment of an alien 4
 Cf Javier v. Commission on Elections, 144 SCRA 194 (1986).
applicant would "redound to the national interest" because Article 40 does not
explicitly refer to such assessment. This argument (which seems impliedly to
concede that the relationship of basketball coaching and the national interest is
tenuous and unreal) is not persuasive. In the first place, the second paragraph
of Article 40 says: "[t]he employment permit may be issued to a non-resident
alien or to the applicant employer after a determination of the non-availability of
a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of
application to perform the services for which the alien is desired." The
permissive language employed in the Labor Code indicates that the authority
granted involves the exercise of discretion on the part of the issuing authority.
In the second place, Article 12 of the Labor Code sets forth a statement of
objectives that the Secretary of Labor should, and indeed must, take into
account in exercising his authority and jurisdiction granted by the Labor Code,

Art. 12. Statement of Objectives. –– It is the policy of the State:

PROHIBITED ACTS
a) To promote and maintain a state of full employment through improved
manpower training, allocation and utilization; Falure to actually deployed

x x x           x x x          x x x Filre to

c) To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons seeking work

in conformity with the national interest;

d) To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in conformity with the

national interest;

e) To regulate the employment of aliens, including the establishment of a

registration and/or work permit system;

x x x           x x x          x x x

Thus, we find petitioners' arguments on the above points of constitutional law

too insubstantial to require further consideration.1avvphi1

Petitioners have very recently manifested to this Court that public respondent
Secretary of Labor has reversed his earlier decision and has issued an
Employment Permit to petitioner Cone. Petitioners seek to withdraw their
Petition for Certiorari on the ground that it has become moot and academic.

While ordinarily this Court would dismiss a petition that clearly appears to have
become moot and academic, the circumstances of this case and the nature of
the questions raised by petitioners are such that we do not feel justified in
leaving those questions unanswered.4

Moreover, assuming that an alien employment permit has in fact been issued
to petitioner Cone, the basis of the reversal by the Secretary of Labor of his
earlier decision does not appear in the record. If such reversal is based on
some view of constitutional law or labor law different from those here set out,
then such employment permit, if one has been issued, would appear open to
serious legal objections.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for certiorari for

lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.

Fernan, C.J., Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., in the result.

Footnotes

1
 De Leon v. Commission on Elections, 129 SCRA 117 (1984).