Pervera, Joyce Ann Nina C

Labor Law 1 Sec B

People vs. Dacuba

Facts:
Valenciano, Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel were charged with the offense
of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined under Article 13 (b) of PD no
442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, in
relation to Art. 38 (a), and penalized under Art29 (c) of the Code, as amended by
PD 1920 and PD 2018 when they represented to have the capacity, authority or
license to contract, enlist and deploy or transport workers for overseas
employment, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit and promise to
deploy the herein complaints, namely, Agapito R. De Luna, Allan Ilagan De
Villa, Euziel N. Dela Cuesta and Eusebio T. Candelaria, as factory workers in
Taiwan, in exchange for placement, processing and other fees ranging from P62,
000.00 to P70, 000.00 or a total of P271, 000.00, without first obtaining the
required license and/or authority from the Philippines Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA).
Accused- Appellant Valenciano pleaded not guilty and waived the pre-trial.
The other three accused remain at large.
The RTC found, accused-appellant guilty and sentenced her to life
imprisonment, fine and to indemnify the complaints. CA affirmed, Thus, the
appeal.
In her defense, accused-appellant claims that she was an ordinary employee
of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc., where her other co-
accused were owners and managers. She also denies receiving payment from the
complainants, that had she promised employment in Taiwan, this promise was
made in the performance of her duties as a clerk in the company, adding that she
might even be regarded as a victim in the rpesent case, as she was in good faith
when she made the promise.
The court affirmed the appealed CA decision.

Issue:
Is appellant guilty of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment despite the
claim that she is just a mere employee of the recruitment agency?
Ruling:
The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other
co-accused does not relieve hereof liability. An employee of a company or
corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal,
together with his employer, if it is shown that the employee actively and
consciously participated in illegal recruitment.
Pervera, Joyce Ann Nina C
Labor Law 1 Sec B
Case Digest

People vs. Abat

Facts:
Appellant Edith Abat allegedly performed recruitment activities in large
scale by recruiting several individuals in Calasiao, Pangasinan. The appellant
denies having any participation in the recruitment of the said individuals.
She argues that the money she received from the complainants is
not for consideration of the employment of complainants in Taiwan. It only
serves as reimbursement of the expenses she incurred for tour to different
provinces with the complainants. Further, she averred that the failure of the
complainants to produce receipts showing that she had collected money from
them in connection with her assurances of their employment in Taiwan was fatal
to the State’s case against her, and that only four of the nine complainants
testified against her. Both the RTC and the CA convicted her of large scale
illegal recruitment. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment as defined by
Art. 13(b) and penalized by Art. 39(a), both of the Labor Code, handed down by
the Regional Trial Court. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Does the appellate court erred in affirming the appellant’s
conviction despite the failure of the complainants to produce receipts
to show that it was received in connection with complainant’s
employment in Taiwan?

Ruling:
The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated
that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not
warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their
respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the
prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of
receipts.
Pervera, Joyce Ann Nina C
Labor Law 1 Sec B
Case Digest

People vs. Chua

Facts:
Private complainants Alberto A. Aglanao, Rey P. Tajadao, Billy R. Danan
and Roylan Ursulum filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in large scale
againstMelissa Chua alleging that the latter offered them a job as factory
workers in Taiwan for deployment within a month. She required each of them
on separate occasions to undergo medical examination and pay a placement fee
of P 80,000each. Chua assured each of them that whoever pays the application
fee the earliest can leave sooner. After completing payment, they followed-up
their applications. However, they learned that Chua was not licensed to recruit
workers for overseas employment.
Chua denied having recruited private complainants for overseas employment
and interposed the defense that she was only a cashier at Golden Gate Office and
that she has no knowledge of whether the agency was licensed to recruit workers
during her tenure as it has been delisted. The RTC of Manila found Chua guilty
of illegal recruitment in large scale, which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue:
Whether or not Melissa Chua liable for illegal recruitment in large scale?

Ruling:
Yes. Melissa Chua is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. In order to
hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must
concur:(1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of
"recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of
the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and(2) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third
element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and
placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three
elements are present in the case at bar. Chua engaged in recruitment when she
represented to private complainants that she could send them to Taiwan as
factory workers upon submission of the required documents and payment of the
placement fee. The four private complainants’ positively identified appellant as
the person who promised them employment as factory workers in Taiwan. Chua
cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier of
Golden Gate. The provisions of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of
R.A. No. 8042 are unequivocal that illegal recruitment may or may not be for
profit. It is immaterial, therefore, whether Chua remitted the placement fees to
"the agency’s treasurer" or appropriated them. The same provision likewise
provides that the persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the
principals, accomplices and accessories. Just the same, therefore, appellant can
be held liable as a principal by direct participation since she personally
undertook the recruitment of private complainants without a license or authority
to do so.
Pervera, Joyce Ann Nina C
Labor Law 1 Sec B
Case Digest

People vs. Ochoa

Facts:
The private complaints were recruited by the accused to deployment to
Taiwan and Saudi Arabia in exchange for fees of various amounts. The accused
stated under oath that she was employed by AXIL International Services as a
recruiter. AXIL had a temporary license to recruit Filipino workers for overseas
employment. She admitted recruiting private complaints and receiving from
them different amounts as placement fees and medical fees.

Issue:
Whether or not accused committed illegal recruitment in large scale and
estafa?

Ruling:
Yes. It is well- settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown
that appellant gave complaints the distinct impression that she had the power
or ability to send complaints abroad for work such that the latter were
convinces to part with their money in order to be employed. All eight private
complaints herein consistently declared that Ochoa offered and promised them
employment overseas. Ochoa required private complaints to submit their bio-
data, birth certificates, and passports, which complainants did. Private
complainants also gave various amounts to Ochoa as payments for placement
and medical fees as evidenced by the receipts Ochoa issue to Gubat, Cesar, and
Agustin. Despite private complaints’ compliance with all the requirements
Ochoa specified, they were not able to leave for work abroad. Private
complaints pleaded that Ochoa return their hard-earned money, but Ochoa
failed to do so.
More importantly, Ochoa still be convicted of illegal recruitment even if we
disregard the POEA certification, for regardless of whether or not Ochoa was a
license or holder of authority, she could still have committed illegal recruitment,
Sec 6 of RA No. 8042 clearly provides that any person, whether a non-license,
non-holder, licensee or holder of authority may be held liable for illegal
recruitment for certain acts.
 Both elements are present in Criminal Case Nos. 98-77301, 98-77302 and
98-77303. Ochoa deceit was evident in her false representation to private
complainants Gubat, Cesar, and Agustin that she possessed the authority and
capability to send said private complainants to Taiwan/Saudi Arabia for
employment as early as one to two weeks from completion of the requirements,
among which were the payment of placement fees and submission of a medical
examination report. Ochoa promised that there were already existing job
vacancies overseas for private complainants, even quoting the corresponding
salaries. Ochoa carried on the deceit by receiving application documents from
the private complaints, accompanying them to the clinic for medical
examination, and/or making them go to the offices of certain
recruitment/placement agencies to which Ochoa has actually no connection at
all. Clearly deceived by Ochoa’s words and actions, private complainants Gubat,
Cesar, and Aquino were persuaded to hand over their money to Ochoa to pay for
their placement and medical fees. Sadly, private complainants Gubat, Cesar, and
Aquino were never able to leave for work abroad, nor recover their money.
Pervera, Joyce Ann Nina C
Labor Law 1 Sec B
Case Digest

Becmen Seven Importers and Promotions Inc. vs Sps. Cuaresma

Facts:
Jasmin Cuaresma, a nurse working in Saudi Arabia was found dead. Her
parents received insurance benefits from the OWWA (Overseas Workers
Welfare Administration). But when they found out based on an autopsy
conducted in the Philippines that Jasmin was raped and thereafter killed, her
parents (Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma) filed for death and insurance benefits
with damages from the recruitment and placement agency which handled Jasmin
(Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc.).
The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court ruled that
since Becmen was negligent in investigating the true cause of death of Jasmin (a
violation of RA 8042), it shall be liable for damages. The Supreme Court also
ruled that pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042, the directors and officers of
Becmen are themselves jointly and solidarily liable with Becmen.
Eufrocina Gumabay and the other officers of Becmen filed a motion for
leave to intervene. They aver that Section 10 is invalid.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 10 is invalid.

HELD:
No. Section 10 is valid. The liability of Gumabay et al is not automatic.
However, the SC reconsidered its earlier ruling that Gumabay et al are solidarily
and jointly liable with Becmen there being no evidence on record which shows
that they were personally involved in their company’s particular actions or
omissions in Jasmin’s case.