G. R. No.: 167614 Date of Promulgation: March 24, 2009 En Banc, Austria-Martinez, J.

Title: Antonio Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0001

Facts: Serrano was a seafarer hired by Gallant Maritime and Marlow Navigation Co. for twelve months as Chief Officer. On the date of his departure, he was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer, upon the assurance that he would be made Chief Officer after a month but such promise of employment did not happen. Serrano decided to refuse his stay as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines. He had served only two months and seven days of his contract leaving an unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days. Serrano filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against Gallant Maritime and Marlow for constructive dismissal and payment for his money claims. The Labor Arbiter rendered a favourable decision to Serrano by awarding him $8,770.00, representing his salary for three months of the unexpired portion of his contract of employment applying Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Sec. 10 (5) which states:
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Issue: Is the subject clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in 10 (5) of Republic Act 8042, constitutional? Law: Philippine Constitution: Article III, Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Ruling: No. The subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts. However, there is none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. This clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar and unjustified disadvantage. It also violates the right of Serrano to equal protection and right to substantive due process because it deprives him of monetary benefits without any valid governmental purpose. Also, prior to Republic Act 8042, all OFWs, regardless of contact periods or unexpired portions, were treated alike in terms of computation of their monetary benefits in case of illegal dismissal. Their basic salaries multiplied by the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. Therefore, Serrano is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period, too. Opinion: I commend the Supreme Court for having a cursory reading of Republic Act 8042. Our workers, both local and overseas, must be equally protected by the law especially when it comes to illegal dismissal. I laud Mr. Serrano, too, for raising the unconstitutionality of R.A. 8042 Sec. 10 (5). I believe that before him, many OFWs suffered injustices abroad by being promised with a certain employment and would only find out after meeting their employer abroad that it wasnt the employment that they had agreed on. Should the OFW decided to sever their employment because of such reason, the employer would simply pay less of what an OFW or a local employee with a fixed term employment. Our laws and law enforcers must be consistent in the mandate of the Constitution to protect all workers whether locally or overseas.

G. R. No.: 183879 Date of Promulgation: April 14, 2010 Third Division, Nachura, J.

Title: Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0002

Facts: Sometime in the month of March 1997, in the City of Las Pias, Rosita Sy, the accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent representation which she made to the said complainant that she can deploy her for employment in Taiwan, and complainant convinced by said representations, gave the amount of P120,000.00 to the said accused for processing of her papers. She misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit. Sy was charged with one count of illegal recruitment and one count of estafa in a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court, Sy was exonerated of the illegal recruitment charge. However, she was convicted of the crime of estafa. Thus, the instant appeal involves only the crime of estafa. Issue: Whether one can be charged with the cases of illegal recruitment and estafa simultaneously? Laws: (1) Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 38. Illegal recruitment. Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. (2) Revised Penal Code: Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow xxx 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. xxx Ruling: Yes, illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa and vice versa. Illegal recruitment and estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is mala in se, in prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent in necessary. Therefore, Sys acquittal in the illegal recruitment case does not prove that he is not guilty of estafa. Opinion: While the ruling may seem harsh at first glance as one could be punished by two separate laws in one act, I must agree with the Supreme Court with their ruling in this one. While a lot of Filipinos are doing everything, including selling their properties like parcels of land which originated from their ancestors, for the promise of employment abroad, numerous Filipinos, too, are doing all fraudulent acts and deceits just to accumulate their money and misappropriate it for their personal use. The intention of the law is for its workers to have their freedom in choosing where to work but at the same time protecting them from illegal recruiters who would do anything for their hard-earned money. Also, in the case People vs. Domingo (discussed in the next case), the Supreme Court states that even if a person has not received money yet from his potential clients.

G. R. No.: 181475 Date of Promulgation: April 7, 2009 Second Division, Carpio Morales, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Lauro Domingo Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0003

Facts: Some time on the month of November 1999 to January 20, 2000, in the Municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Lauro Larry Domingo assured twenty-three people to work abroad however this promise never materialized. Later, he was accused of the crime of illegal recruitment (large scale) and estafa. He argued that he issued no receipt or document in which he acknowledged as having received any money for the promised jobs. Therefore, according to him, he should be freed from any liabilities. Issue: Was Domingo engaged in recruitment activities? Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. xxx Ruling: Yes. Even at the time Domingo was promising employment and no cash was given to him, he is still considered as having been engaged in recruitment activities since Article 13 of the Labor Code states that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It suffices that Dominguez promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction of illegal recruitment. To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, it is enough that the prosecution must prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or more persons individually or as a group. As for the estafa case, Domingo did not have the authority or license to recruit and deploy, misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had the capacity to send them abroad for employment. This misrepresentation, which induced the complaining witnesses to part off with their money for placement and medical fees, constitutes estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Opinion: The Supreme Court is correct in ruling this case. After all, it is settled that it is enough that the victims were deceived as they relied on the misrepresentation and scheme that caused them to entrust their money in exchange of what they later discovered was a vain hope of obtaining employment abroad. Even though the proof that he received money from his victims is ambiguous in this case, the fact that he made him undergo physical examination, made them obtain NBI clearance and most possibly resign from their employment caused them enough damage being embarrassed to their family and friends that they are about to obtain employment abroad. As the famous American entrepreneur, John Rohn quoted, For every promise, there is price to pay.

G. R. No.: 138431-36 Date of Promulgation: September 12, 2001 Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Discora Arabia and Francsica Tomas Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0004

Facts: Sometime in October 1992, private complainants met the accused-appellants at Quezon City where the appellants convinced them and other applicants to apply for jobs in Taiwan that would give them a monthly pay. Service fees for processing and placement, private complainants were told by appellants Arabia and Tomas, would be P16, 000.00 for each of them. Each of the private complainants gave certain amounts to Arabia at the latter's residence and in the presence of Tomas. Arabia, did not issue any receipt upon her assurance that she would not fool them. Various requirements, such as pictures, passports and bio-data, were submitted also by private complainants. However, private complainants were not able to leave for Taiwan because appellants told them that the person who was supposed to accompany them to Taiwan did not arrive. The departure date was thus reset but private complainants were still unable to leave. Frustrated, the private complainants asked for the return of their money as they were no longer interested in working abroad. They were informed by Arabia's sister, however, that appellants were arrested by the NBI and detained at the Quezon City Jail. Records also showed that appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. For their defense, the accused-appellants denied having offered them any employment and told them that they were actually victims of illegal recruitment, too, by a woman named Rebecca De Jesus. Issue: Did the accused-appellants committed the crime of illegal recruitment (large scale)? Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. xxx Ruling: Yes. Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements: The accused undertook recruitment activity defined under Article 13 or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code, he did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers and he committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. These essential elements are present in this case. Accused-appellants recruited at least four persons, giving them the impression that they had the capability to send them to Taiwan for employment. They collected various amounts allegedly for recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. It is settled that the fact that an accused in an illegal recruitment case did not issue the receipts for amounts received from the complainants has no bearing on his culpability so long as complainants show through their respective testimonies and affidavits that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment. On the other hand, Arabia and Tomas failed to present proof that they indeed filed a case against Rebecca de Jesus for illegal recruitment. Neither did they present proof that complainants also filed a case against said Rebecca de Jesus. Accused Arabia presented supposed complainant-affidavits against Rebecca de Jesus, however, it was not shown that herein complainants are among those persons who executed an affidavit-complaint. They were acquitted in two cases of illegal recruitment, though, because of lack of evidence. Opinion: I also agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. Nobody can escape the liability of illegal recruitment simply by stating that they were, in fact, victimized too by a third person.

G. R. No.: 132376 Date of Promulgation: April 11, 2002 First Division, Ynarez-Santiago, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Samina Angeles Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0005

Facts: Maria De Sardena was working in Saudi Arabia when she received a call from her sister, Priscilla who was working in France and advised her to return to the Philippines and await the arrival of her friend, herein accused, Samina Angeles. Priscilla states that Angeles would be assisting De Sardena in processing her travel and employment documents to France. De Sardena, together with her brother, Marceliano Toloma who was also instructed by Priscilla, met with the accused and gave money to process their papers to France. However, she disappeared with their money. Precila Oplindo and Vilma Brina also received the same instructions from Precilas sister, Analyn, who met the accused in Belgium, who told them that the accused can help them processing their papers to Canada. The accused told Oplindo and Brina that it would be easier to complete the processing of their papers if they would start in Jakarta rather than from Manila. The three of them flew to Jakarta however the accused left them there after two days and the accused could not be reached. POEA later presented a certification stating that the accused was not duly authorized to recruit workers from here and abroad. The accused indicated that she never represented to the complainants that she could provide them with work abroad. None of the complainants testified on what kinds of jobs were promised, names of their prospective employer, how much they would earn and the length of their employment. Issue: Is Samina Angeles guilty of illegal recruitment? Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. xxx Ruling: No. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. In the case at bar, accused-appellant alleges that she never promised nor offered any job to the complainants. A perusal of the records reveals that not one of the complainants testified that accused-appellant lured them to part with their hard-earned money with promises of jobs abroad. Accused-appellant did not have to make promises of employment abroad as these were already done by complainants relatives. Nonetheless, although Samina Angeles did not deceive complainants into believing that she could find employment for them abroad, she made them believe that she was processing their travel documents for France and Canada. They parted with their money believing that Samina Angeles would use it to pay for their plane tickets, hotel accommodations and other travel requirements. Upon receiving various amounts from complainants, Samina Angeles used it for other purposes and then conveniently disappeared. She abused their confidence when she led them to believe that she can process their travel documents abroad, thus inducing them to part with their money. When they demanded from Samina their travel documents, she failed to produce them or return the money they gave her. Opinion: I agree with the decision although for Oplindo and Brinas case, I believe that they should have asked for moral and exemplary damages. To be left alone in a country with hardly anyone to talk to for help because of the language barriers is one of the spiteful things a person could do to another.

G. R. No.: 124443-46 Date of Promulgation: June 6, 2002 Second Division, Quisumbing, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Nimfa Remullo Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0006

Facts: Three private complainants swore that accused-appellant, Nimfa Remullo, tried recruiting them as factory workers for Malaysia. Appellant told them to fill up some forms and go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where Remullo worked. Remullo also asked them to secure clearances from NBI and submit their respective passports and pictures and asked them also to pay her some amount of money as placement fee which they all complied. Nonetheless on the date of their departure, they were not able to leave the country because according to the immigration officer they possess tourist visas only. One of the private complainants, Honorina Mejia, inquired from Jamila and Co., regarding their application papers however the vice president of the said company denied any knowledge of such papers. According to her, Remullo did not submit anything to them. She also certified that appellant was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of Jamila and Co. In her defense, Remullo denied having recruited private complainants and receiving any money from them. According to her, she met private complainants at the Jamila office where she was a marketing consultant. They asked for her help in obtaining jobs abroad, so she had them fill up bio-data forms and told them to wait for job openings. She alleged that Jamila had an agreement with Wearness Electronics, based in Malaysia, concerning the recruitment of workers for Wearness. Private complainants were supposed to have been recruited for Wearness. She explained that Steven Mah was the owner of Manifield Enterprise a recruitment agency. Also, Mah went to Malaysia to look for job opening and he was able to find this company, Wearness Electronics.Appellant insisted that private complainants did not hand their placement fees to her but to Steven Mah and to a certain Lani Platon. Issue: Is Remullo guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa? Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. xxx Ruling: Yes. This is for the reason that the private complainants were enticed by Remullo to apply for employment abroad even if she clearly knows that she acted without a license or lawful authority to do so. Her employer clearly states as a marketing consultant, it is not within her scope of work to recruit prospective employees abroad. On the other hand, for the charge of estafa to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. In this case, appellant clearly defrauded private complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. Opinion: For one not to be entangled in this crime of illegal recruitment, one must also be vigilant in knowing who to speak with if he desires to work abroad. In the instant case, we found out that there are some people who may be working in a duly registered recruitment firm but recruiting persons per se is none of his business. We must be wary of these kinds of people because they are easier to believe than those who are not working in recruitment firms. Fortunately, the Supreme Court convicted Remulla in this case to serve as a warning to those working in recruitment firms.

G. R. No.: 129577-80 Date of Promulgation: June 6, 2002 Second Division, Quisumbing, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Bulu Chowdury Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0007

Facts: Bulu Chowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting three private complainants for employment in South Korea. The accused-appellant interviewed private complainants in 1994 at Craftrade Overseas Developers office because at around time, he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under temporary authority given by POEA although pending the renewal of license. He was charged based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers. The complainants also stated that during their applications for employment for abroad, the license of Craftrade was already expired. For his defense, Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until 1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed with the instructions given by his superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency's President and General Manager, and Mr. Utkal Chowdury, the agency's Managing Director. Issue: Is the accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged and could be held liable for illegal recruitment? Law: Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Sec. 6 xxx The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable." Ruling: No. Supreme Court acquitted, Bulu Chowdury. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, only if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. In this instant case, Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of his superior. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. He is also unaware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and the prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. Chowdury simply confined his actions to his job description as he just interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money from them. Hence, it is clear that Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment. Opinion: I highly agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in this instant case. This case not only protected the public from the evils of illegal recruitment but it also protected labor. The innocent employee was saved by his good faith. Although we must really safeguard ourselves from the evils of illegal recruitment, the courts must be very cautious on who are they sending behind bars. Only the parties liable must be punished and not those who are doing their occupation in good faith.

G. R. No.: 124671-75 Date of Promulgation: September 29, 2000 First Division, Pardo, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Linda Sagayado Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0008

Facts: Four private complainants filed a case against accused appellant, Linda Sagayado, because allegedly, she proposed and encourage them for employment abroad in South Korea and assured that they are going to have employment there.. Complainants gave their respective payments to the accused for the processing of their travel papers and passport. Unfortunately, many months have passed by but their flight never pushed through. They later probed at the Baguio POEA office whether the accused was a license recruiter and eventually found out that she was not. For her defense, the accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being learning that she was able to send her three sons to South Korea. Although the accused-appellant acknowledged having received money from the two complainants, she said she used their money to buy their plane tickets. She explained further that the two were not able to leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement beginning January 1992. She also was not able to return the money because according to her, she returned the plane tickets to the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency did not make reimbursements. Issue: Is the accused-appellant liable for large scale illegal recruitment and estafa? Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. xxx Ruling: Yes. To reiterate, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. This crime requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All the aforementioned requisites were present in this case. The accused-appellant made representations to each of the private complainants that she could send them to Korea to work as factory workers, constituting a promise of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. From the testimonies of the private complainants that the trial court found to be credible and untainted with improper motives, there is no denying that accused-appellant gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, mere denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail. Opinion: In a way the factual incidents are similar to the Samina case but the only difference is in this case the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work is proven. With that simple fact, the penalty imposed on Sagayado was way too much compared to Samina. Perhaps, labor lawyers must concentrate on this as a defense to at least protect their client.

G. R. No.: 129070 Date of Promulgation: March 16, 2002 First Division, Pardo, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Nellie Cabais Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0009

Facts: Sometime in February to May 1994 in Baguio, Nellie Cabais informed the private respondents that she was connected with Red Sea Employment Agency (RSEA), a Manila-based agency which was licensed to recruit overseas contract workers. She said that she could help them through her employer find jobs in South Korea. In succeeding meetings, Cabais even introduced Anita Forneas as her boss and the owner of RSEA and the two of them tried to convince them to submit their applications so that RSEA could process them. Later on, accused Cabais acquainted to them a certain Korean named Harm Yo Hong who managed to persuade the complainants to apply as contract workers in South Korea. As a defense, the accused-appellant stressed that she is not liable for illegal recruitment and estafa considering that she was merely an employee of Red Sea Employment Agency and did not actually recruit applicants. Issue: Is the accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged and could be held liable for illegal recruitment? Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. xxx Ruling: Yes. 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 he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. In this case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She also received money from them as placement fees. All of the complainants testified that they personally met accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants. Furthermore, the accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitment activities, as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the testimony of a representative of said government agency. All of her acts constituted recruitment, and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the company, her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities. Since the recruitment involves three or more persons, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. Opinion: This case is a little trickier than the Chowdury case. In here, the Supreme Court exhaustively examined all pertinent factual incidences in the case which made the employee liable together with her employer. Simply put, the big chunk of ones liability of one after all resides on his good faith.

G. R. No.: 162419 Date of Promulgation: July 10, 2007 Second Division, Tinga, J.

Title: Paul Santiago vs. CF Sharp Crew Management Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao Series of : 0010

Facts: Petitioner had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management, Inc. (respondent) for about five years.2 On 3 February 1998, petitioner signed a new contract of employment with respondent, with the duration of nine months. He was assured of a monthly salary of US$515.00, overtime pay and other benefits. The following day, the contract was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Petitioner was to be deployed on board the "MSV Seaspread" which was scheduled to leave the port of Manila for Canada on February 13. 1998. However, he was eventually oddly prevented from leaving the port of Manila. After which, his deployment wad refused with no lawful reason given to him. He filed for damages however his employment contract states that the employer-employee relationship shall commence only upon his actual departure from the port of Manila therefore, according to the respondent, there was no employer-employee relationship and thus the award given by the labor arbiter who had heard their case in favor of the petitioner must be vacated. Issue: Is the petitioner entitled to relief under Migrant Workers Act in absence of employer-employee relationship? Law: Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), Sec. 10: Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. Ruling: Yes. Despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the NLRC still has jurisdiction over the complaint of the petitioner because the labor arbiters power is not limited to claims arising from employer-employee relationship. The law provides that labor arbiters shall have jurisdiction over claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. Since the present case involves the employment contract entered into by the petitioner for overseas employment, his claims are cognizable by the labor arbiters of NLRC. Opinion: I am very much pleased with the judgment of this case. If the Supreme Court otherwise decided against the petitioner, the man shall be very unfortunate. Most likely, he has nowhere to go to after giving up his five year employment. It must be a lesson that employers must not abuse their socalled management prerogative power and just let their supposed future employee down in the last minute after cancelling his last employment. Employment is very valuable to any person because it is an important property that sustains his everyday life. The state must always serve the best interest of its citizens when it comes to employment.