People vs Dujua 442 scra 169

Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle,
Guillermo Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale.
Only Ramon was arrested. Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All of
them were promised work abroad upon payment of fees but they were
not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded not guilty and denied the
allegations that he was a recruiter.
Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was
committed by Raon Dujua, et al. The essential elements of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: 1) The accused engages
in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article
13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor
Code; 2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment particularly with respect to the
securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers
either locally or overseas; and 3) the accused commits the unlawful acts
against three or more persons individually or as a group.
All three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily
proved that Dujua promised them employment and assured them of
placement overseas. All of them identified Dujua as the person who
recruited them for employment abroad. As against the positive and
categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujuas mere denials
cannot prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough
credible testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal
recruitment , a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.
Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons
for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA.
Neither did his employer, World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such
license or authority.
Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the
recruitment of more than three persons.
People vs domingo 584 scra 669, 2009
Appellant Larry Domingo (Domingo) was charged with Illegal
Recruitment (Large Scale) and two(2) counts of Estafa before Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. Domingo, denied all the
accusations against him and claimed that he was a driver hired by the
real recruiter, Gimeno, whom hemet inside the Victory Liner Bus
bound for Manila in September, 2000 Domingo likewise presented as
witnesses private complainants Enrico Espiritu and Roberto Castillo
who corroborated his claim that it was Gimeno who actually recruited
them, and that the filing of the complaint against appellant was a
desperate attempt on their part to get even because Gimeno could not
be located. Prosecution witness Simeon Cabigao (Cabigao) testified
that he was among those who were recruited by Domingo, but he ater
on recanted his testimony. By Joint Decision, the trial court found
Domingo guilty beyondreasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment (Large
Scale) and of 2 counts of Estafa.On appeal to the Court of Appeals,
Domingo maintained that the trial court erred for failing togive weight
to Cabigaos retraction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the trial court on all accounts. Hence, the present petition.
Whether or not the retraction of Cabigao should be given
weight That one of the original complaining witnesses, Cabigao, later
recanted,via an affidavit and his testimony in open court, does not
necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any other testimony, the
same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with
caution. For a testimony solemnly given in court should not be set
aside lightly, least of all by a mere affidavit executed after the lapse of
considerable time. In the case at bar, the Affidavit of Recantation was
executed three years after the complaint was filed. It is thus not
unreasonable to consider his retraction an afterthought to deny its
probative value. At all events, and even with Cabigaos recantation, the
Supreme Court finds that the prosecution evidence consisting of the
testimonies of the four other complainants, whose credibility has not
been impaired, has not been overcome.
People vs gallo gr 185277, 2010

(Articless 13 (b) and 34 of the Labor Code.) Accused-appellant made

false misrepresentations and promises in assuring Dela Caza and the
other victims that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in Korea as
factory workers were waiting for them and that they would be deployed
soon. In fact, Dela Caza personally talked to accused-appellant and
gave him the money and saw him sign and issue an official receipt as
proof of his payment.
Whether Gallo and others are guilty of syndicated illegal
recruitment and estafa. In the instant case, accused-appellant
committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042. Testimonial
evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in
consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant
received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accusedappellant made misrepresentations concerning the agencys purported
power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the
process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former
clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. [ In this case,
it cannot be denied that the accused-appellent together with Mardeolyn
and the rest of the officers and employees of MPM Agency participated
in a network of deception. Verily, the active involvement of each in the
recruitment scam was directed at one single purpose to divest
complainants with their money on the pretext of guaranteed
employment abroad. The prosecution evidence shows that
complainants were briefed by Mardeolyn about the processing of their
papers for a possible job opportunity in Korea, as well as their possible
salary. Likewise, Yeo Sin Ung, a Korean national, gave a briefing about
the business and what to expect from the company. Then, here comes
accused-appellant who introduced himself as Mardeolyns relative and
specifically told Dela Caza of the fact that the agency was able to send
many workers abroad. Dela Caza was even showed several workers
visas who were already allegedly deployed abroad. Later on, accusedappellant signed and issued an official receipt acknowledging the down
payment of Dela Caza. Without a doubt, the nature and extent of the
actions of accused-appellant, as well as with the other persons in MPM
Agency clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking.
Hence, conspiracy is evidently present.
Salazar vs achocoso & marquez gr 81510
Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA,
charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty.
Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear
to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. On the same day,
after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment
agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a
Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner. It stated that there
will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or
intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it
having verified that petitioner has (1) No valid license or authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy
workers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts
prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to
Article 38 of the same code. A team was then tasked to implement the
said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong
policemen, went to petitioners residence. They served the order to a
certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team confiscated
assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for
the return of the seized properties, because she was not given prior
notice and hearing. The said Order violated due process. She also
alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, and the properties
were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable
force and intimidation.
Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of
search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code
Held: Under the new Constitution, . . . no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of
seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article
38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, We reiterate that the
Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or
arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial

process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the

Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect The power of
the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously,
exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to
other cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole
domain of the courts. Furthermore, the search and seizure order was
in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is
null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be
seized.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of
the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void.
The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a
result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. 1205.
Florish maritime shipping vs almanzor 568 scra 718
The choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract
worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract, or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract
concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more.

Facts:
Respondent Almanzor entered into a two-year employment
contract with petitioner Flourish Maritime Shipping as fisherman and
was deployed to Taipei, Taiwan. While on board, he was given an
instruction which he did not understand and therefore was unable to
obey. The master of the vessel struck him and refused his requested
medical assistance. Respondent was repatriated to the Philippines but
was not redeployed as promised, thus the complaint for illegal
dismissal, payment for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract, earned wages, moral and exemplary damages plus attorneys
fees.
Petitioners Flourish Maritime Shipping and Uy contended
that respondent voluntarily resigned and that the same did not comply
with the grievance machinery and arbitration clause embodied in the
employment contract.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favour of
respondent, awarding him six months of his monthly pay (3mo for
every year of the unexpired term). On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in
toto the Labor Arbiters findings. The Court of Appeals, on petition for
certiorari, modified the NLRC decision by increasing the monetary
award due respondent. The Court of Appeals awarded respondent the
unexpired portion of the first year (11 months and 4 days) and 3
months for the unexpired second year, for a total of 14 months and 4
days.
WON respondent was illegally dismissed from employment.
YES. Petitioners, as concluded by the Labor Arbiter, failed to adduce
any convincing evidence to establish its claim that respondent
voluntarily residned from employment. Likewise, the NLRC held that
petitioners failed to show that respondent was not physically fit to
perform work due to his old age. Neither was it proved that the
employment contract indeed provided a grievance machinery. Both
labor tribunals correctly concluded, as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, that respondent was not redeployed for work, in violation of
their employment contract. Perforce, the termination of respondents
services is without just or valid cause.
WON the award made by the Court of Appeals was contrary
to law. YES.Section 10 of R.A. 8042 provides:
Money Claims. x x x In case of termination of overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract,
the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement
fee with interest at 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. x x x x.
The correct interpretation of this provision was settled in
Marsaman Manning Agency Inc. v. NLRC where this Court held that
the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas
contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of
his employment contract, or three (3) months salary for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the

employment contract concerned has a term of at least one year or

more.
The employment contract involved in the instant case covers
a two-year period but the overseas contract worker actually worked for
only 26 days prior to his illegal dismissal. Thus, the three months
salary rule applies. Respondent, therefore, is entitled to six (6) months
salary as correctly held by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC.
Serrano vs gallant maritime 582 scra 254
Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime
Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a POEAapproved contract of employment for 12 months, as Chief Officer, with
the basic monthly salary of US$1,400, plus $700/month overtime pay,
and 7 days paid vacation leave per month. On the date of his departure,
Serrano was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract
upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would
be Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. Respondents did not deliver
on their promise to make Serrano Chief Officer. Hence, Serrano
refused to stay on as second Officer and was repatriated to the
Philippines, serving only two months and 7 days, leaving an unexpired
portion of nine months and twenty-three days.
Upon complaint filed by Serrano before the Labor Arbiter (LA), the
dismissal was declared illegal. On appeal, the NLRC modified the LA
decision based on the provision of RA 8042. Serrano filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration, but this time he questioned the
constitutionality of the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of
RA 8042.
1. Whether or not the subject clause violates Section 10,
Article III of the Constitution on non-impairment of
contracts The answer is in the negative. Petitioners claim that the
subject clause unduly interferes with the stipulations in his contract on
the term of his employment and the fixed salary package he will receive
is not tenable.
The subject clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground
that it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted in
the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business,
profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of
OFWs, with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity
and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be employed.
2. Whether or not the subject clause violate Section 1, Article
III of the Constitution, and Section 18, Article II and Section
3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector. The answer is in
the affirmative.
To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing
constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity.
Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it
applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the
subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious
impact on, OFWs at two levels:
First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year
vis--vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more;
Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more
than one year; and
Third, OFWs vis--vis local workers with fixed-period
employment;
The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens
it with a peculiar disadvantage.
Thus, the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No.
8042 is violative of the right of petitioner and other OFWs to equal
protection.
The subject clause or for three months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 8042 is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.