[G.R. No. 117460.

January 6, 1997]
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK now known as PNB - REPUBLIC BANK petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and ANTONIO G. SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS:
After working at RPB (now PNB-RB) for 31 years & 15 days, Antonio G. Santos (Dept Manager) retired. He received gratuity
pay of P434,468.52 out of which P20,615.62 was deducted for taxes due. Be it noted that under their CBA, computation shall be based
on the salary rate of the rank next higher. In 1990, he filed a complaint for underpayment of gratuity pay, non-payment of accumulated
sick and vacation leaves, mid-year and year-end bonuses, financial assistance, as well as damages and attorney's fees.
LA ruled in favor of Santos. NLRC affirmed.
PNB elevated the case to SC alleging that Santos is not entitled to the award as he signed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim
therefor when he received his gratuity pay of P434,468.52. PNB further contended that the grant of gratuity pay was erroneous as the
CBA had long expired it could no longer be used as basis in computing the gratuity pay of its retiring officers; instead, the computation
should be based on the practice and policy of the bank effective at the time of the employee's retirement.
PNB averred that the salary of an officer is pegged to a minimum or maximum depending on his performance appraisal in
accordance with the Executive Compensation Salary Structure (ECSS) effective 1 May 1987. Since Santos' latest performance
rating was only satisfactory, his gratuity pay should be based on the minimum and not on the maximum amount of the rate of the
salary of the rank next higher.
ISSUE: W/N THERE WAS AN UNDERPAYMENT OF GRATUITY PAY & OTHER BONUSES
RULING: YES
Athough a quitclaim by an employee in favor of his employer amounts to a valid and binding compromise agreement between
them, such is ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the worker's rights and that acceptance thereof does not amount to
estoppel.
If the consideration given in exchange thereof was very much less than the amount claimed renders the quitclaim null and void. n
the instant case, the total amount claimed by Santos is P908,022.65 of which only P434,468.52 was received by him.Considering that
the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim was signed by Santos under protest as found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, and the difference
between the amount claimed and that paid cannot in any way be considered negligible, we deem it proper to recompute and determine
the exact amount of the retirement benefits due Santos.
As to the CBA: PNB-RB has adopted the policy of granting gratuity benefits to its retiring officers based on the salary rate of the
next higher rank. It continued to adopt this practice even after the expiration of the 1971-1973 CBA. Also, nothing in the CBA
classifies minimum or maximum basis on the rate of salary of the rank next higher. Instead, what is provided is an unqualified one rank
higher concept.
The grant was consistent and deliberate although petitioner knew fully well that it was not required to give the benefits after the
expiration of the 1971-1973 CBA. Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced, diminished,
discontinued or eliminated by the employer by virtue of Sec. 10 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851 and Art. 100
of the Labor Code which prohibit the diminution or elimination by the employer of the employees' existing benefits.
GRATUITY PAY V. SALARY
GRATUITY - paid to the beneficiary for the past services or favor rendered purely out of the generosity of the giver or grantor.
Gratuity, therefore, is not intended to pay a worker for actual services rendered or for actual performance. It is a money benefit or
bounty given to the worker, the purpose of which is to reward employees who have rendered satisfactory service to the company.
SALARY - a part of labor standard law based on the actual amount of work rendered or the number of days worked over the period of
years.
Hence, petitioner's attempt to apply the salary structure to determine gratuity would eradicate the very essence of a gratuity
award, and make it partake of the character of a wage or salary given on the basis of actual work or performance. Such was never the
intendment of the law and would run counter to essential social justice.
NOTE: Part of Santos claims of bonuses had already prescribed as it was beyond the 3 year period for money claims arising from eree relationship.
Baka itanong:
Under Section 14(a), Rule 1 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book VI of the Labor Code, it is provided:
Sec. 14. Retirement Benefits.- (a) An employee who is retired pursuant to a bonafide retirement plan or in accordance with the
applicable individual or collective agreement or established employer policy shall be entitled to all the retirement benefits provided
therein x x x."

G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN,
accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
Sps. Goce & Agustin were charged of committing illegal recruitment by a syndicate. A warrant of arrest was issued but none of
them was arrested. The case was archived but the court issued a standing warrant against them. Eventually, Agustin was apprehended.
During arraignment on the reinstated case, Agustin pleaded not guilty.
FOUR COMPLAINANTS TESTIFIED:
1.

ROGELIO SALADO - In 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in
the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Agustin represented herself as the manager of the Clover
Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado
learned that he had to 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.
Salado & his relatives (co-applicants) went to the office of the placement agency where they saw Agustin & met Sps. Goce
(owners of the agency). He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12k, instead of the original
amount of P5k for the placement fee. Although surprises, he paid parin. However, several months later, the promised overseas
employment still did not materialize. So he went to POEA (too late) to verify the real status of the agency. They found out that it
was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants. Upon learning that Agustin was arrested, Salado demanded the return of what he
paid but Agustin paid only P500.

2.

RAMONA (ROGELIOS WIFE) - accompanied by her husband, went to Agustin who then persuaded her to apply as a
cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged, she instructed to pay P2k for each of them as placement
fee. They later on received a telegram from the agency that their visa had already arrived. They paid another P2k for the passport.
Despite follow up of their papers 2x a week from Feb to June, they failed to leave abroad.

3.

DIONISIO MASAYA - accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover Placement
Agency at Paraaque, the agency's former office address. He submitted several pertinent docu. He paid the placement fee on
installment (P11,900). He was advised to follow up his application, w/c he faithfully did. But he failed to leave abroad. He
demand return of what he paid but Goce only gave P4k on installment.

4.

ERNESTO ALVAREZ - In 1987, he met Agustin thru his bro-in-law Larry. She informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad
sa Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to
$700.00. Ernesto paid processing fee. Agustin assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He returned
several times to the placement agency's office to follow up his application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of
the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked for Agustin about eight times, but he
could no longer find her.

IN SHORT:
Complainants testified that they applied to the Sps. Goces agency, with Agustin as the manager, for overseas employment. They
were asked to pay amounts of money as processing fee, which they did. The accused even increased the price, which they again paid
despite surprise.
Several months passed but the overseas et did not materialize. So one of them went to the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) to verify the real 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, they decided to see her and to demand the return of the
money he had paid, but Agustin could not pay the total amount.
Agustin defended that Sps. Goce were her neighbors & were licensed recruiters & owners of the Clover Placement Agency. They
were even able to send Agustins son Reynaldo to Saudi Arabia. She denied any participation in the illegal recruitment & maintained
that only Sps. Goce were engaged in such recruitment. (gulo, sabi niya nung una, legit) Being a neighbor of said couple, and owing to
the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to
said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their request.All she knew daw as that Sps. Goce left
their residence in 1987. As to the money given by one of the complainants, Agustin maintained that such person loaned from her.
Trial court found her guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as
well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00. Agustin appealed to SC.
ISSUE:
W/N AGUSTINS ACTS OF INTROUDCING APPLICANTS TO SPS. GOCE FELL WITHIN THE MEANING OF
REFERRAL UNDER THE LABOR CODE TO MAKE HER LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
RULING: YES
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-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof.

The same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of
these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (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 (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in
large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.
At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as
evidenced by a certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987.
LABOR CODE: 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.
On the other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a
selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
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, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of
which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." It is undisputed that
Agustin gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter
were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so employed.
NOTE:
- xerox lang ng receipts pinakita nina complainants, admissible pa rin kasi daw lost na yung orig & seems credible naman daw yung
mga naitestify ng complainants
- Agustin insisted that there was no proof of conspiracy & she cannot be convicted as the Sps. Goce were not tried. SC said that the
evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive the
complainants.non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the
trial court convicting her.

[G.R. Nos. 145734-35. October 15, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. VICENTA MEDINA LAPIS, ANGEL MATEO, AIDA DE LEON (at large) and
JEAN AM-AMLAW (at large),appellants.
FACTS:
Lapis & Mateo were charged of illegal recruitment by a syndicate under RA 8042 and estafa for recruiting MELCHOR F. DEGSI
and PERPETUA L. DEGSI for employment as an office worker and as a cook or mechanic in Japan. Sps. Degsi paid P158,600.00 as
alleged placement and processing fees. Despite the lapse of several months, the two still was not deployed.
Sps. Melchor & Perpetua Degsi are residents of Baguio. They made a living earning an average of P20,000.00 a month by selling
fish and vegetables in a rented stall in said City, at least until March 24, 1998 when they closed shop for reasons of attending to the
demands of the promised jobs for them in Japan. Their co-vendor Am-amlaw told them that she knew Aida de Leon (a legal recruiter
daw, an ex-POEA employee daw) who had the capacity to send them both abroad.
Upon their meeting, de Leon introduced them to Angel Mateo, who allegedly is their contact person for Japan-bound workers.
Mateo represented himself as having the capacity to send people abroad and showed complainants various documents to convince
them of his legitimate recruitment operations.
In another meeting, Lapis was introduced as Mateos wife (pero ka-live in lang siya). She required payment from Sps. Degsi,
purportedly to help them speed up the processing of their applications.
The accused denied the allegations. Lapis defended that she merely accompanies her live-in partner Mateo to meet w/ Sps. Degsi.
They were talking about a contract in Baguio, but she had never seen that Sps. Degsi gave money to Mateo. Mateo contended that he is
engaged in the importation of heavy equipment and containers but he has never been engaged in recruitment. Accdg. To him, he
transacted w/ Aida de Leon in connection to their transaction about heavy equipment with Mayor Binay, as de Leon was the one who
contracted w/ Mayor Binay. He further claimed that the topic of their meeting was to supply heavy equipment in Baguio City.
The accused were found guilty. Conspiracy was also well established. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: W/N THE ACCUSEDWERE GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT BY A SINDICATE UNDER RA 8042
RULING: YES
Illegal recruitment is committed when these two elements concur:
(1) the offenders have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers, and
(2) the offenders undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement[15] defined in Article 13(b) or any
prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code
Under Article 13(b), 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. In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the
government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.
Section 6 of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides that illegal
recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage when it is committed by a syndicate or carried out by a group
of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another.
In several cases, illegal recruitment has been deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more
persons conspiring and/or confederating with each other in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme
defined under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code.
In this case, it cannot be denied that all four (4) accused -- Jane Am-amlaw, Aida de Leon, Angel Mateo and Vicenta Medina Lapis

participated in a network of deception. Verily, the active involvement of each in the various phases of the recruitment scam formed part
of a series of machinations. Their scheme was to lure complainants to Manila and to divest them of their hard-earned money on the
pretext of guaranteed employment abroad.
JANE AM-AMLAW = co-vendor na nagconvince sa Sps. Degsi
AIDA DE LEON = legal recruiter & ex-POEA ee daw
ANGEL MATEO = contact person for Japan-bound workers
VICENTA LAPIS = kalive-in ni Mateo, kasama lagi sa meeting, asked money to speed up application
The individual actuations of all four (4) accused were directed at a singular criminal purpose -- to delude complainants into
believing that they would be employed abroad. The nature and the extent of the formers interactions among themselves as well as with
the latter clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking.
CONSPIRACY: Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action and community of interest. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.
[G.R. No. 107084. May 15, 1998]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DELIA SADIOSA y CABENTA, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
In early 1992, Arsenia Conse went to Bayombong, Nueva Ecija. She met the four complainants, Cely Navarro, Marcela Manzano,
Erly Tuliao and Benilda Domingo. She enticed the four to apply for overseas employment informing them that she had a cousin who
could send them to Kuwait as domestic helpers.
The 4 went to Manila where they were introduced to Delia Sadiosa. The 4 applied for work as domestic helpers. Sadiosa
demanded payment of money with the assurance that they will be dispatch to Kuwait. She promised that upon payment of necessary
fees, they would be able to leave for Kuwait immediately.
After paying, Sadiosa promised that they could leave for Kuwait on different dates, but there were several postponements. Not
one of them was able to leave for Kuwait. When they demanded the return of what they paid, Sadiosa refused & ignored their demand.
Consequently, the four filed the complaint for illegal recruitment against Sadiosa. Sadiosa denied having a hand in the illegal
recruitment, claiming that she merely received the money on behalf of one Mrs. Ganura who owned the recruitment agency called
Staff Organizers, Inc. She accepted the money in her capacity as an officer of the said recruitment agency. She contended that although
she was not listed in the POEA as an employee of the recruitment agency of Mrs. Ganura, she had a special power of attorney issued
by her employer to receive payments from applicants.
Sadiosa was found guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale defined by Article 38 (b) and penalized under Article 39 (a) of the
Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1920 and 2018.
ISSUE:
W/N SADIOSA WAS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION
*mejo mala-crimpro tong case na to, di daw sufficient yung info kasi sa caption: ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT LANG, pero
pagdating sa body/allegations, may estafa nang kasama...Pero nairaos parin naman sa Labor. Hehe
RULING: YES
The prosecutor simply captioned the information with the generic name of the offense under the Labor Code illegal recruitment.
No misconceptions would have been engendered had he been more accurate in the drafting of the information considering that there
are at least four kinds of illegal recruitment under the law:
1. Simple illegal recruitment committed by a licensee or holder of authority. The law penalizes such offender with
imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than five years or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000,
or both such imprisonment and fine.
2. Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority commits the second type of illegal recruitment. The
penalty imposed for such offense is imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less
than P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court.
3. The third type of illegal recruitment refers to offenders who either commit the offense alone or with another person
against three or more persons individually or as a group.
4. A syndicate or a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another in carrying out the act
circumscribed by the law commits the fourth type of illegal recruitment by the law. For the third and fourth types of illegal
recruitment the law prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.
The prosecs ommission should not deprive the people of the right to prosecute a crime with so grave a consequence against the
economic life of the aggrieved parties. What is important is that he did allege in the information the facts sufficient to constitute the
offense of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Note that Sadiosa miserably failed to present this Mrs. Ganura to testify in this regard despite all efforts exerted by this court,
hence, such assertion of the accused is disregarded, not being reliable. The fact remains that it was she who transacted with the
complainants, and that accused is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

G.R. No. 186132 February 27, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. NESTOR TUGUINAY, Appellant.
FACTS: (wala talagang facts don, kainis, derecho ruling ng RTC & CA)
Nestor Tuguinay recruited Ferdinand Aguilar y Pontino, Sakio Balicdang, Lim U. Tany and Jordan B. Bangcawayan. He promsied
them overseas employment in exchange for sums of money. He did this despite not being licensed to recruit workers for overseas
employment, per the June 6, 2001 Certification of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. He defrauded Aguilar,
Balicdang, Tany and Bangcawayan in the amounts of P63,500.00, P75,000.00, P70,000.00 and P70,000.00, respectively. He was found
guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale & estafa.
PENALTIES:
A.
B.

FOR ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT: life imprisonment and ordered him to pay aP100,000.00 fine.
FOR ESTAFA:
AS V. AGUILAR, TANY & BANGCAWAYAN = indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum.
AS V. BALICDANG = indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 13 years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.

NO CIVIL LIABILITY AS TUGUINAY HAD ALREADY SETTLED HIS CIVIL OBLIs TO THE COMPLAINANTS.
CA affirmed. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: W/N TUGUINAY IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE
RULING: YES, BUT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE MODIFIED
The three elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE:
a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of 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 said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act
No. 8042); and
c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group
DI MASYADO INEXPLAIN, ITO LANG SABI:
The prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant enlisted the four complainants for overseas
employment without any license to do so. The four complainants adequately testified on the demand for placement fees made by the
appellant, and the payments they made. No motive affecting their credibility was ever imputed against them. We, therefore, rule that
the lower courts correctly found the appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more
than P1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage, i.e., illegal recruitment in large scale and illegal
recruitment committed by a syndicate. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed upon the appellant the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of only P100,000.00. Since the fine of P100,000.00 is below the minimum set by law, SC increase the same toP500,000.00.
AS TO ESTAFA:
The two elements of estafa (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person are also present in this case.
Namodify din yung penalty dito, di ko lang nagets, Indeterminate Sentence Law kasi. Di rin related. Hehe

G.R. No. 168445 November 11, 2005

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 168445 Appellee, v. CAPT. FLORENCIO O. GASACAO, Appellant.
FACTS:
CAPT. FLORENCIO O. GASACAO was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a licensed local manning
agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao, was the President. As the crewing manager, Capts duties included receiving
job applications, interviewing the applicants and informing them of the agencys requirement of payment of performance or cash bond
prior to deployment.
In 1999, they recruited, enlisted and promised overseas employment to several persons (2nd info: Melvin I. Yadao, Frederick
Calambro and Andy Bandiola.. 1st info: Lindy M. Villamor, Dennis Cabangahan, Erencio C. Alaba, Victorino U. Caderao, Rommel B.
Patolen, Joseph A. Demetria and Louie A. Arca) as overseas seamen/seafarers. They collected cash bonds and/or performance bonds in
amounts ranging from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 without any authority to do so. This was prohibited by the POEA Rules and
Regulations, because the amount is greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment.
The Gasacaos failed to actually deploy the complainants, nor did they reimburse the expenses incurred by the complainants.
Hence, under two informations, the Gasacaos were charged w/ Large Scale Illegal Recruitment defined under Section 6, paragraphs
(a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and penalized under
Section 7 (b) of the same law.
Only Capt was arrested, Jose remained at large. He pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty under one of the infos, & acquitted
under the other. Capt appealed. CA dismissed the appeal & affirmed RTC. Capt appealed to SC.
ISSUE: W/N CAPT IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF LARGE SCALE RECRUITMENT even if Great Eastern
Shipping Agency, Inc. was holding a valid authority
RULING: YES
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT UNDER RA 8042:
Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for
a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually
received by him as a loan or advance;
....
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and

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

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate 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.
***
A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to operate
a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association to

engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. However, it appears that even licensees or holders of
authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment should they commit any of the above-enumerated acts.
Thus, it is inconsequential that Capt committed large scale illegal recruitment while Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc. was
holding a valid authority. SC thus find that the court below committed no reversible error in not appreciating that the manning
agency was a holder of a valid authority when appellant recruited the private complainants.
There is no merit in appellants contention that he could not be held liable for illegal recruitment since he was a mere employee of
the manning agency, pursuant to Section 6 of RA No. 8042 which provides:

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.
Contrary to Capts claim, he is not a mere employee of the manning agency but the crewing manager. Being such, he
was the one who made representations with the complainants that he can secure overseas employment for them upon payment of the
cash bond.
Even assuming that Capt was a mere employee, such fact is not a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment.
In the case of People v. Cabais, SC held that 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 the recruitment process.
G.R. No. 197528
September 5, 2012
PERT/CPM MANPOWER EXPONENT CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. ARMANDO A. VINUY A, LOUIE M. ORDOVEZ, ARSENIO S.
LUMANTA,. JR., ROBELITO S. ANIPAN, VIRGILIO R. ALCANTARA, MARINO M. ERA, SANDY 0. ENJAMBRE and NOEL T.
LADEA, Respondents.
FACTS:
In 2007, Pert deployed Vinuy, et al to work as aluminum fabricator/installer for the agencys principal, Modern Metal Solution
LLC/MMS Modern Metal Solution LLC (Modern Metal) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. They had POEA-approved et contracts
provided for a 2-year employment, nine hours a day, salary of 1,350 AED with overtime pay, food allowance, free and suitable housing
(four to a room), free transportation, free laundry, and free medical and dental services. They each paid P15k processing fee.
Moden Metal however, gave them, except Era, appointment letters with terms different from those in the employment contracts
which they signed at the agencys office in the Philippines. Their employment was increased to three years at 1,000 to 1,200 AED and
food allowance of 200 AED.
They were shocked to find out what their working and living conditions were in Dubai. They were required to work from 6:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m., with a break of only one hour to one and a half hours. When they rendered overtime work, they were most of the time
either underpaid or not paid at all. Their housing accommodations were cramped and were shared with 27 other occupants. The
lodging house was in Sharjah, which was far from their jobsite in Dubai, leaving them only three to four hours of sleep a day because
of the long hours of travel to and from their place of work; there was no potable water and the air was polluted.
After receiving their 1st salary, they called up the agency and complained about their predicament. The agency assured them that
their concerns would be promptly addressed, but nothing happened.
Modern Metal required the respondents to sign new employment contracts, except for Era who was made to sign later. The
contracts reflected the terms of their appointment letters. Burdened by all the expenses and financial obligations they incurred for their
deployment, they were left with no choice but to sign the contracts. They raised the matter with the agency, which again took no
action.
They expressed to Modern Metal their desire to resign. W/ the fear that they might not get paid, they, except Era, cited personal &
family problems as reason for resignation. Era (LAGI NALANG SPECIAL MENTION SA CASE) mentioned the real reason: he did
not want the company policy.
It took the agency several weeks to repatriate the respondents to the Philippines. They all returned to Manila in September 2007.
Except for Ordovez and Enjambre, all the respondents shouldered their own airfare.
They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal v. Pert, w/c defended that Vinuya, et al voluntarily resigned & voluntarily signed
affidavits of quitclaim and release after they resigned. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. It upheld the validity of Compromsie
Agreement of the parties before POEA. On appeal, NLRC reversed LAs decision. It stressed that it is illegal for an employer to
require its employees to execute new employment papers, especially those which provide benefits that are inferior to the
POEA-approved contracts. Pert was ordered to pay underpaid salary, placement fee, salary for the unexpired portion of the contract
& damages. Pert appealed to CA w/c affirmed NLRC.
ISSUE: W/N PERT & MODERN METAL COMMITTED A PROHIBITED PRACTICE & ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
RULING: YES
There was a previously POEA-approved two-year employment contract with Modern Metal, providing among others, as earlier
discussed, for a monthly salary of 1350 AED. Subsequently, Modern Metal issued appointment letters whereby the respondents were
hired for a longer three-year period and a reduced salary, from 1,100 AED to 1,200 AED, among other provisions. Then, they were
required to sign new employment contracts reflecting the same terms contained in their appointment letters, except that this time, they
were hired as "ordinary laborer," no longer aluminum fabricator/installer. Despite Vinuya, et als complaints, the agency did nothing.

Article 34 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 34. Prohibited Practices. It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority:
xxxx
(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor.
Further, Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042,35 defined "illegal recruitment" to include the following act:
(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 time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same
without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment.
Consequently, there was also a breach of contract.
With their original contracts substituted and their oppressive working and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved, the
Vinuya, et als decision to resign is not surprising. They were compelled by the dismal state of their employment to give up their jobs;
effectively, they were constructively dismissed. A constructive dismissal or discharge is "a quitting because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."