EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION vs.

SECRETARY OF LABOR

G.R. No. L-79436-50

January 17, 1990

Narvasa, J.

Facts:

J&B Manpower is an overseas employment agency registered with the POEA and Eastern Assurance was its surety
beginning January 1985. From 1983 to December 1985, J&B recruited 33 persons but none of them were ever deployed.
These 33 persons sued J&B and the POEA as well as the Secretary of Labor ruled in favor of the 33 workers and ordered
J&B to refund them (with Eastern Assurance being solidarily liable). Eastern Assurance assailed the ruling claiming that
POEA and the Secretary of Labor have no jurisdiction over non-employees (since the 33 were never employed, in short,
no employer-employee relations).

ISSUE: Whether or not Eastern Assurance can be held liable in the case at bar.

HELD: Yes. But only for the period covering from January 1985 when the surety took effect (as already held by the Labor
Secretary). The Secretary of Labor was given power by Article 34 (Labor Code) and Section 35 and 36 of EO 797 (POEA
Rules) to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies, but also to promulgate rules
and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions governing said activities.

Implicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims of the offenses committed by the respondent
agency or contractor, specially the refund or reimbursement of such fees as may have been fraudulently or otherwise
illegally collected, or such money, goods or services imposed and accepted in excess of what is licitly prescribed. It would
be illogical and absurd to limit the sanction on an offending recruitment agency or contractor to suspension or
cancellation of its license, without the concomitant obligation to repair the injury caused to its victims.

Though some of the cases were filed after the expiration of the surety bond agreement between J&B and Eastern
Assurance, notice was given to J&B of such anomalies even before said expiration. In this connection, it may be stressed
that the surety bond provides that notice to the principal is notice to the surety. Besides, it has been held that the
contract of a compensated surety like respondent Eastern Assurance is to be interpreted liberally in the interest of the
promises and beneficiaries rather than strictly in favor of the surety.

Soriano vs. Offshore Shipping and Marketing Corp.

G.R. No. 78409

Sept. 14, 1989

Fernan, C.J.

Facts:
In search for better opportunities and higher income, petitioner Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine Engineer,
sought employment and was hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized shipping agent in
the Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation. As evidenced by the Crew Agreement, petitioner was hired
to work as Third Marine Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a conduction basis for
a period of fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six (6) months by mutual
agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer. Thus, while it
appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on July 23, 1985 he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to the
alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner to the position of Second
Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was
made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila. In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration(POEA for short), a complaint against private respondent for payment of salary differential,
overtime pay, unpaid salary for November, 1985 and refund of his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount
of P20,000.00 contending therein that private respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his
salary of US$800.00 per month to US$560.00,causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines. In resolving
aforesaid case, the Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Overseas
EmploymentAdministration or POEA found that petitioner-complainant's total monthly emolument isUS$800.00
inclusive of fixed overtime as shown and proved in the Wage Scale submitted to the Accreditation Department of its
Office which would therefore not entitle petitioner to any salary differential; that the version of complainant that there
was in effect contract substitution has no grain of truth because although the Employment Contract seems to have
corrections on it, said corrections or alterations are in conformity with the Wage Scale duly approved by the POEA; that
the withholding of a certain amount due petitioner was justified to answer for his repatriation expenses which
repatriation was found to have been requested by petitioner himself as shownin the entry in his Seaman's Book; and
that petitioner deposited a total amount of P15,000.00only instead of P20,000.00 cash bond. Dissatisfied, both parties
appealed the aforementioned decision of the POEA to the National Labor Relations Commission. Complainant-
petitioner's appeal was dismissed for lack of merit while respondents' appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of
time. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence this recourse.

Issue:

Whether or not POEA acted in excess of its jurisdiction?

Decision:

As clearly explained by respondent NLRC, the correction was made only to specify the salary and the overtime pay to
which petitioner is entitled under the contract. It was a mere breakdown of the total amount into US$560.00 as basic
wage and US$240.00 as overtime pay. Otherwise stated, with or without the amendments the total emolument that
petitioner would receive under the agreement as approved by the POEA is US$800.00 monthly with wage differentials or
overtime pay included.

Seagull Maritime Corp. vs Balatongan, NLRC & POEA

G.R. No. 82252

February 28, 1989

Gancayco, J.
Facts:

On November 2, 1982, a "crew Agreement" was entered into by private respondent Nerry D. Balatongan and Philimare
Shipping and Equipment Supply (hereinafter called Philimare) whereby the latter employed the former as able seaman
on board its vessel "Santa Cruz" (renamed "Turtle Bay") with a monthly salary of US $ 300.00. Said agreement was
processed and approved by the National Seaman's Board (NSB) on November 3, 1982.

While on board said vessel and parties entered into a supplementary contract of employment on December 6, 1982
which provides among others: (1) The employer shall be obliged to insure the employee during his engagement against
death or permanent invalidity caused by accident on board up to US $ 40,000 - for death caused by accident and US $
50,000 - for permanent total disability caused by accident.

On October 6, 1983 Balatongan met an accident in the Suez Canal, Egypt as a result of which he was hospitalized at the
Suez Canal Authority Hospital. Later, he was repatriated to the Philippines and was hospitalized at the Makati Medical
Center from October 23, 1983 to March 27, 1984. On August 19, 1985 the medical certificate was issued describing his
disability as "permanent in nature."

Balatongan demanded payment for his claim for total disability insurance in the amount of US $ 50,000.00 as provided
for in the contract of employment but his claim was denied for having been submitted to the insurers beyond the
designated period for doing so.

Thus, Balatongan filed on June 21, 1985 a complaint against Philimare and Seagull Maritime Corporation in the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for non-payment of his claim for permanent total disability with
damages and attorney's fees.

After the parties submitted their respective position papers with the corresponding documentary evidence, the officer-
in-charge of the Workers Assistance and Adjudication Office of the POEA rendered for respondents to pay complainant
the amount of US $ 50,000.00 representing permanent total disability insurance and attorney's fees at 10% of the
award. Payment should be made in this Office within ten (10) days from receipt hereof at the prevailing rate of
exchange. This Office cannot however rule on damages, having no jurisdiction on the matter.

Seagull and Philimare appealed said decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on June 4, 1986. Hence,
Seagull and Philimare filed this petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

Issue:

W/N the supplementary contract of employment entered into between petitioners and respondent is a prohibited
practice to afford greater benefits to the employee
Held:

This Court is not a trier of facts and the findings of the public respondents are conclusive in this proceeding. Public
respondents found that petitioner Philimare and private respondent entered into said supplementary contract of
employment on December 6, 1982. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was petitioners' principal which entered
into said contract with private respondent, nevertheless petitioner, as its manning agent in the Philippines, is jointly
responsible with its principal thereunder.

The Court finds that the respondent NLRC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners, motion for
leave to file third-party complaint and substitution inclusion of party respondent. Such motion is largely addressed to
the discretion of the said Commission. Inasmuch as the alleged transfer of interest took place only after the POEA had
rendered its decision, the denial of the motion so as to avoid further delay in the settlement of the claim of private
respondent was well-taken. At any rate, petitioners may pursue their claim against their alleged successor-in-interest in
a separate suit.

Catan vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 77279

April 15, 1988

Cortes, J.

FACTS

Petitioner, a duly licensed recruitment agency, recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as a steelman. The
term of the contract provides for 1 year and with automatic renewal. It was renewed when private respondent was not
repatriated by his Saudi employer but instead was assigned to work as a crusher plant operator and crushed his ankle by
the machine he was operating. After the expiration of the renewed term, private respondent returned to the
Philippines, had his ankle operated and incurred expenses. After, he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work and
was repatriated. Upon his return, he had his ankle treated for which he incurred further expenses.2.On the basis of the
provision in the employment contract that the employer shall compensate the employee if he is injured or
permanently disabled in the course of employment, private respondent filed a claim, against petitioner with respondent
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The POEA rendered judgment in favor of private respondent. On
appeal, respondent NLRC affirmed the decision. Not satisfied with the resolution of the POEA, petitioner instituted the
instant special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.

RULING

1.The court said that there is no merit in petitioners contention. A private employment agency may be sued jointly and
solidarily with its foreign principal for violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment.

2.Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency agreement at the time private
respondent was injured, petitioner may still be sued for a violation of the employment contract because no notice of the
agency agreement's termination was given to the private respondent:
3.Petitioner contends that even if it is liable for disability benefits, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it
affirmed the award of medical expenses when the said expenses were the consequence of private respondent's
negligence in returning to work in Saudi Arabia when he knew that he was not yet medically fit to do so.

4z.The court said that theres No evidence introduced to prove that private respondent was not medically fit to work
when he returned to Saudi Arabia. Nowhere does it say it the medical certificate issued by the camp doctor that he was
not medically fit to work.

Royal Crowne International vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 78085

October 16, 1989

Cortes, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner, a duly licensed private employment agency, recruited and deployed private respondent Virgilio for
employment with ZAMEL as an architectural draftsman in Saudi Arabia. Service agreement was executed by private
respondent and ZAMEL whereby the former was to receive per month a salary of US$500.00 plus US$100.00
as allowance for a period of one year commencing from the date of his arrival in Saudi Arabia. However, ZAMEL
terminated the employment of private respondent on the ground that his performance was below par. For three
successive days thereafter, he was detained at his quarters and was not allowed to report to work until his exit papers
were ready. On February 16, 1984, he was made to board a plane bound for the Philippines. Private respondent then
filed a complaint for illegal termination against Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale and ZAMEL with the POEA.

Petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Labor Code, or the omnibus rules implementing the same, which
either provides for the "third-party liability" of an employment agency or recruiting entity for violations of
an employment agreement performed abroad, or designates it as the agent of the foreign-based employer for purposes
of enforcing against the latter claims arising out of anemployment agreement. Therefore, petitioner concludes, it cannot
be held jointly and severally liable with ZAMEL for violations, if any, of private respondent's service agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner as a private employment agencymay be held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-
based employer for any claim which may arise in connection with the implementation of the employment contracts of
the employees recruited and deployed abroad.

HELD:

Yes, Petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability under the various
contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment Services. In applying for its license to operate a
private employment agency for overseas recruitment and placement, petitioner was required to submit, among others,
a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed all responsibilities for the proper use of its license and the
implementation of the contracts of employment with the workers it recruited and deployed for overseas employment. It
was also required to file with the Bureau a formal appointment or agency contract executed by the foreign-based
employer in its favor to recruit and hire personnel for the former, which contained a provisionempowering it to sue and
be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the
contracts of employment. Petitioner was required as well to post such cash and surety bonds as determined by the
Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms
and conditions of employment as appropriate.

These contractual undertakings constitute the legal basis for holding petitioner, and other private employment
or recruitment agencies, liable jointly and severally with its principal, the foreign-based employer, for all claims filed by
recruited workers which may arise in connection with the implementation of the service agreements or employment
contracts.

Facilities Management Corporation vs. de la Rosa

GR L-38649

March 26, 1979

Makasiar, J.

Facts:

Facilities Management Corporation and J. S. Dreyer are domiciled in Wake Island while J. V. Catuira is an employee of
FMC stationed in Manila. Leonardo dela Osa was employed by FMC in Manila, but rendered work in Wake Island, with
the approval of the Department of Labor of the Philippines. De la Osa was employed as (1) painter with an hourly rate of
$1.25 from March 1964 to November 1964, inclusive; (2) houseboy with an hourly rate of $1.26 from December 1964 to
November 1965, inclusive; (3) houseboy with an hourly rate of $1.33 from December 1965 to August 1966, inclusive;
and (4) cashier with an hourly rate of $1.40 from August 1966 to March 27 1967, inclusive. He further averred that from
December, 1965 to August, 1966, inclusive, he rendered overtime services daily, and that this entire period was divided
into swing and graveyard shifts to which he was assigned, but he was not paid both overtime and night shift premiums
despite his repeated demands from FMC, et al. In a petition filed on 1 July 1967, dela Osa sought his reinstatement with
full backwages, as well as the recovery of his overtime compensation, swing shift and graveyard shift differentials.

Subsequently on 3 May 1968, FMC, et al. filed a motion to dismiss the subject petition on the ground that the Court has
no jurisdiction over the case, and on 24 May 1968, de la Osa interposed an opposition thereto. Said motion was denied
by the Court in its Order issued on 12 July 1968. Subsequently, after trial, the Court of Industrial Relations, in a decision
dated 14 February 1972, ordered FMC, et al. to pay de la Osa his overtime compensation, as well as his swing shift and
graveyard shift premiums at the rate of 50% per cent of his basic salary. FMC, et al. filed the petition for review on
certiorari.
Issue:

Whether the mere act by a non-resident foreign corporation of recruiting Filipino workers for its own use abroad, in law
doing business in the Philippines.

Whether FMC has been "doing business in the Philippines" so that the service of summons upon its agent in the
Philippines vested the Court of First Instance of Manila with jurisdiction.

Held:

In its motion to dismiss, FMC admits that Mr. Catuira represented it in the Philippines "for the purpose of making
arrangements for the approval by the Department of Labor of the employment of Filipinos who are recruited by the
Company as its own employees for assignment abroad." In effect, Mr. Catuira was alleged to be a liaison officer
representing FMC in the Philippines. Under the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Investments which
took effect 3 February 1969, implementing RA 5455, which took effect 30 September 1968, the phrase "doing business"
has been exemplified with illustrations, among them being as follows: ""(1) Soliciting orders, purchases (sales) or service
contracts. Concrete and specific solicitations by a foreign firm, not acting independently of the foreign firm, amounting
to negotiation or fixing of the terms and conditions of sales or service contracts, regardless of whether the contracts are
actually reduced to writing, shall constitute doing business even if the enterprise has no office or fixed place of business
in the Philippines; (2) appointing a representative or distributor who is domiciled in the Philippines, unless said
representative or distributor has an independent status, i.e., it transacts business in its name and for its own account,
and not in the name or for the account of the principal; xxx (4) Opening offices, whether called 'liaison' offices, agencies
or branches, unless proved otherwise. xxx (10) Any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or
arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the
functions normally incident to, or in the progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and objective of
the business organization."

FMC may be considered as "doing business in the Philippines" within the scope of Section 14 (Service upon private
foreign corporations), Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provides that "If the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a
non-resident joint stock company or association, doing business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose or, if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines." Indeed, FMC, in compliance
with Act 2486 as implemented by Department of Labor Order IV dated 20 May 1968 had to appoint Jaime V. Catuira,
1322 A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila "as agent for FMC with authority to execute Employment Contracts and receive, in
behalf of that corporation, legal services from and be bound by processes of the Philippine Courts of Justice, for as long
as he remains an employee of FMC." It is a fact that when the summons for FMC was served on Catuira he was still in
the employ of the FMC. Hence, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, is not barred from
seeking redress from courts in the Philippines (such as in earlier cases of Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, vs. Pacific
Star Line, etc. [GR L-26809], In Mentholatum vs. Mangaliman, and Eastboard Navigation vs. Juan Ysmael & Co.), a
fortiori, that same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a
person or persons in the Philippines.

People vs. Chowdury

G.R. No. 129577-80

February 15, 2000

Puno, J.
Facts: Bulu Chowdury was charged with the crime of illegalrecruitment in large scale by recruiting Estrella B. Calleja,
Melvin C. Miranda and Aser S. Sasis for employment in Korea. Evidence shows that accused appellant interviewed
private complainant in 1994 at Craftrades office. At that time, he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating
under temporary authority given by POEA 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 averred that during theirapplications 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 the instructions given by his superiors,
Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency's President and General Manager, and Mr. UtkalChowdury, the agency's Managing
Director.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime
charged.

Held: No, 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,
Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. 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. Moreover, accused-appellant was not aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA
and the prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged inrecruitment 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 legalrequirements 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. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. He merely
interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements fordeployment but he never received money from
them. Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely
performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment.

People v. Nellie Cabais y Gamuela

G.R. No. 129070

March 16, 2001.

FACTS

Accused was convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale by a syndicate, and sentenced to life
imprisonment and a fine. She was also convicted for two counts of estafa, and sentenced to (a) in Criminal Case No.
13999-R, to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eight (8) months and
twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the offended party Joan Merante, in the amount
of P40,000.00 as actual damages, and costs; (b) in Criminal Case No. 14000-R, to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to
indemnify the offended party, Nancy Oidi, in the amount of P21,000.00 as actual damages, and costs.
HELD:

The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused engaged in acts of
recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of
the Labor Code; (2) that the accused had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the requirement to secure a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) that the accused committed the unlawful acts against three (3) or more
persons, individually or as a group.

Accused-appellant contends that she was not involved in recruitment but was merely an employee of a recruitment
agency. 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,
accused 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, 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. 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 with life imprisonment and a fine of one
hundred thousand pesos.

As to the charges of estafa, accused-appellant contends that she is not liable for the offenses charged because she did
not appropriate for her own use the money given to her by complainants as placement and passport fees. The elements
of estafa are: (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. From the foregoing, the
fact that the money was appropriated by accused for her own use is not an element of the crime of estafa. Thus,
accused-appellant Cabais contention under such ground is untenable. Moreover, accused-appellant misrepresented
herself to complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Korea. Complainants were
successfully induced to part with their money, causing them damage and prejudice. Consequently, accused-appellant is
guilty of estafa.

People v. Sagaydo

G.R. Nos. 124671-75

September 29, 2000

Pardo, J.

Facts:
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.

The accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily
after being informed that she was able to send her three sons to Korea.

Issue: Whether or not Linda Sagaydo is guilty of illegal recruitment.

Held: 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.

As to the license requirement, the record showed that accused-appellant did not have the authority to recruit for
employment abroad, per certification issued by the POEA Regional Extension Unit in Baguio City.

Illegal recruitment has been defined to include the act of engaging in any of the activities mentioned in Article 13 (b) of
the Labor Code without the required license or authority from the POEA. Under the aforesaid provision, any of the
following activities would constitute recruitment and placement: canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment,
locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Article 13 (b) further provides that any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two (2) or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement. 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.

The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. As long as the witnesses can
positively show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in prohibited recruitment, he
may be convicted of the offense despite the absence of receipts.

People v Benzon Ong

G. R. No. 119594

January 18, 2000

Mendoza, J.

Facts:

Accused, representing himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire and transport Filipino workers for
employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement to the nine complainants in Taiwan, without first obtaining or securing license or authority
from the proper governmental agency.

Accused-appellant claims that when complainants filled out their respective bio-data, application forms and other
documents for employment in Taiwan, they knew that they were applying for employment abroad through the
Steadfast Recruitment Agency. He claims that he merely suggested to them the opportunity to work overseas but that
he never advertised himself as a recruiter.

Accused-appellant denies that the signatures in the receipts of payments are his. To be sure, the presentation of the
receipts acknowledging payments is not necessary for the successful prosecution of accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant contends that the elements of estafa have not been proven by the prosecution, specifically, the
requirement that complainants must have relied on the false pretenses of accused-appellant, because complainants
knew that he was not a licensed recruiter.

Issue: Whether or not Benzon Ong committed the crime of illegal recruitment

Held: 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 Illegal recruitment is 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. 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 Art. 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under
Art. 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. As defined, a "license" is that which is issued by the Department of Labor and Employment authorizing a person
or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an "authority" is that issued by the DOLE entitling a person or
association to so engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment agency. It is the lack of the
necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment unlawful or criminal.

The evidence shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for overseas
employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees. Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts
constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment.

He was positively identified by complainants as the person who had recruited them for employment in Taiwan. He
succeeded in inveigling them into paying various amounts to him for their placement fees. Their testimonies dovetail
with each other in material points

Moreover, it is settled that a person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa
under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no problem of double jeopardy because illegal recruitment
is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal
intent of the accused is necessary.

People v. Calonzo

G.R. Nos. 115150-55

September 27, 1996

Bellosillo, J.

Facts:

Firstly, he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by distinctly impressing upon them that
he had the facility to send them for work abroad. He even showed them his passport to lend credence to his claim. To
top it all, he brought them to Bangkok and not to Italy. Neither did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the
transfer of his recruits to Italy. Secondly, POEA likewise certified that neither Calonzo nor R. A. C. Business Agency was
licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. Appellant admitted this fact himself. Thirdly, appellant recruited
five (5) workers thus making the crime illegal recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.

Complainants were all united in pointing to the Calonzo as the person who enticed them to apply for employment
abroad. Of course, Calonzo could not explain what motivated the complaining witnesses to file these cases against
him. The most that Calonzo could do on the witness stand was to deny all the charges against him. Alas, his denial is at
most lame and cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the complaining witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not Calonzo committed illegal recruitment in large scale.

Held: Article 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as

(A)ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; Provided, that
any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

Illegal recruitment is specifically defined in Art. 38 of the Code thus -

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 x x x x

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme
defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to
sustain no improper motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Accused-appellant's denial
cannot prevail over the positive assertions of complainants who had no motive to testify falsely against her except to tell
the truth.

Calonzo defrauded complainants through deceit. They were obviously misled into believing that he could provide them
employment in Italy. As a result, the five (5) complainants who desperately wanted to augment their income and
improve their lot parted with their hard-earned money.

People v. De Reichl

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (at large), KARL REICHL, and YOLANDA
GUTIERREZ DE REICHL, accused.

KARL REICHL and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ DE REICHL, accused-appellants.

G.R. Nos. 141221-36

March 7, 2002

Puno, J.

Facts:

In April 1993, eight informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and eight informations for estafa were
filed against accused-appellants, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl, together with Francisco Hernandez. Only the Reichl
spouses were tried and convicted by the trial court as Francisco Hernandez remained at large.

The complainants namely, Narcisa Autor de Hernandez, Leonora Perez, Melanie Bautista Annaliza Perez, Edwin Coling,
Estela Abel de Manalo, Anicel Umahon and Charito Balmes have their own similar stories about the illegal recruitment
conducted by the accused-appellants. They recounted that accused Hernandez was the one convincing each of them to
apply for employment abroad. Accused Hernandez asked for the payment for the processing of their papers, travel
documents and visas. Complainants then were introduced by Hernandez to spouse Reichl who in turn promised them
for employment abroad. The spouse issued reciept for the payments made by the complainants. The promises of
employment however did not pushed through and the complainants remained in the Philippines. Upon demands, the
accused spouse promise them to refund the payment if their employments never materialized. These agreements were
reduced into a document but the accused spouse never complies with their obligations. There was also a certification
from the Philippine overseas employment Administration (POEA) that Francisco Hernandez, Karl Reichl and Yolanda
Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for
overseas employment.

As for their part, the spouse denied any of involvement of Hernandez's recruitment and their knowledge of promises for
overseas employment. They further contended that they cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large
scale as the several information were only filed by single complainant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants were guilty of syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.

Held: They cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. Where only one complainant filed
individual complaints as in this case, there is no illegal recruitment in large scale. However, they are guilty of syndicated
illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise
or scheme defined under the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Labor Code. It has been shown that Karl Reichl, Yolanda
Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other in convincing private complainants to apply for an overseas
job and giving them the guaranty that they would be hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensed
to do so. Thus, the accused appellants are liable for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.

People v Arabia and Tomas

G.R. No. 138431-36

September 12, 2001

Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

Facts:

Sometime in the month of October, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Rolando Rustia by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which they made him to the effect that
they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ him and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if
given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and
succeeded in inducing said Rolando Rustia to give and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused the
amount of P23,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the
same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of P23,000.00,
which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud Rolando Rustia, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said
Rolando Rustia in the aforesaid amount of P23,000.00, Philippine Currency.

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 to January 16, 1993, but
private complainants were still unable to leave because of the same excuse that appellants gave.

Private complainants asked for the return of their money as they were no longer interested in working abroad. They
were informed by Arabias 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

Issue: Whether or not the Arabia and Tomas are guilty of the crime charged.

Held: Undoubtedly, accused Arabia and Tomas were engaged in recruiting workers for employment abroad and the only
defense they have is denial. 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. Thus, the accused-appellants were guilty of illegal recruitment in
large scale.

Salazar vs. Achacoso and Marquez

G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990

FACTS:

A complaint against the petitioner Salazar was filed for withholding the complainants PECC Card, it was further
alleged that Salazar did not posses a license to operate as a recruitment agency. POEA through its Director on Licensing
and Regulation, issued a warrant of arrest and seizure against the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure is valid?

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. It
is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest." Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be
done by a mere prosecuting body. 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.

[ GR No. 108284, Jun 30, 1993 ]

SIGMA PERSONNEL SERVICES v. NLRC +

FACTS:

Petitioner Sigma Personnel Services is a duly licensed recruitment agency authorized by the POEA to recruit and deploy
workers for land-based overseas employment. Private respondent Sumatre was recruited by one Marife Carandang for
employment as a domestic helper in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. On August 1, 1987, Sumatre was deployed to
Abu Dhabi, to be employed with the National Center for Commercial Relations and Services (NCCRS). Sumatre was met
by Querisi-al-Harira, the owner of NCCRS, who assigned her to a foreign employer. This employer mauled and beat her
up and even possibly raped her. Thereafter, Harira took Sumatre back, locked her up in a room for several days without
any food, and subjected her to physical abuse. Two weeks after Sumatre arrived in Abu Dhabi, she was repatriated to
the Philippines, allegedly due to schizophreniform disorder. On March 9, 1988, Sumatre's sister, Cynthia Sumatre, filed a
complaint against Sigma and SPM Services with the POEA for payment of unpaid salaries of US$150/month for the
unworked and entire duration of her 2-year contract.

Sigma denied that Sumatre had been illegally dismissed and claimed that she did not pass her probationary period of
employment; besides, she was repatriated because she was suffering from schizophreniform disorder. The petitioner
also questioned the capacity to sue of the complainant's sister.

The POEA ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered SPM Services and Sigma to solidarily pay the complainant her
salaries for 2 years amounting to US$4,800.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment. They were also required to
pay 5% of the total award as and by way of attorney's fees. On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the NLRC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sumatre had been illegally dismissed

HELD:

Article 281 of the Labor Code provides that the services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis
may be terminated for a just cause, or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.

The report of her mental examination showed that she had "no history of previous psychiatric confinement. She was
apparently doing well before she left for Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, in July 1987."[10]Apparently, she became
schizophrenic because of her maltreatment by her employer.

In termination cases, the burden of proof is on the employer.[11] This burden has not been discharged by Sigma.

Section 2(e), Rule V, Book I of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code requires a private employment agency
to assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas worker. Section 10
(a) (2) of the same Rule provides that a private employment agency can be sued jointly and severally with the principal
or foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or the contract of employment. This provision
is also substantially reiterated in Section 1(f) (3) of Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules and Regulations.

The private respondent having been illegally dismissed and not paid the wages due her from the foreign employer, the
liabilities arising as a consequence thereof shall attach to Sigma.

[ GR No. 82310, Jun 18, 1990 ]

FEAGLE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. GAVINO GAYDA +

Facts: Herein respondents, 40 Filipino workers formerly employed with Algosaibi-Bison, Ltd. Requested petitioner
recruiter to return them to their job site in Saudi Arabia. Petitioner informed the workers that it did not want to send
back any workers because of the big risk due to the financial difficulties of Algosaibi-Bison Ltd..

Respondent workers assured petitioner that they were willing to assume the risk and emphasized that they were willing
to sign a written statement indicating that they would not hold petitioner liable for any delay or non-payment of their
salaries and any amounts due them from Algosaibi-Bison, Ltd. It was under the foregoing circumstances that petitioner
reluctantly agreed to send back private respondents to Saudi Arabia to help them in their dire financial need if they
would sign the aforementioned statements.

When Algosaibi-Bison Ltd went into bankruptcy, private respondents filed with the POEA a complaint against petitioner
for unpaid claims with the liquidator of Algosaibi-Bison Ltd.

Issue: WON petitioner may be held solidarily liable with the foreign employer for any unpaid claims of private
respondents against their foreign principal employer even as they have a stipulation to this effect.
Held: No. As a rule, a recruiter is solidarily liable with unpaid wages of workers sent abroad. Case at bar is an exception
because it was the workers who persuaded recruiter to send them back abroad despite knowledge that foreign
employer might not pay their wages and they agreed not to hold recruiter responsible thereof.

Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion v Sps. Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (in behalf of daughter Jasmin), White
Falcon Services, and Jaime Ortiz (Pres. Of White Falcon)

Sps. Cuaresma (in behalf of Jasmin) v White Falcon and Becmen

Facts:

Jan 1997 Jasmin was deployed by Becmen to serve as assistant nurse in Al-Birk Hospital in Saudi under a 3 year
contract, for $247/mo.

June 1998 - she died. Jessie Fajardo, co-worker, found her dead inside her dormitory room with mouth foaming and
smelling of poison. Medical report of Al-Birk Hosp stated that the cause of death was poisoning halt in blood
circulation, respiratory system and brain damage due to poisoning from unknown substance.

Sep 1998 her body was repatriated to Manila. The City Health Officer of Cabanatuan found that Jasmin died under
violent circumstances not poisoning abrasions at her inner lip and gums; lacerated wounds and abrasions on her left
and right ears; lacerated wounds and hematoma (contusions) on her elbows; abrasions and hematoma on her thigh and
legs; intra-muscular hemorrhage at the anterior chest; rib fracture; puncture wounds; and abrasions on the labia
minora.

Mar 1999 Jasmins body was exhumed by NBI. Toxicology report tested negative ffor non-volatile, metallic poison and
insecticides.

Sps. Cuaresmas received from OWWA the following: 50k death benefits, 50k loss of life; 20k funeral expenses; 10k
medical reimbursement.

Nov 1999 Sps. Filed complaint against Becmen and Rajab & Silsilah Co (principal in Saudi) claiming death and insurance
benefits. Sps. Claim that Jasmins death was work-related having occurred at the employers premises; their entitled to
iqama insurance; compensatory damages amounting to $103k which is the sum of her monthly salary 35 years (she was
25 yo when she died, assuming she would survive until 60 yo).

Becmen and Rajab claim that Jasmin committed suicide and relied on the medical report of Al Birk. They deny liability
since the Sps. Had already received their benefits from OWWA. Later, Becmen manifested that Rajab had terminated
their agency, and impleaded White Falcon as the new agency of Rajab.

Summary of Rulings

LArb dismissed for lack of merit, giving credence to Al Birk medical report

NLRC reversed, found Jasmin a victim of compensable work-connected criminal aggression; both agencies are
solidarily liable to pay $113; later reduced to $80k

CA affirmed; later reduced the award to $8k (monthly salary x remaining contract period)

Issues

WON entitled to insurance NO

WON death is compensable NO

WON death was by suicide NO

WON Becmen and Falcon are liable YES, solidary liability

Ratio

1. NOT entitled to insurance.

The terms and conditions of Jasmins 1996 Employment Agreement which she and her employer Rajab freely entered
into constitute the law between them. As a rule, stipulations in an employment contract not contrary to statutes, public
policy, public order or morals have the force of law between the contracting parties. An examination of said
employment agreement shows that it provides for no other monetary or other benefits/privileges than the following:

1. 1,300 rials (or US$247.00) monthly salary;

2. Free air tickets to KSA at the start of her contract and to the Philippines at the end thereof, as well as for her
vacation at the end of each twenty four-month service;

3. Transportation to and from work;

4. Free living accommodations;

5. Free medical treatment, except for optical and dental operations, plastic surgery charges and lenses, and
medical treatment obtained outside of KSA;

6. Entry visa fees will be shared equally between her and her employer, but the exit/re-entry visa fees, fees for
Iqama issuance, renewal, replacement, passport renewal, sponsorship transfer and other liabilities shall be borne by her;

7. Thirty days paid vacation leave with round trip tickets to Manila after twenty four-months of continuous
service;

8. Eight days public holidays per year;

9. The indemnity benefit due her at the end of her service will be calculated as per labor laws of KSA.

Thus, the agreement does not include provisions for insurance, or for accident, death or other benefits that the
Cuaresmas seek to recover, and which the labor tribunals and appellate court granted variably in the guise of
compensatory damages.

Absence for provisions on social security and other benefits does not make the contract infirm under PH laws since
under Saudi law, foreign employer is not obliged to provide her these benefits.

2. Death NOT WORK RELATED, therefore not compensable (i.e., not liable for lost earnings)

At time of death, Jasmin was not on duty but at her dormitory room on personal time. Court stated that the foreign
employer cannot be expected to ensure her safety even while she is not on duty. What an employee does on free time is
beyond the employers sphere of inquiry.

The dormitory room also cannot be considered as employers premises.

3. Jasmin DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE

Court cannot subscribe to the idea that Jasmin committed suicide while halfway into her employment contract. This is
beyond human comprehension for a 25 yo Filipina especially since suicide is contrary to Christian belief. Court cited
Filipinas resilience despite abuse and maltreatment. Based on past OFW experiences, Filipinas do not simply commit
suicide but rather endure.

Court also found that Saudi police and autopsy reports are patently inconclusive. Their report is contradicted by the City
Health Officer and by NBI. Even the toxicology report tested negative for poisonous substances.

All these show that Jasmin was manhandled and possibly raped prior to death.

4. Rajab, Becmen, White Falcon solidarily liable for moral and exemplary damages

Court admonished Becmen and Falcon for simply dismissing Jasmins case as one of suicide instead of fighting for her
rights. The Agencies prioritized their corporate interest over that of Jasmin.

RA 8042 Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act provides that the State shall at all times uphold the dignity of its
citizens, whether in the country or overseas. The rights and interest of distressed overseas Filipinos are adequately
protected and safeguarded.

Becmen and Falcon, both licensed recruitment agencies, miserably failed to abide by RA 8042. Recruitment agencies are
expected to extend assistance to deployed OFWs, be the first to come the rescue of our distressed OFWs; and have the
primary obligation to protect the rights and ensure the welfare of our OFWs. It should have been them who sought
justice for Jasmin. Instead, it was the parents who requested an autopsy in the Ph to confirm the Saudi report. Court
stated that the parents have done all that was within their power to investigate Jasmins case on their own.

Art 19 CC every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art 21 CC any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the later for the damage.

Art 24 CC in all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his
moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant
for his protection.

Rajab, Becmen and Falcons acts and omissions are against public policy because they undermine and subvert the
interest and general welfare of our OFWs.

Whether employed locally or overseas, all Fil workers enjoy the protective mantel of PH labor and social laws, contract
stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This is in keeping with the Consti provision for the State to afford
protection to labor, promote full employement, ensure equal work opportunities.
All labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.

As a result of their misconduct, Cuaresmas are entitled to moral damages for which Becmen and Falcon are solidarily
liable. Grant of moral damages to the employee by reason of misconduct on the part of the employer is sanctioned by
Art 2219 (10) CC.

Private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-basd employer for any violation of the
recruitment agreement or contract of employement. This is meanth to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and
sufficient payment. If the agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners are also solidarily
liable.

Falcons assumption of Becmens liability does not absolve Becmen.

CA decision set aside. Awarded P2.5M as moral damages, P250k as exemplary damages.

Sto. Tomas et.al vs. Salac

G.R. No. 152642, G.R. No. 152710; November 13, 2012

Facts: Several cases were filed and consolidated questioning the constitutionality of certain provisions of R.A 8042
otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 whose purpose is to set the Governments
policies on overseas employment and establishes a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of
migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.

Respondent Salac et.al were recruiters questioning the validity of Sections 29 and 30 of the said Act praying that the
deployment of OFWs and other workers abroad be deregulated. Petitioner, on the other hand was the Secretary of
DOLE at the time, a government instrumentality that issues orders and memorandums which regulates the recruitment,
placement, and sending or deploying of overseas workers abroad.

Sections 29 and 30 of the Act commanded the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to begin deregulating
within one year of its passage the business of handling the recruitment and migration of overseas Filipino workers and
phase out within five years the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

On April 10, 2007 former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. 9422 which expressly repealed
Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 and adopted the policy of close government regulation of the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs.

ISSUES: Whether or not Sections 29 and 30 of R.A 8042 which commands to deregulate the recruitment, placement,
and sending or deploying of overseas workers abroad still valid.
HELD: The Court DISMISSES the petitions for having become moot and academic. Provisions stated in Sec. 29 and 30 of
R.A 8042 has already been repealed due to passage of R.A 9422.

People v. Laogo (G.R. No. 176264; January 10, 2011)

FACTS: Appellant, along with a certain Susan Navarro, were found guilty of illegal recruitment. It was found that Navarro
met the complainants in a town fiesta. Navarro invited the complainants into her house where she introduced them to
appellant. Each of the complainants were told that Navarro would be able to help them secure employment abroad. The
complainants then paid differing amounts to Navarro as placement fees, and were issued receipts bearing the logo of
Laogo Travel Consultancy, the company of appellant. Complainants eventually found out that appellant and Navarro
were not registered with the DOLE as a recruitment agency. Appellant was found guilty by the RTC, and her conviction
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Appellant now challenges her conviction, contending that she was not affiliated
with Navarro, and that her business involves the processing of visas. She was doing the same for the complainants, and
was not, in any way, affiliated with Navarro.

ISSUE:

Is appellant guilty of illegal recruitment?

HELD: The lower and appellate courts found that the transaction entered into by the complainants an appellant were
followed up through appellant office. Also, the receipts issued to the complainants were from appellant company. The
fact that she eventually changed the company name in an attempt to dissociate herself from Navarro deserves scant
consideration. Appellant engaged in recruitment activities when she promised complainants employment abroad in
exchange for consideration. She is guilty of illegal recruitment as she was unlicensed to undertake said act.

People vs Segun GR 119076

Facts:Appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam without any license and/or authority to engage in recruitment and
placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment, recruited the 13 persons allegedly to work in
Manila namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane Cantil, Richard Aranas, Victoria Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio
Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta Caban, Jonard Genemelo, Jhonely Genemelo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and
Pacifico Villaver. They all came from Linamon, Lanao del Norte. All of them have different stories on how they were
recruited by the appellants to work in Manila. It was also allegedly claimed that the transportation to Manila was free. It
was established by the prosecution that the said appellants were neither licensed nor authorized by the DOLE to recruit
workers. Secondly, it was corroborated by the Mayor of Linamon that appellants per records were not authorized to
conduct recruitment for local or overseas employment. On the other hand, both Roger and Josephine admitted that
they did not have any license to recruit. They only helped their neighbors find jobs because they took pity on them when
their neighbors begged them for jobs. However, the Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for violating Article 38 of the
Labor Code.

Issue: Whether or not the appellants are guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale?

Ruling:No. The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur. First, the offender
has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he
or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) or any
prohibited acts enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Third, offender commits said acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group. In the case at hand, the first element is present when a certification issued by DOLE
states that appellants were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and overseas employment. The appellants
also conceded that they have no license to recruit. As to the second element, the trial court was able to deduced the
testimonies of different witnesses and came up with the conclusions that most of their testimonies were hearsy and that
during their direct or cross examinations, they used the term recruit which according to the Supreme Court is a
conclusion of law. The prosecution failed to elicit from them the specific act constituting the recruitment. The victims
must testify as to the facts that would prove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state that the
accused recruited the victim. In sum, the prosecution failed to elicit from many witnesses the specific acts
constituting the recruitment of the alleged victims. However, the prosecution was able to prove that appellants
performed recruitment activity only in cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan. Since the third element which is that
the offender commits the acts against three or more persons is absent, therefore, appellants is only guilty of two counts
of simple illegal recruitment.