Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The matter of assessing credibility, most of all, is a function that lies with the
trial court more than an appellate court. Nor has the trial court been here
inattentive to details; thus, it has observed:
"There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution who are simple barrio folks, one a farmer from Nueva Ecija and
the other one a fisherman. From their appearances and manner of testifying
in Court, pervision of the truth is far and remote. The Court could see that
they are not the type of persons who would fabricate and concoct stories
only to prosecute the accused. Reynaldo Jugo will not come all the way from
Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija to follow up his case and attend the trial on several
occasions had it not been for the assurance of accused to deploy them to
Japan for a consideration. They would not take the trouble of coming to
Court on several occasions if they have no other motive, except to seek for
justice for themselves.
"On the other hand, accused have resorted to trickeries, even feigning
illness for herself with the connivance of some jail personnel if only to
escape from the clutches of the law. And finally thru the evil doings of
Alberto Maclang, he coerced and threatened complainant Reynaldo Jugo
into signing an Affidavit of Desistance hoping that the Court would dismiss
these cases against accused Lourdes Bautista Guiang."[9]
Be that, such as it may, the Court itself has gone over the testimony of each
of the complainants, and the credence of their declarations is quite evident.
Thus -
The prosecution has adequately established that appellant did offer to the
complainants, namely, Reynaldo Jugo, Jose Jugo and Rosita Jugo,
overseas employment for a fee without first being duly licensed to so engage
in such activity, an act embraced within the term "recruitment and
placement" prohibited by Article 38, in relation to Article 13 and Article 39, of
the Labor Code. The crime, if perpetrated against at least three persons,
whether individually or as a group, is deemed committed "in large scale" that
carries, pursuant to Article 38, in relation to Article 39, of the Labor Code, the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos.
The Court agrees with the observation of the Solicitor General that the trial
court erred neither in its findings nor in its judgment appealed
from.WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 124671-75, September 29, 2000 returned to Baguio City on January 2, 1992, with P28,000.00 on hand. Gina
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LINDA and the accused met on January 5, 1992, where the latter informed her that
SAGAYDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. her flight for Korea on January 6, 1992, was postponed. Accused then
advised Gina to just hold the P30,000.00 balance until her flight pushed
DECISION through.
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, About three (3) months later, or in April, 1992, Gina met the accused in
Baguio City, Branch 59 convicting accused Linda Sagaydo of illegal Sumulong Street. Gina demanded from the accused the return of
recruitment in large scale and of four (4) cases of estafa, and sentencing her P15,000.00 advance payment she had given her, but the accused just
as follows: answered that she would process her papers.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered —
The next time they met was in November, 1992, where Gina again asked the
“(1) In Criminal Case No. 10838-R, finding the accused LINDA SAGAYDO accused to return the P15,000.00, to no avail. This prompted Gina to go to
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 38(b) of Presidential the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) regional office in
Decree No. 442, as amended by P.D. 1920 and further amended by P.D. Baguio City to inquire whether the accused was a licensed recruiter. The
2018, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment POEA issued a certification dated November 25, 1992[6] stating that the
and to pay a fine of P100,000.00; accused was “not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment in the City of Baguio or any part of the region.”
“(2) In Criminal Case No. 10839-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime
of Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Rogelio Tibeb, a farmer and resident of San Gabriel, La Union,
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision testified[7] that he was informed by his townmate Domaan Samanillo that the
mayor as maximum; accused was engaged in recruitment. Sometime in December, 1991,
Rogelio went to the residence of accused to inquire on the requirements for
“(3) In Criminal Case No. 10840-R, finding the accused guilty of the crime of overseas employment. Accused replied that he needed to submit his 2 x 2
Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of pictures and a passport. The accused then told him to secure P39,000.00 as
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) placement fee. In the last week of December, 1991, Rogelio handed the
months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum; P39,000.00 to the accused who told him to go home and wait for the date of
his flight. Accused did not issue a receipt.
“(4) In Criminal Case No. 10841-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime
of Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Rogelio waited for months but his flight never pushed through. He then went
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision to the Baguio POEA office with his co-complainants Jessie Bolinao and Naty
mayor as maximum; and Pita where they found out that the accused was not a licensed recruiter, per
certification dated November 25, 1992.[8]
“(5) In Criminal Case No. 10837-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime
of Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Naty Pita, also a resident of San Gabriel, La Union testified[9] that sometime
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision in November, 1991, she visited her sister-in-law who happened to be a
mayor as maximum. neighbor-boarder of the accused at 19-A Sumulong Street, Baguio City.
Upon being informed that the accused was a recruiter, Naty and her sister-
“The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant Rogelio in-law went to the room of accused where the latter recruited her as factory
Tibeb the amount P39,000.00; Jessie Bolinao, the amount of P35,000.00; worker in Korea. The accused asked Naty to prepare P38,500.00 for the fare
Gina Cleto, P15,000.00; and Naty Pita the amount of P38,500.00. and travel documents plus P1,500.00 for the passport. Naty went home to
look for money.
“SO ORDERED.”[2]
On December 15, 1992, Baguio City Prosecutor II Estrellita P. Bernabe filed On December 26, 1991, Naty handed P38,500.00 to the accused who told
with the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 59, separate informations her that she would be leaving for Korea on January 6, 1992. After that, Naty
charging accused Linda Sagaydo with one (1) case of illegal recruitment in went home.
large scale, and four (4) cases of estafa.[3]
On January 4, 1992, Naty went to the boarding house of accused in
Upon arraignment on August 18, 1993, accused pleaded not guilty to all the anticipation of her January 6, 1992, flight. Accused told her that she could
five (5) charges against her.[4] Thus, trial ensued. not leave because she had no visa. So Naty asked the accused to return her
money. The accused instead offered her a placement in Taiwan to which
The complainants recounted their respective experience with accused Linda Naty agreed. Naty was told to wait for the call of accused.
Sagaydo in this wise:
Days passed and Naty had not received any call from the accused. Naty
Gina Cleto, an AB Political Science graduate and community worker residing then went to the Baguio POEA office where she, too, found out that the
in No. 19-A Sumulong St., Holy Ghost Proper, Baguio City testified[5] that accused was not a licensed recruiter.
she knew the accused for almost a year as the latter also resided at
Sumulong Street. Sometime in September, 1991, the accused went to Jessie Bolinao, a farmer and resident of Lon-oy, San Gabriel, La Union
Gina’s house and encouraged her to work as a factory worker in Korea. Gina recalled[10] that the accused was his neighbor in Lubnagan, Kalinga-Apayao
said she had to think it over first since she went back and forth to Tabuk and until 1982, and was even a distant relative of his father. In the second week
Baguio City. She and the accused met again in the house of the former in of December, 1991, Jessie went to the house of the accused and gave her
December, 1991, where the accused reiterated her offer of employment to P35,000.00 as placement fee for his employment to Korea as factory worker,
Gina. When Gina asked her whether she was a licensed recruiter, and on the assurance that he would be leaving on December 28, 1991. Jessie,
accused answered in the affirmative. Accused told Gina that she could not however, was not able to leave on that date because according to the
have the latter’s travel papers and passport processed unless she gave an accused, his travel papers had not been processed.
advance payment of P15,000.00.
Jessie returned to the house of accused more than ten (10) times thereafter
Gina then went to San Gabriel, La Union to get the P15,000.00 required by to follow-up his papers, until he found out that accused was no longer
the accused. They met again in the house of Gina in the last week of residing there. He thereafter inquired at the Baguio POEA office whether the
December, 1991, where she handed the P15,000.00 to the accused who accused was a licensed recruiter, in answer to which the office issued a
assured Gina that she was leaving for Korea on January 6, 1992, provided certification[11] stating that accused was not a licensed recruiter.
Gina paid her the remaining balance of P30,000.00.
The accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. She
Gina then went to Lepanto to ask for money from her brother and sister. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being informed that she was
able to send her three (3) sons to Korea. While accused admitted having
received money from complainants Gina Cleto and Naty Pita, she said she A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
used their money to buy their plane tickets. Gina and Naty were not able to convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. There
leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement is no double jeopardy because illegal recruitment and estafa are distinct
beginning January, 1992. When asked why she was not able to return the offenses. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which criminal intent is
money of Gina and Naty, accused said that she returned the plane tickets to not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which criminal intent is
the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency did not make necessary.[21]
reimbursements. With respect to complainants Jessie Bolinao and Rogelio
Tibeb, the accused denied having received any money from them.[12] Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name,
The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the complainants and or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
rejected the denial of accused. Thus, on October 25, 1995, the trial court credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar
rendered a decision convicting her of the charges of illegal recruitment and deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
estafa, the decretal portion of which is quoted in the opening paragraph of The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
this opinion. fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damages.[22]
Hence, this appeal.[13]
Such is the case before us. The complainants parted with their money upon
In this appeal, accused-appellant claimed that she was erroneously the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that
convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa because the trial court failed to she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end,
consider that she only processed the travel documents of the private complainants were neither able to leave for work abroad nor get their money
complainants as tourists, and that no recruitment for employment abroad back.[23]
took place.
The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to
We sustain accused-appellant’s conviction. produce receipts as proof of their payment to accused-appellant does not
free the latter from liability. The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal
“Illegal recruitment has been defined to include the act of engaging in any of prosecution for illegal recruitment.[24] As long as the witnesses can positively
the activities mentioned in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code without the show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one
required license or authority from the POEA. Under the aforesaid provision, involved in prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense
any of the following activities would constitute recruitment and placement: despite the absence of receipts.[25]
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for With respect to the penalty, accused-appellant having been found guilty of
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Article 13 (b) further illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 10838-R, was aptly
provides that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises meted out the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00
for a fee employment to two (2) or more persons shall be deemed engaged under Art. 39 (a) of the Labor Code.[26]
in recruitment and placement. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as As to the estafa cases, the pertinent provision of the Revised Penal Code is
a group.”[14] “This crime requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the as follows:
recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of “ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).- any person who shall defraud another by any
the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (3) committed the infraction against three or more 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
persons, individually or as a group.”[15] mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos
but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter
All the aforementioned requisites were present in this case. The accused- sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
appellant made representations to each of the private complainants that she period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
could send them to Korea to work as factory workers, constituting a promise penalty which maybe imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case,
of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13 and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
(b) of the Labor Code. From the testimonies of the private complainants that for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
the trial court found to be credible and untainted with improper motives, termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;
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 xxx."
work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to “The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that, in imposing a prison
be employed.[16] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the sentence under the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, “the maximum
complainants, mere denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail.[17] term” of the penalty shall be that, which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code,
We thus defer to the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of the and the “minimum” shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
complainants as there is no showing that any of them had ill motives against prescribed by the Code for the offense.”[27] “The penalty next lower should
accused-appellant other than to bring her to justice for the crime of illegal be based on the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
recruitment and estafa. Their testimonies were straightforward, credible and offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to
convincing.[18] the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty is
left to the sound discretion of the court, to fix from within the range of the
As to the license requirement, the record showed that accused-appellant did penalty next lower without reference to the periods into which it may be
not have the authority to recruit for employment abroad, per certification subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the
issued by the POEA Regional Extension Unit in Baguio City, [19] stating that imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.”[28]
“...the name LINDA SAGAYDO per existing and available records from this
Office is not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas In Criminal Case No. 10840-R, where complainant Gina Cleto was
employment in the City of Baguio or any part of the Region." It is the lack of defrauded of P15,000.00, there being no modifying circumstances, the
the necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment unlawful or accused may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2)
criminal.[20] years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.[29]
Anent the last requirement, accused-appellant engaged in illegal recruitment
against four (4) persons, namely, complainants Gina Cleto, Jessie Bolinao, In Criminal Case Nos. 10837-R, 10839-R and 10841-R where the respective
Rogelio Tibeb and Naty Pita. amounts defrauded from complainants Rogelio Tibeb, Jessie Bolinao and
Naty Pita exceeded P22,000.00, the penalty prescribed by law therefor is
prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, to be imposed in
its maximum period. The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods, or six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, and the maximum
penalty therefor is six (6) years eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days to
eight (8) years, plus an additional one (1) year since the three (3) amounts
had an excess over P22,000.00, of only P17,000.00, P13,000.00 and
P16,500.00.[30] Thus, accused-appellant may be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and four (4) months of prision
mayor, as maximum, in each case.[31]
SO ORDERED.
G. R. No. 119594, January 18, 2000 his mother, he thought it would be better if he (Bacasnot) worked initially as
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. a factory worker for six months. Bacasnot agreed. He was charged
BENZON ONG Y SATE ALIAS "BENZ ONG," ACCUSED-APPELLANT. P30,000.00 for placement fee, of which P15,000.00 was to be paid at once
and the balance of P15,000.00 to be deducted from his salary once he got a
DECISION job in Taiwan. As Bacasnot did not have enough money, he was allowed to
MENDOZA, J.: pay P10,000.00 as downpayment for his placement and processing fee
This is an appeal from the decision[1]of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, which accused-appellant received on January 31, 1994 (Exh. A)[7] at the
Baguio City, finding accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate, alias Benz Ong, Kimsam Eatery on Session Road. Bacasnot was assured by accused-
guilty of (1) illegal recruitment committed in large scale and sentencing him appellant that upon completion of his papers, he would leave for Taiwan
to suffer life imprisonment, pay a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary within three to four months thereafter.[8]
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and pay the costs; and (2) seven counts
of estafa for which he was sentenced to suffer, on each count, an On the other hand, upon learning of job opportunities abroad, complainants
indeterminate prison term ranging from four years and two months of prision Ruth A. Eliw, Sally Kamura and Solidad Malinias also sought the
correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum, in assistance of accused-appellant. They were charged a higher placement fee
two cases, and to nine years of prision mayor, as maximum, in five cases, of P40,000.00 each, and payments were made to accused-appellant at the
and to indemnify the eight private complainants in the aggregate amount of Gallao’s Optical Clinic, where Bacasnot treated patients, at 159 Magsaysay
P277,500.00 with interest at the legal rate counted from July 25, 1994, until Avenue, Baguio City. Accused-appellant later accompanied complainants to
fully paid. Manila purportedly for interview and medical examination at the Steadfast
Recruitment Agency with which accused-appellant claimed to be connected.
In Criminal Case No. 13146-R, the information for illegal recruitment in large However, instead of taking them to a recruitment agency, accused-appellant
scale[2] alleged - took them to an office in United Nations Avenue where three men, allegedly
That sometime during and between the period from November, 1993 to Taiwanese nationals, interviewed them and later took them to a clinic where
January, 1994, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction they were examined.[9]
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing himself to
have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire and transport Filipino workers for Eliw, Kamura and Malinias each paid accused-appellant the amount of
employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, P25,000.00 on January 21, February 13 and March 30, 1994 (Exhs. D-1 and
for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement to the following K),[10] respectively. On May 30, 1994, each of them paid the balance of
persons: P15,000.00 (Exh. D).[11] In a handwritten agreement (Exh. D) prepared by
1. Noel Bacasnot y Baldivino; Almi G. Bacasnot (wife of Noel B. Bacasnot), accused-appellant
2. Ruth A. Eliw; acknowledged payment of P45,000.00, representing the balance of
3. Samuel Bagni; P15,000.00 from each of complainants and promised them that they would
4. Francisca Cayaya; leave for Taiwan in three weeks. The agreement reads:
5. Teofilo S. Gallao, Jr.; AGREEMENT
6. Sally Kamura;
7. Paul G. Esteban; I, BENSON ONG, OF LEGAL AGE, RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF FORTY
8. David Joaquin; and FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P45,000.00) AS RECRUITMENT FULL
9. Solidad M. Malinias PAYMENT ADDITIONAL TO SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
in Taiwan, without first obtaining or securing license or authority from the (P75,000.00) WHICH WAS FIRST GIVEN TO ME FROM
proper governmental agency. 1. SALLY KAMURA
2. RUTH ELIW
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3. SOLIDAD MALINIAS
In Criminal Case Nos. 13147-R to 13154-R, eight informations for estafa IN A CONDITION THAT I SHOULD LET THEM SIGN THE ABOVE NAMES
were filed. Save for the dates of commission of the crime, the names of the THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT FOR TAIWAN NOT MORE THAN
complainant and the amounts involved, the informations uniformly alleged - THREE WEEKS (JUNE 3 TO JUNE 24, 1994).
That sometime in [date],[3] in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and HEREBY, IF I COULD NOT LET THEM HAVE THE CONTRACT OF
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one [name][4] by way of false EMPLOYMENT FOR TAIWAN, I WILL RETURN THE MONEY WITHIN ONE
pretenses, which are executed prior to or simultaneously with the MONTH THE AMOUNT OF (P120,000.00) ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused knowing fully well THOUSAND PESOS ONLY AFTER THE CONDITION ON THE DATE OF
that he/she/they is/are not authorized job recruiters for persons intending to JULY 24, ‘94.
secure work abroad convinced said [name] and pretended that he/she/they
could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the sum of SIGNED ON THE MONTH OF MAY IN THE 30th DAY OF THE YEAR 1994.
[amount],[5] when in truth and in fact they could not; the said [name],
deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused, APPLICANT’S NAME AND SIGNATURE
parted away the total sum of [amount], in favor of the accused, to the
damage and prejudice of the said [name] in the aforementioned amount of SOLIDAD M. MALINIAS (Sgd.)
[amount in words][6] [amount], Philippine Currency. RUTH ELIW (Sgd.)…………………………….RECEIVED AND AGREED BY:
SALLY KAMURA (Sgd.)
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Sgd.)
All indictments being based on the same facts, the cases were tried jointly. BENSON ONG
Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges, RECEIVER
whereupon trial commenced. WITNESSES:
(Sgd.)
The evidence for the prosecution established the following facts: ALMI G. BACASNOT
(Sgd.)
Complainant Noel B. Bacasnot is an optometrist by profession. In NOEL B. BACASNOT
September 1993, he met accused-appellant at the insurance office of Zaldy Accused-appellant never fulfilled his promise. When complainants sought to
Galos at Laperal Building in Session Road, Baguio City. Accused-appellant inquire about their application, they discovered that accused-appellant no
represented to Bacasnot that he had contacts in Taiwan, Republic of China, longer held office at the place in the upper story of Mario’s Restaurant on
who were looking for workers. Factory workers would be paid P15,000.00 a Session Road. Apparently, accused-appellant was already into hiding.
month, while construction workers would be paid P1,200.00 a day.
According to him, his mother was in Taiwan and could help Bacasnot get a A week before June 27, 1994, Eliw chanced upon accused-appellant and
job as an optometrist with a salary of as much as P50,000.00 to P80,000.00 she was told that Kamura and Malinias had passed the interview and
a month. A week later, accused-appellant told Bacasnot that, after talking to medical examination in Manila. Accused-appellant then asked Eliw to pay an
additional amount of P5,000.00 for processing. Instead of paying, Eliw accused-appellant that Eliw wanted to buy the betamax player for
denounced accused-appellant’s recruitment activities to the local office of P10,000.00. As Eliw had only P1,500.00, accused-appellant at first refused
the National Bureau of Investigation. On June 25, 1994, the NBI confirmed to accept the payment. When Eliw assured him she would pay the balance,
from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Regional accused-appellant finally agreed to receive the payment. As accused-
Extension Unit (POEA-REU) in the Cordillera Autonomous Region that appellant received the money, he was nabbed by NBI agents who identified
accused-appellant had not been licensed to recruit for overseas themselves and asked accused-appellant to go with them to the NBI office.
employment. On June 27, 1994, a team composed of an NBI agent and He was later charged with illegal recruitment.[25]
three special investigators conducted an entrapment operation. Eliw handed
the P1,500.00 marked money to accused-appellant, promising to pay the On November 23, 1994, the trial court rendered its decision convicting
balance of P3,500.00 later. At that instance, the NBI group nabbed accused- accused-appellant of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and of
appellant and placed him under arrest. He was subjected to paraffin test and seven counts of estafa. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:[26]
found positive for the presence of fluorescent powder.[12] WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused BENZON ONG y
SATE alias Benz Ong, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
Complainants Samuel Bagni, Teofilo Gallao, Jr., Paul Esteban and David recruitment in large scale as charged in Crim. Case No. 13146-R and hereby
Joaquin were likewise swindled. Accused-appellant collected P25,000.00 sentences him to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P100,000.00,
from Bagni on January 17, 1994 (Exh. M)[13] and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
(Exh. M-1).[14] From Gallao he collected P25,000.00 on January 31, 1994
(Exh. I)[15] and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994 (Exh. I-1).[16] He collected various The Court also finds and declares the same accused BENZON ONG y
amounts from the others, as follows: from Esteban, P7,500.00 on November SATE, alias Benz Ong, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
30, 1993 (Exh. E)[17] and P30,000.00 on March 7, 1994 (Exh. F);[18] from estafa on seven counts and hereby sentences him:
Joaquin, P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993 (Exh. E),[19] P7,500.00 on
December 28, 1993 (Exh. E-1),[20] and P15,000.00 on March 6, 1994 (Exh. (a) In Crim. Case No. 13147-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
E-2).[21] Joaquin was with Esteban when he was introduced to accused- (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
appellant through Alice Sabala on November 15, 1993, at the Laperal NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
Building on Session Road, Baguio City where they made their first and
second payments. Joaquin’s third payment was made at the Bombay Bazaar (b) In Crim. Case No. 13148-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
on Magsaysay Avenue and he, together with Esteban, was supposed to (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
leave in March 1994. On the other hand, Gallao was a technician at the NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
Gallao’s Optical Clinic. He came to know accused-appellant through
Bacasnot who is the husband of Gallao’s cousin, Almi Gallao Bacasnot. (c) In Crim. Case No. 13150-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
Bagni, meanwhile, met accused-appellant through Bacasnot, Bagni’s (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
brother-in-law. Gallao and Bagni were scheduled to leave by June 15, 1994. NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
As with Eliw, Kamura and Malinias, both Gallao and Bagni gave the
downpayment of their fees to accused-appellant at Gallao’s Optical Clinic. (d) In Crim. Case No. 13151-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
The balance of their fees was paid at the house of accused-appellant at 83 (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
Happy Homes, Baguio City. NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
Accused-appellant failed to comply with his commitment to send (e) In Crim. Case No. 13152-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
complainants Bacasnot, Eliw, Kamura, Malinias, Bagni, Gallao, Esteban and (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
Joaquin to Taiwan as he could no longer be located after collecting EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
placement fees from them.[22]
(f) In Crim. Case No. 13153-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
Earlier, at the instance of complainant Bacasnot, Atty. Justinian O. (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
Licnachan, POEA-REU Legal Officer of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs; and
issued a certification dated June 24, 1994 (Exh. C)[23] which read:
This is to certify that BENZ ONG a.k.a. "BENZON ONG SATE & JOHNSON (g) In Crim. Case No. 13154-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
ONG SATE", per existing and available records from this office, is not (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs.
City of Baguio or any part of the region. He is neither in possession of the
required Provincial Recruitment Authority. In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with his
Complainant Francisca Cayaya failed to testify despite due notice to her. Her preventive imprisonment under the terms and conditions prescribed in Article
complaint for estafa was, therefore, dismissed.[24] On the other hand, the 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
complaint for estafa of complainant Bacasnot, which should have been filed
with the Municipal Trial Court in view of the amount (P10,000.00) involved, The said accused BENZON ONG y SATE, alias Benz Ong, shall furthermore
was nonetheless allowed because it arose out of the same facts as the case indemnify the below-named persons the amounts indicated opposite their
for illegal recruitment. names, to wit:
1. Noel Bacasnot ------ P10,000.00
For his defense, accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate admitted having 2 Ruth Eliw ------ 40,000.00
met complainant Bacasnot through Zaldy Galos. He got to know the other 3. Samuel Bagni ------ 40,000.00
complainants through Bacasnot and one Patring Esteban (sister of 4. Teofilo Gallao, Jr. ------ 40,000.00
complainant Paul Esteban), his partner in the video rental business. He 5. Sally Kamura ------ 40,000.00
introduced himself to Bacasnot as one from Taiwan and told Bacasnot that 6. Paul Esteban ------ 37,500.00
his mother and brother were based in Taiwan. Accused-appellant testified 7. David Joaquin ------ 30,000.00
that when complainants sought his help, he advised them to go to the POEA 8. Solidad Malinias ------ 40,000.00
but complainants claimed that they do not know anyone at said office. He
then offered to scout for a recruitment agency in Manila. Accused-appellant all amounts to bear interest at the legal rate from July 25, 1994, the date of
accompanied complainants to Steadfast Recruitment Agency in Manila and the filing of the indictments, until fully paid.
introduced them to a certain Marilyn Pagsibigan, Marketing Manager of the
agency. He came to know about the agency through a friend in Manila, one SO ORDERED.
Ernesto Sy. He denied collecting placement fees from the complainants and Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that -
claimed that his signatures on the receipts had been forged. He also claimed I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
that on June 27, 1994, he was at the Gallao’s Optical Clinic to collect the TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES. Slxsc
payment for the betamax player which Bacasnot had previously ordered and
which accused-appellant had delivered a week earlier. Bacasnot told
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED- testimonial and documentary evidence in the record shows that accused-
APPELLANT GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO appellant did more than just make referrals. The evidence shows that he
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for
First. Accused-appellant claims that when complainants filled out their overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for
respective bio-data, application forms and other documents for employment placement fees. Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of
in Taiwan, they knew that they were applying for employment abroad large scale illegal recruitment.
through the Steadfast Recruitment Agency. He claims that he merely
suggested to them the opportunity to work overseas but that he never Second. Accused-appellant denies that the signatures in the receipts of
advertised himself as a recruiter. payments are his. To be sure, the presentation of the receipts
acknowledging payments is not necessary for the successful prosecution of
The contention has no merit accused-appellant. We have already ruled that the absence of receipts in a
case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused-
Accused-appellant is charged with violation of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, as appellant and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the
amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, which provides that any prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that
recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Art. 34 the accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the
of said Code, undertaken by persons who have no license or authority to offense can very well be justified.[31]
engage in recruitment for overseas employment is illegal and punishable
under Art. 39. Under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and The prosecution evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
placement" refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment committed in large scale. He
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, was positively identified by complainants as the person who had recruited
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or them for employment in Taiwan. He succeeded in inveigling them into
abroad, whether for profit or not; provided, that any person or entity which, in paying various amounts to him for their placement fees. Their testimonies
any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more dovetail with each other in material points. There is no showing that any of
persons, is considered engaged in recruitment and placement. On the other complainants had any ill-motives to testify against accused-appellant. Their
hand, "referral" is defined as the act of passing along or forwarding of an testimonies were straightforward, credible and convincing.[32] In contrast,
applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for accused-appellant failed to present evidence to rebut the evidence of the
employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.[27] prosecution. He failed to present the person allegedly responsible for the
recruitment of the complainants. As a result of his failure to do so, he risked
On the other hand, illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving the adverse inference and legal presumption that he did not present such
economic sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, witnesses because their testimonies would actually be adverse if
(a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried produced.[33] For, indeed, accused-appellant could have adduced evidence
out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with to prove that he was an employee of the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, a
one another; or, (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., duly authorized agency. He could have presented the manager of the
if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. agency to corroborate his claim that complainants actually applied to the
The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: agency and not through him. Instead, he merely interposed denials in his
(1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defense.
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 As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants,
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the accused-appellant’s mere denials cannot prevail.[34] He was aptly meted out
securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P100,000.00 under
locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against Art. 39(a) of the Labor Code.
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 Third. Accused-appellant contends that the elements of estafa have not
authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while been proven by the prosecution, specifically, the requirement that
an "authority" is that issued by the DOLE entitling a person or association to complainants must have relied on the false pretenses of accused-appellant,
so engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment because complainants knew that he was not a licensed recruiter.
agency. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that renders the
recruitment unlawful or criminal.[28] The contention has no merit. The following elements of estafa are present in
these cases, to wit: (1) the accused has defrauded the offended party by
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant means of abuse of confidence or by deceit; and (2) as a result, damage or
gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to prejudice, which is capable of pecuniary estimation, is caused to the
send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to offended party or third person. Accused-appellant misrepresented himself to
part with their money in order to be employed.[29] Accused-appellant complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in
represented himself to complainants as one capable of deploying workers Taiwan, and by reason of his misrepresentations, false assurances and
abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of factory and construction deceit, complainants were induced to part with their money, thus causing
workers in Taiwan. He advised Bacasnot to accept a job as a factory worker them damage and prejudice.
first because it would be then easier for him to transfer jobs once he got to
Taiwan. Accused-appellant said his mother, who was based in Taiwan, Moreover, it is settled that a person who is convicted of illegal recruitment
could help Bacasnot. Bacasnot paid accused-appellant an initial placement may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised
fee agreeing to pay the balance through salary deductions once he was Penal Code. There is no problem of double jeopardy because illegal
employed. Accused-appellant also promised jobs to Eliw and the other recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not
complainants. He accompanied them to Manila so that they could be necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the
interviewed and physically examined at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency accused is necessary.[35]
with which accused-appellant represented he was connected. These acts of
accused-appellant created the distinct impression on the eight complainants WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
that he was a recruiter for overseas employment.[30] There is no question
that he was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas SO ORDERED.
employment. Nor is there any question that he dealt with complainants.
What he claims is that he merely "suggested" to complainants to apply at the
Steadfast Recruitment Agency, which is a recruitment agency.
After repeatedly following up her application with no result, it soon became The other two accused, Josefina Mallari and Diana Doble, are acquitted on
apparent to Castillo that she was hoodwinked. To confirm her suspicion, she ground of reasonable doubt.
went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) office
where she was informed that Dionisio, Mallari and the firm known as Jovial SO ORDERED.[14]
Trading were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas The trial court rejected Dionisio’s defense that the real illegal recruiter was
employment.[4] Castillo secured a certification[5] to this effect from the POEA Cora Molar, who rented a table in the office of Jovial Trading where Dionisio
and forthwith, went to Camp Karingal where she executed a sworn was the sole proprietor. It disregarded Dionisio’s claim that she received the
statement[6] against Dionisio and company. money from the private complainants in behalf of Molar and that Dionisio
was engaged only in the business of buying and selling slippers, cosmetics
At about the same time, private complainant Juan Carandang, together with and other goods. The trial court gave credence to private complainants’
Juanito Castillo, Noel Villanueva and Lito Gorospe, were likewise recruited testimonies that they were recruited by Dionisio, who did not possess the
to work abroad by accused-appellant and her cohorts. Carandang was authority or license to conduct recruitment activities, as certified by the
introduced by a friend to Diana Doble, who accompanied him to the office of POEA and the testimony of prosecution witness Benjamin Vasquez, a POEA
Jovial Trading and introduced him to Dionisio and Mallari. employee.[15]
Dionisio asked for a processing fee of P3,000.00, which Carandang promptly Accused-appellant Dionisio is now before us on the following assignment of
gave on August 3, 1991. Carandang was further persuaded to part with the errors:
additional amount of P4,500.00 on two separate occasions, covered by two I
receipts[7] signed by Dionisio dated September 23 and October 24, 1991.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE
Subsequently, Dionisio informed Carandang and his other companions that TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND DISREGARDING
they were to leave for the Middle East on October 31, 1991. A day before THE THEORY OF ACCUSED ROWENA ESLABON DIONISIO.
the scheduled departure date, however, they were told that the same was II
postponed to November 6, 1991, on which date, they were again told that
their plane tickets have not yet been released. Soon enough, they all THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DIONISIO GUILTY BEYOND
realized that they were fooled by Dionisio, when they found out from the REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND OF ORDERING
POEA that Dionisio, et al. were not licensed recruiters.[8] Carandang likewise HER TO PAY FINE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF AMOUNTS TO
secured a certification[9] from the POEA and executed a sworn statement COMPLAINANTS.[16]
against Dionisio’s group.
Accused-appellant maintains that no conclusive proof was adduced by the Q. When was that?
prosecution to show that she engaged in recruitment activities. She did not
A. I gave the partial payment of P4,000.00 on August 12, 1991.
openly or directly advertise herself as a recruiter, nor did she personally ask
the private complainants to apply in her office for overseas jobs. The name
of her firm, “Jovial Trading,” alone implies that she was a merchant engaged Q. Where did you give that P4,000.00?
in the buying and selling of goods and not a recruiter.
Accused-appellant admits that she received the various amounts of money xxx xxx xxx
from private complainants, as evidenced by receipts signed by
her. However, she claims that she received the said money on behalf of WITNESS
Cora Molar and did not benefit from it in any way. She further claims that
In our house.
she merely entertained Molar’s clients in her absence since Molar rented a
table in her office.
Q. To whom did you give that amount?
Accused-appellant’s submissions fail to convince us. A. To Cora Molar.
We agree with the trial court’s observation that private complainants did not
harbor any ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant. Indeed, it is Q. And who is that Cora Molar?
against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse A. The representative. I gave the money, the P4,000.00, to Cora
another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.[17] Molar through the instruction of Rowena Dionisio.
As such, the testimony of private complainants that accused-appellant was
the person who transacted with them, promised them jobs and received
money therefor, was correctly given credence and regarded as trustworthy. COURT
The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal I want to ... Thru the instruction. Why? Were you instructed by
witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to indicate that their testimony is Rowena?
worthy of full faith and credit.[18]
Q. What did you do when you were convinced? Q. When you said, they, whom are you referring to?
A. They asked for a P9,000.00 service fee and they told me, A. Josefina Mallari and Rowena Dionisio.
Rowena Dionisio and Josefina Mallari, to process my papers
including my passport, my medical examination and my NBI
clearance. xxx xxx x x x[19]
Similarly, Juan Carandang testified as follows:
Q. And what did you do when you were told by them to give that xxx xxx xxx
P9,000.00?
A. I told them that I don’t have enough money that total of Q. What transpired when you were accompanied by Doble to their
P9,000.00, but they told me, Josefina Mallari and Rowena office at Villa Building?
Dionisio, you can give partial payment of P5,000.00 only and A. I was introduced to Rowena Eslabon and she promised me that I
later on the balance of P4,000.00. will be working in Saudi Arabia.
xxx xxx xxx Q. And after talking with Eslabon that you are applying for work
abroad, what did you do next?
Q. Were you able to give partial payment to the herein accused? A. When she said that, she asked money from me to process the
A. Yes, sir. papers at the POEA.
Q. And did you give that amount? Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, defines recruitment and placement as “x x x
A. Yes. 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: x x x”
Q. Was there a receipt to that effect? (Italics ours). Consequently, even in the absence of money given as
A. Yes. consideration for accused-appellant’s “services”, she would still be
considered as having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was
sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas employment to private
xxx xxx xxx complainants.
Q. When you were informed by Eslabon that on Oct. 31, you will be The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are the
going to Saudi Arabia, did you come back to the office of Eslabon following: 1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity defined under
on October 31? Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in
A. On Oct. 30, I went to the office.
the recruitment and placement of workers; and 3) the accused committed
the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.[25]
All the aforementioned elements were proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. It was established that accused-appellant promised
employment to the eight (8) complainants and that she was not authorized or
licensed to engage in such activity as certified to by the POEA.
SO ORDERED.
before and weighed by said court, and for us to review this feature of the
G.R. No. L-2548, January 28, 1950 case will involve a factual inquiry which we are not empowered to undertake.
DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE The Court of Industrial Relations has also ordered the petitioner to grant its
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CONGRESS OF LABOR workers 15-day sick leave with full pay every year. In the case of Leyte Land
ORGANIZATIONS, KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA Transportation Company, Inc. vs. Leyte Farmer's and Laborers' Union, L-
PILIPINAS, AND JULIAN LUMANOG AND HIS WORK-CONTRACT 1377, decided on May 12, 1948 (45 Off. Gaz., 4862)[1] we already sustained
LABORERS, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEE. the authority of the Court of Industrial Relations to grant vacation and sick
leaves with pay, and observed that "when there is an assurance of holidays
DECISION and vacations, workers take up their tasks with greater effeciency and tend
to sustain their productiveness for longer periods."
PARAS, J.:
The claims of the petitioner against Julian Lumanog must also be overruled,
first, because it is admitted that the latter is an independent contractor, and
his laborers (who joined the strike) are therefore not in the service of the
This is an appel by the petitioner from a decision of the Court of Industrial petitioner, with the result that the Court of Industrial Relations has no
Relations ordering the petitioner (1) to grant an increase of P0.030 a day to jurisdiction over them; and, secondly, because we have ruled that the strike
all its employeess and laborers except workers under the "pakiao system"; in question is legal and justified, and cannot consequently be a cause for
(2) to grant its laborers, under certain conditions, 15 days vacation leave and discharge.
15 days sick leave both with full pay every year, and, upon the other hand,
denying (a) petitioner's prayer for the reduction of the salaries and wages of The appealed decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is therefore
its employees and laborers, including the work-contract laborers of Julian affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.
Lumanog; (b) petitioner's claim for damages resulting from its laborer's
strike; (c) petitioner's prayer for the filing of a bond by Julian Lumanog under
Act No. 3959 and for the reduction of wages of his work-contract laborers.
The contention of the petitioner that the strike declared by its laborers on
April 12, 1947, is illegal or unjustified because it originated from unfounded
demands and was planned by the Congress of Labor Organizations to
create a general strike condition in Manila and embarress the Roxas
Administrationi, raises questions of fact decided adversely to the petitioner
by the Court of Industrial Relations; and, it is now needles to state, we are
not authorized to re-examine the same.
It appears that there was a previous industrial dispute between the petitioner
and its laborers resulting in a strike which was decided and settled by the
Court of Industrial Relations in a final judgmnet promulgated on November
23, 1946. It is presently argued by the petitioner that the effective duration of
this judgment is three years during which a strike may not be staged.
Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, invoked by the petitioner,
provides that "An award, order, or decision of the Court shall be valid and
effective during the time therein specified. In the absence of such
specification, any party or both parites to a controversy may terminate the
effectiveness of an award, order or decision after three years have elapsed
from the date of said award, order or decision by giving notice to that effect
to the Court: Provided, however, That at any time during the effectiveness of
an award, order or decision, the Court may, on application of an interested
pary, and after due hearing, alter, modify in whole or in part, or set aside any
such award, order or decision, or reopen any question involved therein."
The petitioner admits that this provision does not expressly prohibit the
declaration of a strike during the effective duration of an award or decision,
but contends that the prohibition may be inferred from the legislative intent of
forestalling strikes. We cannot agree. A strike is not in itself inconsistent with
or destructive of the efficacy of an award or decision, since the Court of
Industrial Relations in proper cases may enforce the same during the
statutory period. In other words, an employer as soon as the laborers walk
out, may resort to said court and defeat the aims of the strike by alleging the
existence of a bingidng decision settling a previous similar industrial dispute,
subject of course to the power of the court to reopen any question involved
therein (sec. 17, Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended). Capital need
not, however, be apprehensive about the recurrence of strikes in view of the
system of compulsory arbitration by the Court of Industrial Relations.
This conclusion on the basic phase of the case,—that the strike in question
is legal and justified,—is necessarily fatal (1) to petitioner's claim for
damages, even assuming that the Court of Industrial Relations has
jurisdiction to pass thereon, and (2) to petitioner's claim that the striking
laborers had ceased to be in its employ as a consequence of their unjustified
strike.
The raise in wages and the 15-day vacation leave with full pay every year
conceded to the workers by the Court of Industrial Relations were based on
the financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the evidence adduced