1) People v Chua - Atienza-F [D2017]
2
People v Chua (March 2010) Petitioner: People of the Philippines Respondent: Melissa Chua Ponente: Carpio Morales, J. DOCTRINE: Illegal Recruitment is malum prohibitum. FACTS: 1. Melissa Chua was indicted for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale). The information filed against her stated that she misrepresented herself as having the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers and received payment for it, however she failed to actually deploy them. 2. Of the five complainants, only three testified, namely, Macaranas, Tan and King. 3. All three complainants stated that they were introduced to Marilyn Chua as capacitated to deploy factory workers to Taiwan. They all paid their respective placement fees. However, Chua failed to deploy the complainants. They asked for a refund, but Chua failed to return the payments received. 4. The complainants later learned that Chua was not a licensed recruiter which prompted them to file the case. 5. Appellant denied the charges. Claiming having worked as a temporary cashier from January to October, 2002 at the office of Golden Gate, owned by one Marilyn Calueng, she maintained that Golden Gate was a licensed recruitment agency and that Josie, who is her godmother, was an agent. 6. She convicted was thereof by the RTC, she was also convicted for three counts of Estafa. 7. The CA affirmed the conviction. It ruled that Chua’s defense that, as temporary cashier of Golden Gate, she received the money which was ultimately remitted to Marilyn Calueng is immaterial, she having failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship between her and Marilyn, as well as the legitimacy of the operations of Golden Gate and the extent of her involvement therein. 8. The CA also mentioned an employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal together with his employer if it is shown that he, as in the case of appellant, actively and consciously participated therein. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Chua is guilty of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) PROVISIONS: Elements of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Art. 39: 1. Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. 2. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. RULING + RATIO: 1. YES. a. It is clear that any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of
description
Digest
Transcript of 1) People v Chua - Atienza-F [D2017]
People v Chua (March 2010)Petitioner: People of the PhilippinesRespondent: Melissa ChuaPonente: Carpio Morales, J. DOCTRIN: Ille!al Recruit"ent is "alu" prohi#itu"$%&CT':1. MelissaChuawasindictedforIllegal Recruitment (LargeScale.!heinformationfiledagainst herstatedthat shemisrepresentedherself asha"ingthecapacit#tocontract, enlist andtransport$ilipino wor%ers and recei"ed pa#ment for it, howe"er she failed toactuall# deplo# them.&. 'f the fi"e complainants, onl# three testified, namel#, Macaranas,!an and (ing.). *ll three complainants stated that the# were introduced to Maril#nChua as capacitated to deplo# factor# wor%ers to !aiwan. !he# allpaid their respecti"e placement fees. +owe"er, Chua failed todeplo# the complainants. !he# as%ed for a refund, ,ut Chua failedto return the pa#ments recei"ed. -. !he complainants later learned that Chua was not a licensedrecruiter which prompted them to file the case... *ppellant denied the charges. Claiming ha"ing wor%ed as atemporar# cashier from Januar# to 'cto,er, &//& at the office of0olden 0ate, owned ,# one Maril#n Calueng, she maintained that0olden0atewasalicensedrecruitment agenc#andthat Josie,who is her godmother, was an agent.1. She con"icted was thereof ,# the R!C, she was also con"icted forthree counts of 2stafa. 3. !he C* affirmed the con"iction. It ruled that Chua4s defense that,astemporar#cashier of 0olden0ate, sherecei"edthemone#which was ultimatel# remitted to Maril#n Calueng is immaterial, sheha"ing failed to pro"e the e5istence of an emplo#ment relationship,etween her and Maril#n, as well as the legitimac# of theoperations of 0olden 0ate and the e5tent of her in"ol"ementtherein.($ The C& also "entioned an e"plo)ee o* a co"pan) en!a!ed inille!al recruit"ent "a) #e held lia#le as principal to!ether +ithhis e"plo)er i* it is sho+n that he, as in the case o* appellant,activel) and consciousl) participated therein$I''-': 1$ .hether or not Chuais!uilt)o* Ille!al Recruit"ent (/ar!e'cale)PRO0I'ION':le"ents o* /ar!e 'cale Ille!al Recruit"ent under &rt$ 12:1. *n# recruitment acti"ities, including the prohi,ited practicesenumerated under *rticle )- of this Code, to ,e underta%en ,# non6licensees or non6holders of authorit# shall,e deemed illegalandpunisha,le under *rticle )7 of this Code.&. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committedagainst three () or more persons indi"iduall# or as a group.R-/IN3 4 R&TIO: 1. 82S.a. Itisclearthatan#recruitmentacti"itiesto ,eunderta%en ,#non6licenseeornon6holderof contracts, orasinthepresentcase, anagenc#withane5piredlicense, shall ,edeemedillegal and punisha,le under *rticle )7 of the La,or Code of thePhilippines. *ndillegal recruitment isdeemedcommittedinlarge scale if committed against three or more personsindi"iduall# or as a group.,. 2"enif appellant wereameretemporar#cashier of 0olden0ate, that did not ma%e her an# less an emplo#ee to ,e heldlia,le for illegal recruitment as principal ,# direct participation,together with the emplo#er, as it was shown that she acti"el#and consciousl# participated in the recruitment process.c. *ssuming arguendo that appellant was unaware of the illegalnature of the recruitment,usiness of 0olden0ate that doesnot free her of lia,ilit# either. Illegal Recruitment in Large Scalepenali9ed under Repu,lic *ct :o. ;/-&, or !he Migrant
