Labor Code Juris

download Labor Code Juris

of 24

Transcript of Labor Code Juris

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    1/24

    Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983

    VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC., petitioner,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROGELIO BISULA RUBEN ARROZA JUAN GACUTNOLEONILO ATOK, NILO CRUZ, ALVARO ANDRADA, NEMESIO ADUG SIMPLICIO BAUTISTA, ROMEOACOSTA, and JOSE ENCABO respondents.

    Antonio R. Atienza for petitioner.

    The Solicitor General for respondent NLRC,

    Quasha, Asperilia, Ancheta &- Valmonte Pena Marcos Law Offices for private respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N

    GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:+.wph!1

    Before the Court en banc is a motion to reconsider the decision promulgated on July 20, 1982 which set aside thedecision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission and reinstated the decision of the National SeamenBoard.

    To better understand the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration, we reiterate the background facts of thecase, Taken from the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission: t.hqw

    It appears that on different dates in December, 1978 and January, 1979, the Seamen entered intoseparate contracts of employment with the Company, engaging them to work on board M/T' Jannufor a period of twelve (12) months. After verification and approval of their contracts by the NSB, theSeamen boarded their vessel in Japan.

    On 10 January 1919, the master of the vessel complainant Rogelio H. Bisula, received a cable fromthe Company advising him of the possibility that the vessel might be directed to call at ITF-controlledports said at the same time informing him of the procedure to be followed in the computation of thespecial or additional compensation of crew members while in said ports. ITF is the acronym for theInternational Transport Workers Federation, a militant international labor organization with affiliatesin different ports of the world, which reputedly can tie down a vessel in a port by preventing itsloading or unloading, This is a sanction resorted to by ITF to enforce the payment of its wages rates

    for seafarers the so-called ITF rates, if the wages of the crew members of a vessel who haveaffiliated with it are below its prescribed rates.) In the same cable of the Company, the expressed itsregrets for hot clarifying earlier the procedure in computing the special compensation as it thoughtthat the vessel would 'trade in Caribbean ports only.

    On 22 March 1979, the Company sent another cable to complainant Bisula, this time informing himof the respective amounts each of the officers and crew members would receive as specialcompensation when the vessel called at the port of Kwinana Australia, an ITF-controlled port. Thiswas followed by another cable on 23 March 1979, informing him that the officers and crew membershad been enrolled as members of the ITF in Sidney, Australia, and that the membership fee for the28 personnel complement of the vessel had already been paid.

    In answer to the Company's cable last mentioned, complainant Bisula, in representation of the otherofficers and crew members, sent on 24 March 1979 a cable informing the Company that the officersand crew members were not agreeable to its 'suggestion'; that they were not contented with theirpresent salaries 'based on the volume of works, type of ship with hazardous cargo and registered ina world wide trade': that the 'officers and crew (were) not interested in ITF membership if not actuallypaid with ITF rate that their 'demand is only 50% increase based on present basic salary and that theproposed wage increase is the 'best and only solution to solve ITF problem' since the Company'ssalary rates 'especially in tankers (are) very far in comparison with other shipping agencies in Manila...

    In reply, the Company proposed a 25% increase in the basic pay of the complainant crew members,although it claimed, that it would "suffer and absorb considerable amount of losses." The proposalwas accepted by the Seamen with certain conditions which were accepted by the Company.

    Conformably with the agreement of the parties which was effected through the cablesabovementioned, the Seamen were paid their new salary rates.

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    2/24

    Subsequently, the Company sought authority from the NSB to cancel the contracts of employment ofthe Seamen, claiming that its principals had terminated their manning agreement because of theactuations of the Seamen. The request was granted by the NSB Executive Director in a letter dated10 April 1979. Soon thereafter, the Company cabled the Seamen informing them that their contractswould be terminated upon the vessel's arrival in Japan. On 19 April 1979 they Arere asked todisembark from the vessel, their contracts were terminated, and they were repatriated to Manila.There is no showing that the Seamen were given the opportunity to at least comment on theCompany's request for the cancellation of their contracts, although they had served only three (3) outof the twelve (12) months' duration of their contracts.

    The private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of earned wages with the NationalSeamen Board. The Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services Inc. in turn filed a complaint for breach of contract andrecovery of excess salaries and overtime pay against the private respondents. On July 2, 1980, the NSB rendered adecision declaring that the seamen breached their employment contracts when they demanded and received fromVir-jen Shipping wages over and above their contracted rates. The dismissal of the seamen was declared legal andthe seamen were ordered suspended.

    The seamen appealed the decision to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the NSB and required the petitionerto pay the wages and other monetary benefits corresponding to the unexpired portion of the manning contract onthe ground that the termination of the contract by the petitioner was without valid cause. Vir-jen Shipping filed thepresent petition.

    WON THE ACTUATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE GROUNDS FOR THE TERMINATION OF THEIRCONTRACTS AND THEIR DISMISSAL IS LEGAL

    The private respondents submit the following issues in their motion for reconsideration: t.hqw

    A. THIS HONORABLE COURT DID VIOLENCE TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELDTHAT THE FINDING OF FACT OF THE NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD THAT THE SEAMEN

    VIOLATED THEIR CONTRACTS IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE FINDING OF FACT OF THENATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION THAT THE SEAMEN DID NOT VIOLATE THEIRCONTRACT.

    B. THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT VIR-JEN'S HAVING AGREED TO A25% INCREASE OF THE SEAMEN'S BASIC WAGE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BUT WAS DUE TOTHREATS.

    C. THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE ADDENDUMAGREEMENT; ASSUMING THAT THE ADDENDUM AGREEMENT COULD BE TAKENCOGNIZANCE OF, THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN' IT FOUND THAT PRIVATERESPONDENTS HAD VIOLATED THE SAME.

    D, THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT FIND PETITIONER VIRJEN LIABLEFOR HAVING TERMINATED BEFORE EXPIRY DATE THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS OFPRIVATE RESPONDENTS, THERE BEING NO LEGAL AND JUSTIFIABLE GROUND FOR SUCHTERMINATION.

    E. THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PREPARATION BY PETITIONEROF THE TWO PAYROLLS AND THE EXECUTION OF THE SIDE CONTRACT WERE NOT MADEIN BAD FAITH.

    F. THIS HONORABLE COURT INADVERTENTLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PRIVATERESPONDENTS.

    At the outset, we are faced with the question whether or not the Court en banc should give due course to the motionfor reconsideration inspite of its having been denied twice by the Court's Second Division. The case was referred toand accepted by the Court en banc because of the movants' contention that the decision in this case by the SecondDivision deviated from Wallem Phil. Shipping Inc. v. Minister of Labor(L-50734-37, February 20, 1981), a FirstDivision case with the same facts and issues. We are constrained to answer the initial question in the affirmative.

    A fundamental postulate of Philippine Constitutional Law is the fact, that there is only one Supreme Court fromwhose decisions all other courts are required to take their bearings. (Albert v. Court of First Instance, 23 SCRA 948;Barrera v. Barrera, 34 SCRA 98; Tugade v. Court of Appeals, 85 SCRA 226). The majority of the Court's work isnow performed by its two Divisions, but the Court remains one court, single, unitary, complete, and supreme.Flowing from this nature of the Supreme Court is the fact that, while ' individual Justices may dissent or partiallyconcur with one another, when the Court states what the law is, it speaks with only one voice. And that voice being

    authoritative should be a clear as possible.

    Any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, whether en banc or in Division, may be modified or reversedonly by the Court en banc. (Section 2(3), Article X, Constitution.) In the rare instances when one Division disagreesin its views with the other Division, or the necessary votes on an issue cannot be had in a Division, the case is

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    3/24

    brought to the Court en banc to reconcile any seeming conflict, to reverse or modify an earlier decision, and todeclare the Court's doctrine. This is what has happened in this case.

    The decision sought to be reconsidered appears to be a deviation from the Court's decision, speaking through theFirst Division, in Wallem Shipping, Inc. v. Hon. Minister of Labor(102 SCRA 835). Faced with two seeminglyconflicting resolutions of basically the same issue by its two Divisions, the Court. therefore, resolved to transfer thecase to the Court en banc. Parenthetically, the petitioner's comment on the third motion for reconsideration statesthat the resolution of the motion might be the needed vehicle to make the ruling in the Wallem case clearer andmore in time with the underlying principles of the Labor Code. We agree with the petitioner.

    After an exhaustive, painstaking, and perspicacious consideration of the motions for reconsideration and thecomments, replies, and other pleadings related thereto, the Court en banc is constrained to grant the motions. Togrant the motion is to keep faith with the constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor and to assure the rightsof workers to self-organization and to just and humane conditions of work. We sustain the decision of therespondent National labor Relations Commission.

    There are various arguments raised by the petitioners but the common thread running through all of them is thecontention, if not the dismal prophecy, that if the respondent seamen are sustained by this Court, we would in effect"kill the en that lays the golden egg." In other words, Filipino seamen, admittedly among the best in the world,should remain satisfied with relatively lower if not the lowest, international rates of compensation, should not agitatefor higher wages while their contracts of employment are subsisting, should accept as sacred, iron clad, and

    immutable the side contracts which require them to falsely pretend to be members of international labor federations,pretend to receive higher salaries at certain foreign ports only to return the increased pay once the ship leaves thatport, should stifle not only their right to ask for improved terms of employment but their freedom of speech andexpression, and should suffer instant termination of employment at the slightest sign of dissatisfaction with noprotection from their Government and their courts. Otherwise, the petitioners contend that Filipinos would no longerbe accepted as seamen, those employed would lose their jobs, and the still unemployed would be left hopeless.

    This is not the first time and it will not be the last where the threat of unemployment and loss of jobs would be usedto argue against the interests of labor; where efforts by workingmen to better their terms of employment would becharacterized as prejudicing the interests of labor as a whole.

    In 1867 or one hundred sixteen years ago. Chief Justice Beasley of the Supreme Court of New Jersey was ponenteof the court's opinion declaring as a conspiracy the threat of workingmen to strike in connection with their efforts topromote unionism, t.hqw

    It is difficult to believe that a right exists in law which we can scarcely conceive can produce, in anyposture of affairs, other than injuriois results. It is simply the right of workmen, by concert of action,and by taking advantage of their position, to control the business of another, I am unwilling to holdthat a right which cannot, in any, event, be advantageous to the employee, and which must alwaysbe hurtful to the employer, exists in law. In my opinion this indictment sufficiently shows that theforce of the confederates was brought to bear upon their employer for the purpose of oppression andmischief and that this amounts to a conspiracy, (State v. Donaldson, 32 NJL 151, 1867. Cited inChamberlain, Sourcebook on Labor, p. 13. Emphasis supplied)

    The same arguments have greeted every major advance in the rights of the workingman. And they have invariably

    been proved unfounded and false.

    Unionism, employers' liability acts, minimum wages, workmen's compensation, social security and collectivebargaining to name a few were all initially opposed by employers and even well meaning leaders of government andsociety as "killing the hen or goose which lays the golden eggs." The claims of workingmen were described asoutrageously injurious not only to the employer but more so to the employees themselves before these claims ordemands were established by law and jurisprudence as "rights" and before these were proved beneficial tomanagement, labor, and the nation as a whole beyond reasonable doubt.

    The case before us does not represent any major advance in the rights of labor and the workingmen. The privaterespondents merely sought rights already established. No matter how much the petitioner-employer tries to presentitself as speaking for the entire industry, there is no evidence that it is typical of employers hiring Filipino seamen or

    that it can speak for them.

    The contention that manning industries in the Philippines would not survive if the instant case is not decided in favorof the petitioner is not supported by evidence. The Wallem case was decided on February 20, 1981. There havebeen no severe repercussions, no drying up of employment opportunities for seamen, and none of the direconsequences repeatedly emphasized by the petitioner. Why should Vir-jen be all exception?

    The wages of seamen engaged in international shipping are shouldered by the foreign principal. The local manningoffice is an agent whose primary function is recruitment and who .usually gets a lump sum from the shipowner todefray the salaries of the crew. The hiring of seamen and the determination of their compensation is subject to theinterplay of various market factors and one key factor is how much in terms of profits the local manning office andthe foreign shipowner may realize after the costs of the voyage are met. And costs include salaries of officers andcrew members.

    Filipino seamen are admittedly as competent and reliable as seamen from any other country in the world.Otherwise, there would not be so many of them in the vessels sailing in every ocean and sea on this globe. It iscompetence and reliability, not cheap labor that makes our seamen so greatly in demand. Filipino seamen have

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    4/24

    never demanded the same high salaries as seamen from the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and otherdeveloped nations. But certainly they are entitled to government protection when they ask for fair and decenttreatment by their employer.-, and when they exercise the right to petition for improved terms of employment,especially when they feel that these are sub-standard or are capable of improvement according to internationallyaccepted rules. In the domestic scene, there are marginal employers who prepare two sets of payrolls for theiremployees one in keeping with minimum wages and the other recording the sub-standard wages that theemployees really receive, The reliable employers, however, not only meet the minimums required by fair laborstandards legislation but even go way above the minimums while earning reasonable profits and prospering. Thesame is true of international employment. There is no reason why this Court and the Ministry of Labor and.

    Employment or its agencies and commissions should come out with pronouncements based on the standards andpractices of unscrupulous or inefficient shipowners, who claim they cannot survive without resorting to tricky anddeceptive schemes, instead of Government maintaining labor law and jurisprudence according to the practices ofhonorable, competent, and law-abiding employers, domestic or foreign.

    If any minor advantages given to Filipino seamen may somehow cut into the profits of local manning agencies andforeign shipowners, that is not sufficient reason why the NSB or the ILRC should not stand by the former instead oflistening to unsubstantiated fears that they would be killing the hen which lays the golden eggs.

    Prescinding from the above, we now hold that neither the National Seamen Board nor the National Labor RelationsCommission should, as a matter of official policy, legitimize and enforce cubious arrangements where shipownersand seamen enter into fictitious contracts similar to the addendum agreements or side contracts in this case whosepurpose is to deceive. The Republic of the Philippines and its ministries and agencies should present a morehonorable and proper posture in official acts to the whole world, notwithstanding our desire to have as many jobopenings both here and abroad for our workers. At the very least, such as sensitive matter involving no less than ourdignity as a people and the welfare of our workingmen must proceed from the Batasang Pambansa in the form ofpolicy legislation, not from administrative rule making or adjudication

    Another issue raised by the movants is whether or not the seamen violated their contracts of employment.

    The form contracts approved by the National Seamen Board are designed to protect Filipino seamen not foreignshipowners who can take care of themselves. The standard forms embody' the basic minimums which must beincorporated as parts of the employment contract. (Section 15, Rule V, Rules and Regulations Implementing theLabor Code.) They are not collective bargaining agreements or immutable contracts which the parties cannotimprove upon or modify in the course of the agreed period of time. To state, therefore, that the affected seamen

    cannot petition their employer for higher salaries during the 12 months duration of the contract runs counter toestablished principles of labor legislation. The National Labor Relations Commission, as the appellate tribunal fromdecisions of the National Seamen Board, correctly ruled that the seamen did not violate their contracts to warranttheir dismissal.

    The respondent Commission ruled: t.hqw

    In the light of all the foregoing facts, we find that the cable of the seamen proposing an increase intheir wage rates was not and could not have been intended as a threat to comp el the Company toaccede to their proposals. But even assuming, if only for the sake of argument, that the demand or proposal for a wage increase was accompanied by a threat that they would report to ITF if theCompany did not accede to the contract revision - although there really was no such threat as

    pointed out earlier the Seamen should not be held at fault for asking such a demand. In the samecase cited above, the Supreme Court held: t.hqw

    Petitioner claims that the dismissal of private respondents was justified because thelatter threatened the ship authorities in acceding to their demands, and thisconstitutes serious misconduct as contemplated by the Labor Code. This contentionis not well-taken. But even if there had been such a threat, respondents' behaviorshould not be censured because it is but natural for them to employ some means ofpressing their demands for petitioner, the refusal to abide with the terms of theSpecial Agreement, to honor and respect the same, They were only acting in theexercise of their rights, and to deprive them of their freedom of expression is contraryto law and public policy. There is no serious misconduct to speak of in the case atbar which would justify respondents' dismissal just because of their firmness in theirdemand for the fulfillment by petitioner of its obligation it entered into without anycoercion, specially on the part of private respondents. (Emphasis supplied).

    The above citation is from Wallem.

    The facts show that when the respondents boarded the M/T Jannu there was no intention to send their ship toAustralia. On January 10, 1979, the petitioner sent a cable to respondent shipmaster Bisula informing him of theprocedure to be followed in the computation of special compensation of crewmembers while in ITF controlled portsand expressed regrets for not having earlier clarified the procedure as it thought that the vessel would trade inCarribean ports only.

    On March 22, 1979, the petitioner sent another cable informing Bisula of the special compensation when the ship

    would call at Kwinana Australia.

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    5/24

    The following day, shipmaster Bisula cabled Vir-jen stating that the officers and crews were not interested in ITFmembership if not paid ITF rates and that their only demand was a 50 percent increase based on their then salaries.Bisula also pointed out that Vir-jen rates were "very far in comparison with other shipping agencies in Manila."

    In reply, Vir-jen counter proposed a 25 percent increase. Only after Kyoei Tanker Co., Ltd., declined to increase thelumps sum amount given monthly to Vir-jen was the decision to terminate the respondents' employment formulated.

    The facts show that Virjen Initiated the discussions which led to the demand for increased . The seamen made aproposal and the petitioner organized with a counter-proposal. The ship had not vet gone to Australia or any ITF

    controlled port. There was absolutely no mention of any strike. much less a threat to strike. The seamen had done inact which under Philippine law or any other civilized law would be termed illegal, oppressive, or malicious. Whateverpressure existed, it was mild compared to accepted valid modes of labor activity.

    We reiterate our ruling in Wallem.t.hqw

    Petitioner claims that the dismissal of private respondents was justified because thelatter threatened the ship authorities in acceding to their demands, and thisconstitutes serious misconduct as contemplated by the Labor Code. This contentionis not well-taken. The records fail to establish clearly the commission of any threat,But even if there had been such a threat, respondents' behavior should not becensured because it is but natural for them to employ some means of pressing their

    demands for petitioner, who refused to abide with the terms of the SpecialAgreement, to honor and respect the same, They were only acting in the exercise oftheir rights, and to deprive them of their form of expression is contrary to law andpublic policy. ...

    Our dismissing the petition is premised on the assumption that the Ministry of Labor and Employment and all itsagencies exist primarily for the workinginan's interests and, of course, the nation as a whole. The points raised bythe Solicitor-General in his comments refer to the issue of allowing what the petitioner importunes under theargument of "killing the hen which lays the golden eggs." This is one of policy which should perhaps be directed tothe Batasang Pambansa and to our country's other policy makers for more specific legislation on the matter, subjectto the constitutional provisions protecting labor, promoting social justice, and guaranteeing non-abridgement of thefreedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition. We agree with the movants that there is no showing ofany cause, which under the Labor Code or any current applicable law, would warrant the termination of therespondents' services before the expiration of their contracts. The Constitution guarantees State assurance of therights of workers to security of tenure. (Sec. 9, Article II, Constitution). Presumptions and provisions of law, theevidence on record, and fundamental State policy all dictate that the motions for reconsideration should be granted.

    WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are hereby GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.1wph1.t

    Fernando, C.J., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin and Relova, JJ., concur.

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    6/24

    , Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

    Manila

    FIRST DIVISION

    G.R. No. 141221-36 March 7, 2002

    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

    PUNO, J.:

    This is an appeal from the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Batangas City in Criminal Case Nos. 6428,6429, 6430, 6431, 6432, 6433, 6434, 6435, 6436, 6437, 6438, 6439, 6528, 6529, 6530 and 6531 finding accused-appellants, Spouses Karl Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez de Reichl guilty of five (5) counts of estafa and one (1) countof syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.1

    In April 1993, eight (8) informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and eight (8) informations forestafa 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.1wphi1.nt

    The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of private complainants; a certification from thePhilippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that Francisco Hernandez, Karl Reichl and YolandaGutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers foroverseas employment;2 the receipts for the payment made by private complainants; and two documents signed bythe Reichl spouses where they admitted that they promised to secure Austrian tourist visas for private complainantsand that they would return all the expenses incurred by them if they are not able to leave by March 24, 1993,3 andwhere Karl Reichl pledged to refund to private complainants the total sum of P1,388,924.00 representing the

    amounts they paid for the processing of their papers.4

    Private complainant Narcisa Hernandez, a teacher, was first to testify for the prosecution. She stated that FranciscoHernandez introduced her to the spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl at the residence of a certain Hilarion Matira atKumintang Ibaba, Batangas City. At the time, she also saw the other applicants Melanie Bautista, Estela Manalo,Edwin Coleng, Anicel Umahon, Analiza Perez and Maricel Matira. Karl and Yolanda Reichl told Narcisa that theycould find her a job as domestic helper in Italy. They, however, required her to pay the amount of P150,000.00 forthe processing of her papers and travel documents. She paid the fee in three installments. She paid the firstinstallment of P50,000.00 on July 14, 1992, the second installment of P25,000.00 on August 6, 1992 and the third inthe amount of P75,000.00 on December 27, 1992. She gave the money to Francisco Hernandez in the presence ofthe Reichl spouses at Matira's residence. Francisco Hernandez issued a receipt for the first and second installment5but not for the third. Narcisa was scheduled to leave on December 17, 1992 but was not able to do so. Karl Reichlexplained that she would get her transit visa to Italy in Austria, but she could not yet leave for Austria because thehotels were fully booked at that time because of the Christmas season. Narcisa's departure was again scheduled onJanuary 5, 1993, but it still did not push through. Narcisa stated that they went to Manila several times supposedly toobtain a visa from the Austrian Embassy and Karl Reichl assured her that she would be able to leave once she getsher visa. The accused set the departure of Narcisa and that of the other applicants several times but these proved tobe empty promises. In March 1993, the applicants met with the three accused at the residence of privatecomplainant Charito Balmes and asked them to refund the payment if they could not send them abroad. Themeeting resulted in an agreement which was reduced into writing and signed by Karl Reichl. Mr. Reichl promised toensure private complainants' departure by April, otherwise, they would return their payment.6

    Private complainant Leonora Perez also gave the following testimony: In July 1992, her sister, Analiza Perez,introduced her to Francisco Hernandez at their residence in Dolor Subdivision, Batangas City. Francisco Hernandezconvinced her to apply for a job in Italy. When she accepted the offer, Francisco Hernandez told her to prepare

    P150,000.00 for the processing of her papers. In August 1992, Leonora, together with her sister and FranciscoHernandez, went to Ramada Hotel in Manila to meet with Karl and Yolanda Reichl. At said meeting, Leonorahanded her payment of P50,000.00 to Yolanda Reichl. Yolanda assured her that she would be able to work in Italy.Francisco Hernandez and the Reichl spouses told Leonora to wait for about three weeks before she could leave.After three weeks, Francisco Hernandez invited Leonora and the other applicants to the house of Hilarion Matira inBatangas City to discuss some matters. Francisco Hernandez informed the applicants that their departure would bepostponed to December 17, 1992. December 17 came and the applicants were still unable to leave as it wasallegedly a holiday. Yolanda and Karl Reichl nonetheless assured Leonora of employment as domestic helper inItaly with a monthly salary of $1,000.00. Francisco Hernandez and the Reichl spouses promised the applicants thatthey would leave for Italy on January 5, 1993. Some time in January 1993, Francisco Hernandez went to theresidence of Leonora and collected the sum of P50,000.00 purportedly for the plane fare. Francisco issued a receiptfor the payment. When the applicants were not able to leave on the designated date, Francisco Hernandez and thespouses again made another promise. Tired of the recruiters' unfulfilled promises, the applicants decided to

    withdraw their application. However, Karl Reichl constantly assured them that they would land a job in Italy becausehe had connections in Vienna. The promised employment, however, never materialized. Thus, Karl Reichl signed adocument stating that he would refund the payment made by the applicants plus interest and other expenses. The

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    7/24

    document was executed and signed at the house of one of the applicants, Charito Balmes, at P. Zamora St.,Batangas City.7

    Janet Perez, Leonora's sister, corroborated the latter's testimony that she paid a total amount of P100,000.00 to thethree accused.8

    Private complainant Charito Balmes told a similar story when she testified before the court. She said that FranciscoHernandez convinced her to apply for the job of domestic helper in Italy and required her to pay a fee ofP150,000.00. He also asked her to prepare her passport and other papers to be used to secure a visa. On

    November 25, 1992, she gave P25,000.00 to Francisco Hernandez. They proceeded to Kumintang Ibaba, BatangasCity and Francisco Hernandez introduced her to his business partners, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. FranciscoHernandez turned over the payment to the spouses so that they could secure a visa for her. The Reichl spousespromised her an overseas job. They said she and the other applicants would leave on December 17, 1992. OnDecember 11, 1992, Charito paid the amount of P70,300.00 to Francisco Hernandez in the presence of the Reichls.Francisco Hernandez again handed the money to the spouses. On February 16, 1993, Charito paid P20,000.00 toFrancisco Hernandez who delivered the same to the spouses. Francisco Hernandez did not issue a receipt for thepayment made by Charito because he told her that he would not betray her trust. Like the other applicants, Charitowas not able to leave the country despite the numerous promises made by the accused. They gave various excusesfor their failure to depart, until finally the Reichls told the applicants that Karl Reichl had so many businesstransactions in the Philippines that they would not be able to send them abroad and that they would refund theirpayment instead. Hence, they executed an agreement which was signed by Karl Reichl and stating that they wouldreturn the amounts paid by the applicants. The accused, however, did not comply with their obligation.9

    Mrs. Elemenita Bautista, the mother of private complainant Melanie Bautista, also took the witness stand. Shestated that in May 1992, Melanie applied for an overseas job through Francisco Hernandez. Francisco Hernandeztold her to prepare P150,000.00 to be used for the processing of her papers and plane ticket. On June 26, 1992,Melanie made the initial payment of P50,000.00 to Francisco Hernandez who was then accompanied by Karl andYolanda Reichl.10 Upon receipt of the payment, Francisco Hernandez gave the money to Yolanda Reichl. Melaniemade two other payments: one on August 6, 1992 in the amount of P25,000.00,11 and another on January 3, 1993 inthe amount of P51,000.00.12 Three receipts were issued for the payments.13

    Rustico Manalo, the husband of private complainant Estela Abel de Manalo, testified that his wife applied for the jobof domestic helper abroad. In June 1992, Francisco Hernandez introduced them to Karl and Yolanda Reichl whowere allegedly sending workers to Italy. Rustico and his wife prepared all the relevant documents, i.e., passport,

    police clearance and marriage contract, and paid a total placement fee of P130,000.00.14 They paid P50,000.00 onJune 5, 1992, P25,000.00 on August 8, 1992, and P55,000.00 on January 3, 1993. The payments were made at thehouse of Hilarion Matira and were received by Francisco Hernandez who, in turn, remitted them to the Reichlspouses. Francisco Hernandez issued a receipt for the payment. The Reichls promised to take care of Estela'spapers and to secure a job for her abroad. The Reichls vowed to return the payment if they fail on their promise. Aswith the other applicants, Estela was also not able to leave the country.15

    The defense interposed denial and alibi.

    Accused-appellant Karl Reichl, an Austrian citizen, claimed that he entered the Philippines on July 29, 1992. Prior tothis date, he was in various places in Europe. He came to the country on July 29, 1992 to explore businessopportunities in connection with the import and export of beer and sugar. He also planned to establish a tourist spot

    somewhere in Batangas. Upon his arrival, he and his wife, Yolanda Reichl, stayed at the Manila IntercontinentalHotel. On August 3, 1992, they moved to Manila Midtown Hotel. They stayed there until August 26, 1992. After theyleft Manila Midtown Hotel, they went to another hotel in Quezon City. Karl Reichl returned to Vienna on September19, 1992.16

    Mr. Reichl stated that he first met Francisco Hernandez through a certain Jimmy Pineda around August 1992 atManila Midtown Hotel. Francisco Hernandez was allegedly looking for a European equipment to be used for thequarrying operation of his friend. Before accepting the deal, he made some research on the background of theintended business. Realizing that said business would not be viable, Karl Reichl advised Francisco Hernandez toinstead look for a second-hand equipment from Taiwan or Japan. He never saw Francisco Hernandez again until heleft for Vienna in September 1992.17

    Karl Reichl returned to the Philippines on October 21, 1992. Francisco Hernandez allegedly approached him andsought his help in securing Austrian visas purportedly for his relatives. Karl Reichl refused and told him that he wasplanning to stay permanently in the Philippines. On one occasion, Francisco Hernandez invited him to an excursionat Sombrero Island. Francisco Hernandez told him that he would also bring some of his relatives with him and hewould introduce him to them. There he met Narcisa Hernandez and Leonora Perez. Leonora Perez, together withFrancisco Hernandez, later went to see Mr. Reichl at the house of his in-laws at No. 4 Buenafe Road, Batangas Cityand asked him if he could help her obtain an Austrian visa. Karl Reichl, however, was firm on his refusal.18

    In his testimony before the trial court, Karl Reichl denied any knowledge about Francisco Hernandez's recruitmentactivities. He said that Francisco Hernandez merely told him that he wanted to help his relatives go to Europe. Hefurther denied that he promised private complainants that he would give them overseas employment.19 As regardsthe document where Mr. Reichl undertook to pay P1,388,924.00 to private complainants, he claimed that he signedsaid document under duress. Francisco Hernandez allegedly told him that private complainants would harm him and

    his family if he refused to sign it. He signed the document as he felt he had no other option.20

    Yolanda Gutierrez de Reichl corroborated the testimony of her husband and denied the charges against her. Sheclaimed that she was in Manila on the dates alleged in the various informations, thus, she could not have committed

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    8/24

    the acts charged therein. Yolanda Reichl further stated that she did not know of any reason why privatecomplainants filed these cases against her and her husband. She said that several persons were harassing her andpressuring her to pay private complainants the sum of at least P50,000.00.21

    After assessing the evidence presented by the parties, the trial court rendered a decision convicting accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegal recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa. The dispositive portion ofthe decision reads:

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused spouses KARL REICHL and YOLANDA

    GUTIERREZ REICHL -

    1. NOT GUILTY of the crime of syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment as charged in theabove-mentioned Criminal Cases Nos. 6435, 6437 and 6529;

    2. NOT GUILTY of the crime of estafa as charged in the above-mentioned Criminal Cases Nos.6434, 6436 and 6528;

    3. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment,as charged, in the above-mentioned Criminal Cases Nos. 6429, 6431, 6433, 6439 and 6531;

    4. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa, as charged, in the above-mentioned

    Criminal Cases Nos. 6428, 6430, 6432, 6438 and 6530.

    The Court hereby imposes upon the accused-spouses KARL REICHL and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ REICHL thefollowing sentences:

    1. For the 5 offenses, collectively, of syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment in Criminal Cases Nos.6429, 6431, 6433, 6438 and 6531, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of OneHundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);

    2. In Criminal Case No. 6428, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, to suffer theindeterminate sentence of Six (6) Years of prision correctional, as minimum to Sixteen (16) Years ofreclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Narcisa Hernandez in the amount of

    P150,000.00;

    3. In Criminal Case No. 6430, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, to suffer theindeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correctional as minimum to eleven (11) years of prisionmayor, as maximum and to indemnify the complainant Leonora Perez in the amount of P100,000.00;

    4. In Criminal Case No. 6432, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, to suffer theindeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correctional as minimum to sixteen (16) years of reclusiontemporal, as maximum and to indemnify the complainant Melanie Bautista in the amount of P150,000.00;

    5. In Criminal Case No. 6438, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, to suffer theindeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correctional as minimum to fourteen (14) years of reclusion

    temporal as maximum and to indemnify the complainant Estela Abel de Manalo in the amount ofP130,000.00;

    6. In Criminal Case No. 6530, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, to suffer theindeterminate sentence of six (6) years or prision correctional as minimum to thirteen (13) years of reclusiontemporal as maximum and to indemnify the complainant Charito Balmes in the amount of P121,300.00; and

    7. To pay the costs.

    SO ORDERED."

    Accused-appellants appealed from the decision of the trial court. They raise the following errors:

    "1. The trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Karl Reichl guilty of the crimes of estafa and illegalrecruitment committed by syndicate and in large scale based on the evidence presented by the prosecutionwhich miserably failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    2. The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of illegal recruitment on a large scaleby cummulating five separate cases of illegal recruitment each filed by a single private complainant.

    3. The trial court erred in rendering as a matter of course an automatic guilty verdict against accused-appellant for the crime of estafa after a guilty verdict in a separate crime for illegal recruitment. It issubmitted that conviction in the latter crime does not ipso facto result in conviction in the former."22

    The appeal is bereft of merit.

    Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as "any recruitment activities, including the prohibitedpractices enumerated under Article 34 of (the Labor Code), to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders ofauthority." The term "recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    9/24

    utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including 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 orpromises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.23The law imposes a higher penalty when the illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale as theyare considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate ifcarried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying outany unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed againstthree (3) or more persons individually or as a group.24

    In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants engaged inactivities that fall within the definition of recruitment and placement under the Labor Code. The evidence on recordshows that they promised overseas employment to private complainants and required them to prepare thenecessary documents and to pay the placement fee, although they did not have any license to do so. There is illegalrecruitment when one who does not possess the necessary authority or license gives the impression of having theability to send a worker abroad.25

    Accused-appellants assert that they merely undertook to secure Austrian visas for private complainants, which actdid not constitute illegal recruitment. They cite the document marked at Exhibit "J" stating that they promised toobtain Austrian tourist visas for private complainants. We are not convinced. Private complainants NarcisaHernandez, Leonora Perez and Charito Balmes categorically stated that Karl and Yolanda Reichl told them that theywould provide them overseas employment and promised them that they would be able to leave the country on aspecified date. We do not see any reason to doubt the truthfulness of their testimony. The defense has not shownany ill motive for these witnesses to falsely testify against accused-appellants if it were not true that they met withthe Reichl spouses and the latter represented themselves to have the capacity to secure gainful employment forthem abroad. The minor lapses in the testimony of these witnesses pointed out by accused-appellants in their briefdo not impair their credibility, especially since they corroborate each other on the material points, i.e., that they metwith the three accused several times, that the three accused promised to give them overseas employment, and thatthey paid the corresponding placement fee but were not able to leave the country. It has been held that truth-tellingwitnesses are not always expected to give error-free testimonies considering the lapse of time and the treachery ofhuman memory.26 Moreover, it was shown that Karl Reichl signed a document marked as Exhibit "C" where hepromised to refund the payments given by private complainants for the processing of their papers. We are notinclined to believe Mr. Reichl's claim that he was forced by Francisco Hernandez to sign said document. There is noshowing, whether in his testimony or in that of his wife, that private complainants threatened to harm them if he didnot sign the document. Mr. Reichl is an educated man and it cannot be said that he did not understand the contents

    of the paper he was signing. When he affixed his signature thereon, he in effect acknowledged his obligation toensure the departure of private complainants and to provide them gainful employment abroad. Such obligationarose from the promise of overseas placement made by him and his co-accused to private complainants. Theadmission made by accused-appellants in Exhibit "J" that they promised to obtain Austrian visas for privatecomplainants does not negate the fact that they also promised to procure for them overseas employment. In fact, inExhibit "J", accused-appellants admitted that each of the private complainants paid the amount of P50,000.00.However, in Exhibit "C", which was executed on a later date, accused-appellants promised to refund to eachcomplainant an amount exceeding P150,000.00. This is an acknowledgment that accused-appellants receivedpayments from the complainants not only for securing visas but also for their placement abroad.

    Accused-appellants' defense of denial and alibi fail to impress us. The acts of recruitment were committed fromJune 1992 until January 1993 in Batangas City. Karl Reichl was in Manila from July 29, 1992 until September 19,1992, and then he returned to the Philippines and stayed in Batangas from October 21, 1992. Yolanda Reichl, onthe other hand, claimed that he was in Manila on the dates alleged in the various informations. It is of judicial noticethat Batangas City is only a few hours' drive from Manila. Thus, even if the spouses were staying in Manila, it doesnot prevent them from going to Batangas to engage in their recruitment business. Furthermore, it appears that thethree accused worked as a team and they conspired and cooperated with each other in recruiting domestic helperspurportedly to be sent to Italy. Francisco Hernandez introduced Karl and Yolanda Reichl to the job applicants as hisbusiness partners. Karl and Yolanda Reichl themselves gave assurances to private complainants that they wouldseek employment for them in Italy. Francisco Hernandez remitted the payments given by the applicants to theReichl spouses and the latter undertook to process the applicants' papers. There being conspiracy, each of theaccused shall be equally liable for the acts of his co-accused even if he himself did not personally take part in itsexecution.

    Accused-appellants argue that the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants of illegal recruitment in large

    scale by cummulating the individual informations filed by private complainants. The eight informations for illegalrecruitment are worded as follows:

    Criminal Case No. 6429

    "That on or about July 14, 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. KumintangIbaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department ofLabor and Employment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together,did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment andplacement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one Narcisa Autorde Hernandez and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which said NarcisaAutor de Hernandez relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONE HUNDREDFIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which acts constitute aviolation of the said law.

    Contrary to Law."

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    10/24

    Criminal Case No. 6431

    "That on or about July 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Dolor Subdivision, BatangasCity, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fullywell that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department of Labor and Employment orany other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together, did then and there, wilfully,unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment and placement activities byenlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one Leonora Perez y Atienza and tomore than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which said Leonora Perez y Atienza

    relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND(P100,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which acts constitute a violation of the saidlaw.

    Contrary to Law."

    Criminal Case No. 6433

    "That on or about June 26, 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. KumintangIbaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department ofLabor and Employment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together,

    did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment andplacement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one MelanieBautista y Dolor and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which saidMelanie Bautista y Dolor relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONEHUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which actsconstitute a violation of the said law.1wphi1.nt

    Contrary to Law."

    Criminal Case No. 6435

    "That on or about July 12, 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang

    Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department ofLabor and Employment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together,did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment andplacement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one AnnalizaPerez y Atienza and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which saidAnnaliza Perez y Atienza relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONEHUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND (P160,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which actsconstitute a violation of the said law.

    Contrary to Law.

    Criminal Case No. 6437

    "That on or about August 15, 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. KumintangIbaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department ofLabor and Employment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together,did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment andplacement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one Edwin Colingy Coling and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which said Edwin Colingy Coling relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTYTHOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which acts constitute a violationof the said law.

    Contrary to Law."

    Criminal Case No. 6439

    "That on or about June 5, 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. KumintangIbaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department ofLabor and Employment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together,did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment andplacement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one Estela Abelde Manalo and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which said Estela Abelde Manalo relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY

    THOUSAND (P130,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which acts constitute a violationof the said law.

    Contrary to Law."

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    11/24

    Criminal Case No. 6529

    "That on or about July 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at Brgy. Sta. Rita Karsada,Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department of Labor andEmployment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together, did then andthere, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment and placementactivities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one Anicel Umahon yDelgado and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which said Anicel

    Umahon y Delgado relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONE HUNDREDTHIRTY THOUSAND (P130,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which acts constitute aviolation of the said law.

    Contrary to Law."

    Criminal Case No. 6531

    "That on or about November 25, 1992 and sometime prior and subsequent thereto at No. 40 P. ZamoraStreet, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, knowing fully well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the Department ofLabor and Employment or any other authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating together,

    did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment andplacement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, offering and promising for a fee to one CharitoBalmes y Cantos and to more than three other persons, job placement abroad, by reason of which saidCharito Balmes y Cantos relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the amount of ONEHUNDRED TWENTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P121,300.00), Philippine Currency, tosaid accused, which acts constitute a violation of the said law.

    Contrary to Law."

    We note that each information was filed by only one complainant. We agree with accused-appellants that they couldnot be convicted for illegal recruitment committed in large scale based on several informations filed by only onecomplainant. The Court held in People vs. Reyes:27

    "x x x When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment 'committed against three (3) or more personsindividually or as a group,' it must be understood as referring to the number of complainants in each casewho are complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment can becummulated to make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a conviction for large scaleillegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more personswhether individually or as a group."28

    This, however, does not serve to lower the penalty imposed upon accused-appellants. The charge was not only forillegal recruitment committed in large scale but also for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. Illegalrecruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiringand/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or schemedefined 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 joband giving them the guaranty that they would be hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensedto do so. Thus, we hold that accused-appellants should be held liable for illegal recruitment committed by asyndicate which is also punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)under Article 39 of the Labor Code.

    Finally, we hold that the prosecution also proved the guilt of accused-appellants for the crime of estafa. A personwho is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the RevisedPenal Code provided the elements of estafa are present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the RevisedPenal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends topossess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by meansof similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The offended party must

    have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a resultthereof, the offended party suffered damages.29 It has been proved in this case that accused-appellants representedthemselves to private complainants to have the capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy, although they did nothave any authority or license. It is by this representation that they induced private complainants to pay a placementfee of P150,000.00. Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

    Cost against appellants.

    SO ORDERED.

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    12/24

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZ, and CLODUALDODE LA CRUZ, accused.

    ROMULO SAULO, accused-appellant.

    D E C I S I O N

    GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

    Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were charged with violation of Article38 (b) of the Labor Code[1] for illegal recruitment in large scale in an information which states

    CRIM. CASE NO. Q-91-21911

    The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZ andCLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ, of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE (ART. 38(b) inrelation to Art. 39(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended by P.D. No. 2018, committed as follows:

    That on or about the period comprised from April 1990 to May 1990 in Quezon City, Philippines, and withinthe jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with andmutually helping one another, by falsely representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist andrecruit workers for employment abroad, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruitand promise employment/job placement abroad to LEODEGARIO MAULLON, BENY MALIGAYA and

    ANGELES JAVIER, without first securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor andEmployment, in violation of said law.

    That the crime described above is committed in large scale as the same was perpetrated against three (3)persons individually or as [a] group penalized under Articles 38 and 39 as amended by PD 2018 of the LaborCode (P.D. 442).

    CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]

    In addition, accused were charged with three counts of estafa (Criminal Case Nos. Q-91-21908,Q-91-21909 and Q-91-21910). Except for the names of the complainants, the dates of commission ofthe crime charged, and the amounts involved, the informations [3] were identical in their allegations

    CRIM. CASE NO. Q-91-21908

    The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZ ANDCLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ of the crime of ESTAFA (Art. 315, par. 2 (a) RPC), committed as follows:

    That on or about the period comprised from April 1990 to May 1990, in Quezon City, Philippines, andwithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederatingwith and mutually helping one another, with intent of gain, by means of false pretenses and/or fraudulent actsexecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfullyand feloniously defraud one BENY MALIGAYA, in the following manner, to wit: on the date and in the placeaforementioned, accused falsely pretended to the offended party that they had connection and capacity todeploy workers for overseas employment and that they could secure employment/placement for said BenyMaligaya and believing said misrepresentations, the offended party was later induced to give accused, as infact she did give the total amount of P35,000.00, Philippine Currency, and once in possession of the saidamount and far from complying with their commitment and despite repeated demands made upon them toreturn said amount, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to defraud,misappropriate, misapply and convert the same to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage andprejudice of said offended party in the aforementioned amount and in such amount as may be awarded underthe provisions of the Civil Code.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.Meanwhile accused Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz have remained at large.

    During trial, the prosecution sought to prove the following material facts and circumstancessurrounding the commission of the crimes:

    Benny Maligaya, having learned from a relative of accused-appellant that the latter was recruitingworkers for Taiwan, went to accused-appellants house in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City,together with Angeles Javier and Amelia de la Cruz, in order to discuss her chances for overseas

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    13/24

    employment. During that meeting which took place sometime in April or May, 1990, accused-appellant told Maligaya that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she gaveaccused-appellant the fees for the processing of her documents. Sometime in May, 1990, Maligayaalso met with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz at their house in Baesa, Quezon City andthey assured her that they were authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration(POEA) to recruit workers for Taiwan. Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz theamount of P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a receipt dated May 21, 1990 signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz (Exhibit A in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21908). Seeing that he had

    reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint against accused-appellantwith the POEA.[4]

    Angeles Javier, a widow and relative by affinity of accused-appellant, was told by Ligaya,accused-appellants wife, to apply for work abroad through accused-appellant. At a meeting inaccused-appellants Quezon City residence, Javier was told by accused -appellant that he could gether a job in Taiwan as a factory worker and that she should give him P35,000.00 for purposes ofpreparing Javiers passport. Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-appellant, butshe did not ask for a receipt as she trusted him. As the overseas employment never materialized,Javier was prompted to bring the matter before the POEA.[5]

    On April 19, 1990, Leodigario Maullon, upon the invitation of his neighbor Araceli Sanchez, went

    to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for gaining employment abroad. As inthe case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant assured Maullon that he could secure him a jobas a factory worker in Taiwan if he paid him P30,000.00 for the processing of his papers. Maullonpaid P7,900.00 to accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt dated April 21, 1990 (Exhibit A inCrim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Thereafter, Maullon paid an additional amount of P6,800.00 in thepresence of accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz, which payment is also evidenced by a receiptdated April 25, 1990 (Exhibit B in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Finally, Maullon paid P15,700.00 to acertain Loreta Tumalig, a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt dated September 14,1990 (Exhibit C in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on thepromised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint with the POEA. [6]

    The prosecution also presented a certification dated July 26, 1994 issued by the POEA statingthat accused are not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment (Exhibit A in Crim. CaseNo. Q-91-21911).[7]

    In his defense, accused-appellant claimed that he was also applying with Amelia de la Cruz foroverseas employment. He asserts that it was for this reason that he met all three complainants asthey all went together to Amelia de la Cruz house in Novaliches, Quezon City sometime in May, 1990in order to follow up their applications. Accused-appellant flatly denied that he was an overseasemployment recruiter or that he was working as an agent for one. He also denied having receivedany money from any of the complainants or having signed any of the receipts introduced by theprosecution in evidence. It is accused-appellants contention that the complainants were prevailedupon by accused-appellants mother-in-law, with whom he had a misunderstanding, to file the present

    cases against him.[8]

    The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of three counts of estafa and of illegal recruitment inlarge scale.

    WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Romulo Saulo:

    A. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21908, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315,paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances,and this Court hereby sentences the accused Romulo Saulo to suffer the indeterminate penalty ofimprisonment of three (3) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to seven(7) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Beny Maligaya inthe amount of P35,000.00, with interest thereon at 12% per annum until the said amount is fully paid, with

    costs against the said accused.B. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21909, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315,

    paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances,and this Court hereby sentences the accused Romulo Saulo to suffer the indeterminate penalty ofimprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6)years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Angeles Javier in theamount of P20,000.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum until the said amount is fully paid, with costsagainst said accused.

    C. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21910, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315,paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances,and this Court hereby sentences the accused Romulo Saulo to suffer the indeterminate penalty of

    imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6)years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Leodigario Maullon inthe amount of P30,400.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum until the said amount is fully paid, with costsagainst said accused.

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    14/24

    D. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scaleas defined and punished under Article 38 (b) in relation to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines asamended, and this Court sentences the accused Romulo Saulo to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and topay a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

    Being a detention prisoner, the accused Romulo Saulo shall be entitled to the benefits of Article 29 of theRevised Penal Code as amended.

    SO ORDERED.[9]

    HENCE THIS PETITION

    ISSUE: THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE

    The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal.

    The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38 (b) of the LaborCode and penalized under Art. 39 of the same Code, are as follows:

    (1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article 13 (b) or inany prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;

    (2) 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, whetherlocally or overseas; and

    (3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[10]

    Under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing,enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals,contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not;Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment totwo or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

    After a careful and circumspect review of the records, the Court finds that the trial court was

    justified in holding that accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful recruitment and placementactivities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant promised the threecomplainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan asfactory workers and that he asked them for money in order to process their papers and procure theirpassports. Relying completely upon such representations, complainants entrusted their hard-earnedmoney to accused-appellant in exchange for what they would later discover to be a vain hope ofobtaining employment abroad. It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized[11] norlicensed[12] by the Department of Labor and Employment to engage in recruitment and placementactivities. The absence of the necessary license or authority renders all of accused-appellantsrecruitment activities criminal.

    Accused-appellant interposes a denial in his defense, claiming that he never received any moneyfrom the complainants nor processed their papers. Instead, accused-appellant insists that he wasmerely a co-applicant of the complainants and similarly deceived by the schemes of Amelia andClodualdo de la Cruz. He contends that the fact that Benny Maligaya and Angleles Javier went to thehouse of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz in Novaliches, Quezon City, to get back their money andto follow-up their application proves that complainants knew that it was the de la Cruz who receivedthe processing fees, and not accused-appellant. Further, accused-appellant argues thatcomplainants could not have honestly believed that he could get them their passports since they didnot give him any of the necessary documents, such as their birth certificate, baptismal certificate, NBIclearance, and marriage contract.

    Accused-appellants asseverations are self-serving and uncorroborated by clear and convincing

    evidence. They cannot stand against the straightforward and explicit testimonies of the complainants,who have identified accused-appellant as the person who enticed them to part with their money uponhis representation that he had the capability of obtaining employment for them abroad. In the absenceof any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial courtsassessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court. [13]

    The fact that accused-appellant did not sign all the receipts issued to complainants does notweaken the case of the prosecution. A person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted onthe strength of the testimonies of the complainants, if found to be credible and convincing. [14] Theabsence of receipts to evidence payment does not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is notnecessarily fatal to the prosecutions cause.[15]

    Accused-appellant contends that he could not have committed the crime of illegal recruitment inlarge scale since Nancy Avelino, a labor and employment officer at the POEA, testified that licensesfor recruitment and placement are issued only to corporations and not to natural persons. Thisargument is specious and illogical. The Labor Code states that any person or entity which, in any

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    15/24

    manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged inrecruitment and placement.[16] Corrolarily, a nonlicensee or nonholder of authority is any person,corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitmentand placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended,revoked, or canceled by the POEA or the Secretary. [17] It also bears stressing that agents orrepresentatives appointed by a licensee or a holder of authority but whose appointments are notpreviously authorized by the POEA fall within the meaning of the term nonlicenseeor nonholder ofauthority.[18] Thus, any person, whether natural or juridical, that engages in recruitment activities

    without the necessary license or authority shall be penalized under Art. 39 of the Labor Code.

    It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegalrecruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereasestafa is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for convictionin the former, but is required in the latter.[19]

    The elements of estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2 (a), of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) thatthe accused has defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by deceit, and (2) that damage orprejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. [20]The trialcourt was correct in holding accused-appellant liable for estafa in the case at bench . Owing toaccused-appellants false assurances that he could provide them with work in another country,

    complainants parted with their money, to their damage and prejudice, since the promisedemployment never materialized.

    Under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the crime of estafa is as follows:

    1st. The penalty of prision correccionalin its maximum period to prision mayorin its minimum period, if theamount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds thelatter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year foreach additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. Insuch cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of thisCode, the penalty shall be termed prision mayoror reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

    xxx xxx xxx

    Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be that which, inview of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, andthe minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense.Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is prisioncorreccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower in degree is prisioncorreccionalminimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should beanywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.

    In fixing the maximum term, the prescribed penalty of prision correccionalmaximum to prisionmayorminimum should be divided into three equal portions of time, each of which portion shall bedeemed to form one period, as follows

    Minimum Period : From 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days

    Medium Period : From 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days

    Maximum Period : From 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years

    pursuant to Article 65, in relation to Article 64, of the Revised Penal Code.

    When the amounts involved in the offense exceeds P22,000, the penalty prescribed in Article 315of the Revised Penal Code shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for eachadditional P10,000.00, although the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20)years.[21]

    Accordingly, the following penalties shall be imposed upon accused-appellant:In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21908 where accused-appellant defrauded Benny Maligaya in the

    amount of P35,000.00, one year for the additional amount of P13,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00provided for in Article 315 shall be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prisioncorreccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. Thus, accused-appellant shall suffer theindeterminate penalty of four (4) years, and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, asminimum to nine (9) years of prision mayoras maximum.[22] Accused-appellant shall also pay BennyMaligaya P35,000.00 by way of actual damages.

    In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21909 where accused-appellant defrauded Angeles Javier in theamount of P20,000.00, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight

    (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum to five (5) years, five (5)months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum. Accused-appellant shall also payAngeles Javier P20,000.00 by way of actual damages.

    In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21910where accused-appellant defrauded Leodigario Maullon in the

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    16/24

    amount of P30,400.00, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years andtwo (2) months of prision correccionalmedium, as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, asmaximum.[23] Accused-appellant shall also pay Leodigario Maullon P30,400.00 by way of actualdamages.

    In addition, for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911) andpursuant to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, accused-appellant shall suffer the penalty of lifeimprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

    WHEREFORE, the March 6, 1996 Decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guiltybeyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa is herebyAFFIRMED subject to the following modifications:

    In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21908 where accused-appellant defrauded Benny Maligaya in theamount of P35,000.00, one year for the additional amount of P13,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00provided for in Article 315 shall be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prisioncorreccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. Thus, accused-appellant shall suffer theindeterminate penalty of four (4) years, and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, asminimum to nine (9) years of prision mayoras maximum. Accused-appellant shall also pay BennyMaligaya P35,000.00 by way of actual damages.

    In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21909 where accused-appellant defrauded Angeles Javier in theamount of P20,000.00, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight(8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum to five (5) years, five (5)months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum. Accused-appellant shall also payAngeles Javier P20,000.00 by way of actual damages.

    In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21910where accused-appellant defrauded Leodigario Maullon in theamount of P30,400.00, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years andtwo (2) months of prision correccionalmedium, as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, asmaximum. Accused-appellant shall also pay Leodigario Maullon P30,400.00 by way of actualdamages.

    In addition, for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911) andpursuant to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, accused-appellant shall suffer the penalty of lifeimprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

    Costs against accused-appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    17/24

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 124671-75. September 29, 2000]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LINDA SAGAYDO, accused-appellant.

    D E C I S I O N

    PARDO, J.:

    The case is an appeal from the decision [1] of the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 59convicting accused Linda Sagaydo of illegal recruitment in large scale and of four (4) cases of estafa,and sentencing her as follows:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered -

    (1) In Criminal Case No. 10838-R, finding the accused LINDA SAGAYDO GUILTY beyond reasonable

    doubt of violation of Article 38(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended by P.D. 1920 and furtheramended by P.D. 2018, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay afine of P100,000.00;

    (2) In Criminal Case No. 10839-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime of Estafa and she is herebysentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9)years of prision mayor as maximum;

    (3) In Criminal Case No. 10840-R, finding the accused guilty of the crime of Estafa and she is herebysentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to six (6)years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum;

    (4) In Criminal Case No. 10841-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime of Estafa and she is herebysentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9)

    years of prision mayor as maximum; and

    (5) In Criminal Case No. 10837-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime of Estafa and she is herebysentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9)years of prision mayor as maximum.

    The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant Rogelio Tibeb the amount P39,000.00;Jessie Bolinao, the amount of P35,000.00; Gina Cleto, P15,000.00; and Naty Pita the amount of P38,500.00.

    SO ORDERED.[2]

    On December 15, 1992, Baguio City Prosecutor II Estrellita P. Bernabe filed with the RegionalTrial Court, Baguio City, Branch 59, separate informations charging accused Linda Sagaydo with one

    (1) case of illegal recruitment in large scale, and four (4) cases of estafa.[3]

    Upon arraignment on August 18, 1993, accused pleaded not guilty to all the five (5) chargesagainst her.[4] Thus, trial ensued.

    The complainants recounted their respective experience with accused Linda Sagaydo in thiswise:

    Gina Cleto, an AB Political Science graduate and community worker residing in No. 19-ASumulong St., Holy Ghost Proper, Baguio City testified[5] that she knew the accused for almost a yearas the latter also resided at Sumulong Street. Sometime in September, 1991, the accused went toGinas house and encouraged her to work as a factory worker in Korea. Gina said she had to think itover first since she went back and forth to Tabuk and Baguio City. She and the accused met again in

    the house of the former in December, 1991, where the accused reiterated her offer of employment toGina. When Gina asked her whether she was a licensed recruiter, and accused answered in theaffirmative. Accused told Gina that she could not have the latters travel papers and passportprocessed unless she gave an advance payment of P15,000.00.

    Gina then went to San Gabriel, La Union to get the P15,000.00 required by the accused . Theymet again in the house of Gina in the last week of December, 1991, where she handed theP15,000.00 to the accused who assured Gina that she was leaving for Korea on January 6, 1992,provided Gina paid her the remaining balance of P30,000.00.

    Gina then went to Lepanto to ask for money from her brother and sister. She returned to BaguioCity on January 2, 1992, with P28,000.00 on hand. Gina and the accused met on January 5, 1992,

    where the latter informed her that her flight for Korea on January 6, 1992, was postponed. Accusedthen advised Gina to just hold the P30,000.00 balance until her flight pushed through.

    About three (3) months later, or in April, 1992, Gina met the accused in Sumulong Street. Gina

  • 8/4/2019 Labor Code Juris

    18/24

    demanded from the accused the return of P15,000.00 advance payment she had given her, but theaccused just answered that she would process her papers.

    The next time they met was in November, 1992, where Gina again asked the accused to returnthe P15,000.00, to no avail. This prompted Gina to go to the Philippine Overseas EmploymentAgency (POEA) regional office in Baguio City to inquire whether the accused was a licensed recruiter.The POEA issued a certification dated November 25, 1992 [6] stating that the accused was notlicensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the City of Baguio or any part

    of the region.Rogelio Tibeb, a farmer and resident of San Gabriel, La Union, testified[7] that he was informed by

    his townmate Domaan Samanillo that the accused was engaged in recruitment. Sometime inDecember, 1991, Rogelio went to the residence of accused to inquire on the requirements foroverseas employment. Accused replied that he needed to submit his 2 x 2 pictures and a passport.The accused then told him to secure P39,000.00 as placement fee. In the last week of December,1991, Rogelio handed the P39,000.00 to the accused who told him to go home and wait for the dateof his flight. Accused did not issue a receipt.

    Rogelio waited for months but his flight never pushed through. He then went to the Baguio POEAoffice with his co-complainants Jessie Bolinao and Naty Pita where they found out that the accused

    was not a licensed recruiter, per certification dated Novemb