Você está na página 1de 5

G.R. No.



Susan Navarro invited Teodulo dela Cruz, Billy dela Cruz, Jr., Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, Rogelio Enriquez, and ary Bustillos and several individuals to !er !ouse in Bula"an, Bula"an to "ele#rate t!e town $iesta. Teresita %Tessie& Laogo, t!e proprietor and 'anager o$ Laogo Travel Consultan"y, was a'ong t!e several guests in Susan(s !ouse during t!e said o""asion. During t!e $iesta, ary introdu"ed Teodulo to Susan as so'e#ody w!o "ould !elp !i' $ind wor) a#road. Sin"e Susan was ary(s aunt, Teodulo i''ediately trusted Susan. Susan told !i' !e "an apply as assistant "oo) and "an wor) in ua', *S+. *pon Susan(s instru"tion, t!ey $illed out an appli"ation $or' and gave several a'ounts o$ 'oney. ,ont!s later, w!en Susan(s pro'ise to send !i' a#road re'ained un$ul$illed, Teodulo, along wit! several ot!er appli"ants, went to Tessie(s o$$i"e and to Susan(s !ouse to $ollow up t!eir appli"ation, #ut t!e two always told t!e' t!at t!eir visas !ave yet to #e released. ,ont!s passed #ut Rogelio !eard not!ing $ro' eit!er Susan or Tessie. +ppre!ensive, Rogelio veri$ied t!e status o$ t!e Laogo Travel Consultan"y wit! t!e -!ilippine .verseas E'ploy'ent +d'inistration /-.E+0. 1ro' t!e -.E+, Rogelio learned t!at Susan, Tessie, and Laogo Travel Consultan"y did not !ave any li"ense to re"ruit wor)ers $or e'ploy'ent a#road. +ggrieved, Rogelio, toget!er wit! !is si2 "o'panions, $iled a "o'plaint against Susan and Tessie.


T!e respondent "o''itted a large s"ale illegal re"ruit'ent.

3as large s"ale illegal re"ruit'ent "o''itted4

5ES. Re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent re$ers to t!e a"t o$ "anvassing, enlisting, "ontra"ting, transporting, utilizing, !iring or pro"uring wor)ers, and in"ludes re$errals, "ontra"t servi"es, pro'ising or advertising $or e'ploy'ent, lo"ally or a#road, w!et!er $or pro$it or not. 3!en a person or entity, in any 'anner, o$$ers or pro'ises $or a $ee e'ploy'ent to two or 'ore persons, t!at person or entity s!all #e dee'ed engaged in re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent. +rti"le 67/a0 o$ t!e La#or Code, as a'ended, spe"i$ies t!at re"ruit'ent a"tivities underta)en #y non8li"ensees or non8!olders o$ aut!ority are dee'ed illegal and punis!a#le #y law. +nd w!en t!e illegal re"ruit'ent is "o''itted against t!ree or 'ore persons, individually or as a group, t!en it is dee'ed "o''itted in large s"ale and "arries wit! it sti$$er penalties as t!e sa'e is dee'ed a $or' o$ e"ono'i" sa#otage. But to prove illegal re"ruit'ent, it 'ust #e s!own t!at t!e a""used, wit!out #eing duly aut!orized #y law, gave "o'plainants t!e distin"t i'pression t!at !e !ad t!e power or a#ility to send t!e' a#road $or wor), su"! t!at t!e latter were "onvin"ed to part wit! t!eir 'oney in order

to #e e'ployed. 9t is i'portant t!at t!ere 'ust at least #e a pro'ise or o$$er o$ an e'ploy'ent $ro' t!e person posing as a re"ruiter, w!et!er lo"ally or a#road. 9n t!is "ase, Teodulo, Billy, Dante, Edwin, and Rogelio were pro'ised to #e sent a#road #y Susan and Tessie as "oo)s and assistant "oo)s. T!e $ollow up transa"tions #etween Tessie and t!e $ive persons were done inside t!e said travel agen"y. ,oreover, all $our re"eipts issued to t!e said persons #ear t!e na'e and logo o$ Laogo Travel Consultan"y, wit! two o$ t!e said re"eipts personally signed #y Tessie !ersel$. Tessie and Susan "ould t!us #e said to !ave a"ted toget!er in 'a)ing t!e' #elieve t!at t!ey were transa"ting wit! a legiti'ate re"ruit'ent agen"y and t!at Laogo Travel Consultan"y !ad t!e aut!ority to re"ruit t!e' and send t!e' a#road $or wor) w!en in trut! and in $a"t it !ad none as "erti$ied #y t!e -.E+.

G.R. No. 17"7#2

Au$us% "1, 2011


9n +pril :;;;, t!e RTC $ound Rosario ."!oa guilty #eyond reasona#le dou#t o$ illegal re"ruit'ent on a large s"ale and t!ree "ounts o$ esta$a. ."!oa t!en $iled a Noti"e o$ +ppeal in w!i"! s!e stated !er intention to appeal t!e RTC <udg'ent o$ "onvi"tion and prayed t!at t!e re"ords o$ !er "ase #e $orwarded to t!e Court o$ +ppeals. 9n a Resolution dated +ugust 7, :;;;, t!e Court o$ +ppeals granted ."!oa(s 1irst ,otion $or E2tension o$ Ti'e to $ile !er #rie$. T!e "ourt o$ appeals pro'ulgated its de"ision a$$ir'ing t!e appealed RTC de"ision #e"ause neit!er t!e plainti$$ nor t!e de$endant ever raised t!e issue o$ <urisdi"tion. +lt!oug! t!ey de"lared t!at it !ad no <urisdi"tion over ."!oa(s appeal. =owever, t!e Supre'e Court !as in pra"ti"e allowed t!e trans$er o$ re"ords $ro' t!is Court to t!e !ig!est "ourt. 9n w!i"! "ase, t!e Supre'e Court s!all su#s"ri#e to t!is pra"ti"e in t!e interest o$ su#stantial <usti"e.


T!at ."!oa is guilty o$ illegal re"ruit'ent "onstituting e"ono'i" sa#otage.


."!oa, in !er personal "apa"ity, is neit!er li"ensed nor aut!orized to re"ruit wor)ers $or overseas e'ploy'ent > was already re<e"ted #y t!e RTC during t!e !earings on #ail $or #eing !earsay, and s!ould not !ave #een ad'itted #y t!e RTC a$ter t!e trial on t!e 'erits o$ t!e "ri'inal "ases. 9nad'issi#le eviden"e during #ail !earings do not #e"o'e ad'issi#le eviden"e a$ter $or'al o$$er. 3it!out t!e -.E+ "erti$i"ation, t!e prose"ution !ad no proo$ t!at ."!oa is unli"ensed to re"ruit and, t!us, s!e s!ould #e a"quitted.

S!e s!ould not #e $ound personally and "ri'inally lia#le $or illegal re"ruit'ent #e"ause s!e was a 'ere e'ployee o$ +?9L and t!at s!e !ad turned over t!e 'oney s!e re"eived $ro' private "o'plainants to +?9L.

3!et!er or not ."!oa is guilty o$ illegal re"ruit'ent.

."!oa was "!arged wit! violation o$ Se"tion @ o$ Repu#li" +"t No. 7;A:. Said provision #roadens t!e "on"ept o$ illegal re"ruit'ent under t!e La#or Code and provides sti$$er penalties, espe"ially $or t!ose t!at "onstitute e"ono'i" sa#otage, i.e., illegal re"ruit'ent in large s"ale and illegal re"ruit'ent "o''itted #y a syndi"ate. 9t is well8settled t!at to prove illegal re"ruit'ent, it 'ust #e s!own t!at appellant gave "o'plainants t!e distin"t i'pression t!at s!e !ad t!e power or a#ility to send "o'plainants a#road $or wor) su"! t!at t!e latter were "onvin"ed to part wit! t!eir 'oney in order to #e e'ployed. +ll eig!t private "o'plainants !erein "onsistently de"lared t!at ."!oa o$$ered and pro'ised t!e' e'ploy'ent overseas. ."!oa required private "o'plainants to su#'it t!eir #io8 data, #irt! "erti$i"ates, and passports, w!i"! private "o'plainants did. -rivate "o'plainants also gave various a'ounts to ."!oa as pay'ent $or pla"e'ent and 'edi"al $ees as eviden"ed #y t!e re"eipts ."!oa issued to "o'plainants. Despite private "o'plainants( "o'plian"e wit! all t!e require'ents ."!oa spe"i$ied, t!ey were not a#le to leave $or wor) a#road. -rivate "o'plainants pleaded t!at ."!oa return t!eir !ard8earned 'oney, #ut ."!oa $ailed to do so. +s $ound in t!e o$$i"e(s re"ords, appellant, in !er personal "apa"ity, is neit!er li"ensed nor aut!orized to re"ruit wor)ers $or overseas e'ploy'ent. 9t #ears stressing, too, t!at t!is is not a "ase w!ere a "erti$i"ation is rendered inad'issi#le #e"ause t!e one w!o prepared it was not presented during t!e trial. Regardless o$ w!et!er or not ."!oa was a li"ensee or !older o$ aut!ority, s!e "ould still !ave "o''itted illegal re"ruit'ent. Se"tion @ o$ Repu#li" +"t No. 7;A: "learly provides t!at any person, w!et!er a non8li"ensee, non8!older, li"ensee or !older o$ aut!ority 'ay #e !eld lia#le $or illegal re"ruit'ent $or "ertain a"ts as enu'erated in paragrap!s /a0 to /'0 t!ereo$. +'ong su"! a"ts, under Se"tion @/'0 o$ Repu#li" +"t No. 7;A:, is t!e $ailure to rei'#urse e2penses in"urred #y t!e wor)er in "onne"tion wit! !is do"u'entation and pro"essing $or purposes o$ deploy'ent, in "ases w!ere t!e deploy'ent does not a"tually ta)e pla"e wit!out t!e wor)er(s $ault.B ."!oa "o''itted illegal re"ruit'ent as des"ri#ed in t!e said provision #y re"eiving pla"e'ent and 'edi"al $ees $ro' private "o'plainants, eviden"ed #y t!e re"eipts issued #y !er, and $ailing to rei'#urse t!e private "o'plainants t!e a'ounts t!ey !ad paid w!en t!ey were not a#le to leave $or Taiwan and Saudi +ra#ia, t!roug! no $ault o$ t!eir own. 9llegal re"ruit'ent w!en "o''itted #y a syndi"ate or in large s"ale s!all #e "onsidered an o$$ense involving e"ono'i" sa#otage.

9llegal re"ruit'ent is dee'ed "o''itted #y a syndi"ate i$ "arried out #y a group o$ t!ree /60 or 'ore persons "onspiring or "on$ederating wit! one anot!er. 9t is dee'ed "o''itted in large s"ale i$ "o''itted against t!ree /60 or 'ore persons individually or as a group. 9n !er argu'ent t!at s!e was <ust a 'ere e'ployee o$ +?9L, ."!oa was not a#le to present t!e 'ost #asi" eviden"e o$ e'ploy'ent, su"! as appoint'ent papers, identi$i"ation "ard /9D0, andCor payslips. T!e re"eipts presented #y so'e o$ t!e private "o'plainants were issued and signed #y ."!oa !ersel$, and did not "ontain any indi"ation t!at ."!oa issued and signed t!e sa'e on #e!al$ o$ +?9L. +lso, ."!oa was not a#le to present any proo$ t!at private "o'plainants( 'oney were a"tually turned over to or re"eived #y +?9L.

G.R. No. 171644

Nov)*+)r 2", 2011

-rivate respondent Ro'ulo -adlan went to petitioner Delia D. Ro'ero to inquire a#out se"uring a <o# in 9srael. Convin"ed #y petitioner(s words o$ en"ourage'ent and inspired #y t!e potential salary o$ *SDE;; to *SDF,:;; a 'ont!, respondent raised t!e a'ount o$ *SD6,@;;, w!i"! !e gave to petitioner so t!at !is papers "ould #e pro"essed. Respondent le$t $or 9srael and se"ured a <o# wit! a 'ont!ly salary o$ *SD@G;. *n$ortunately, a$ter two and a !al$ 'ont!s, !e was "aug!t #y 9srael(s i''igration poli"e and deported $or la") o$ a wor)ing visa. .n !is return, respondent de'anded $ro' petitioner t!e return o$ !is 'oney #ut t!e later re$used. Respondent $iled a "o'plaint $or 9llegal Re"ruit'ent against petitioner.


S!e did not re"ruit t!e respondents #e"ause t!e latter inquired to t!e petitioner(s sister regarding t!eir possi#le wor) in 9srael.

3!et!er or not 9llegal Re"ruit'ent was "o''itted.

5es. +rti"le F6 /#0 o$ t!e La#or Code de$ines %re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent& asH %any a"t o$ "anvassing, enlisting, "ontra"ting, transporting, utilizing, !iring or pro"uring wor)ers, and in"ludes re$errals, "ontra"t servi"es, pro'ising or advertising $or e'ploy'ent, lo"ally or a#road, w!et!er $or pro$it or notH -rovided, t!at any person or entity w!i"!, in any 'anner, o$$ers or pro'ises $or a $ee, e'ploy'ent to two or 'ore persons s!all #e dee'ed engaged in

re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent.& T!e "ri'e o$ illegal re"ruit'ent is "o''itted w!en two ele'ents "on"ur, na'elyH /F0 t!e o$$ender !as no valid li"ense or aut!ority required #y law to ena#le one to law$ully engage in re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent o$ wor)ersI and /:0 !e underta)es eit!er any a"tivity wit!in t!e 'eaning o$ %re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent& de$ined under +rti"le F6 /#0, or any pro!i#ited pra"ti"es enu'erated under +rti"le 6A o$ t!e La#or Code. T!us, t!e trial "ourt did not err in "onsidering t!e "erti$i"ation $ro' t!e Depart'ent o$ La#or and E'ploy'ent8Dagupan Distri"t .$$i"e stating t!at petitioner !as not #een issued any li"ense #y t!e -.E+ nor is a !older o$ an aut!ority to engage in re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent a"tivities. 1ro' t!e a#ove testi'onies, it is apparent t!at petitioner was a#le to "onvin"e t!e private respondents to apply $or wor) in 9srael a$ter parting wit! t!eir 'oney in e2"!ange $or t!e servi"es s!e would render. T!e said a"t o$ t!e petitioner, wit!out a dou#t, $alls wit!in t!e 'eaning o$ re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent as de$ined in +rti"le F6 /#0 o$ t!e La#or Code.

Interesses relacionados