G.R. No.

173198
June 1,2011
FLORENTIN
I, J.DE CASTRO

People vs. Ocden

ROSALIE SANTAJ.
FILRO: 001

FACTS:
During the period from May to December, 1998, in Baguio City, Dolores
Ocden recruited and promised employment as factory workers in Italy to more
than three (3) persons including, but not limited to the following: Jeffries
Golidan, Howard C. Golidan, Karen M. Simeon, Jean S. Maximo, Norma Pedro,
Marlyn Mana-a, Rizalina Ferrer, and Milan Daring without having first secured
the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment. None of the applicants were able to work in Italy. They asked
Ocden to refund their hard-earned money but Ocden failed to return. The RTC
found Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and suffer life
imprisonment and a fine of P100,000 and was erroneously filed before CA, but
the latter correctly submitted to SC.
ISSUE:
Is Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment?
LAWS INVOLVED:
Art. 13(b) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34 and 39 of the Labor Code.
Sec. 6(m) of RA 8042.
RULING:
The Supreme Court found Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment in large
scale and estafa; and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.
Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any
person, even by a licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a
license to recruit or not, is inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal
recruitment as described in said provision by receiving placement fees from
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard, evidenced by
receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a,
Ferrer, and Golidans two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not
able to leave for Italy, through no fault of their own.
Case Digest on PEOPLE v. NAVARRA
GR No. 119361, Feb 19, 2001
The accused-appellants were charged and found guilty by the RTC of illegal recruitment committed in a large scale
resulting to economic sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment.
ISSUE: Did the RTC err in disregarding their defense of denial and in finding them guilty of the offense charged.
HELD: Denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them, can not sway judgement. They are self-serving
statements and are inherently weak. Decision of lower court affirmed. Illegal recruitment has 2 essential elements: first,
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment or
placement of workers; second, the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement
defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Art 34 of the Labor Code. A non-licensee or
non-holder of authority means any person, corporation or entity without a valid license or authority to engage in
recruitment or placement from the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or
cancelled by the POEA or the Sec. of Labor.

Under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refer 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, for profit or not: Provided, that any person
or entity which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to 2 or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment or placement. Accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement, such as promises to the
complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees. They were also not authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment as certified by the DOLE. Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code provides that illegal
recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying circumstances
exists: first, when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate; second when it is committed in a large scale,
committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.