Michel Louise B.

Gutierrez

People of the Philippines, appellee vs Leticia Sagayaga, et.al., accused,

Leticia Sagayaga, appellant. 423 SCRA 468. February 23, 2004.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant Leticia Sagayaga was accused of Large scale illegal recruitment
and was sentenced with life imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court. Other
accused remained at large.
Complainants Elmer Janer, Eric Farol and Elmer Ramos went to Alvis Placement
Service Corporation on various and separate dates to apply for overseas
employment as factory workers in Taiwan. All three complied with the needed
documents and paid placement fees in the amount of Php 75,000.00 to
appellant, Php 75,000.00 to appellant, and Php 70,000.00 partly to Vicente So
Han Yan and herein appellant, respectively. After failure of the committed dates
of their departure to be fulfilled, all of them demanded from the appellant for a
refund of their placement fees. A Promissory note was given to Janer by herein
appellant who in the note designated herself as the Assistant General Manager
of the placement agency, for a promised refund of the placement fee but the
same was not again fulfilled, prompting the former to file charges against the
accused. Farol and Ramos however were reimbursed with Php 11,000.00 and
Php 5,000.00 respectively and were provided with checks for the payment of the
balance but the payment was not materialized as the checks bounced due to the
closure of the account used in the check. All three filed a complaint before the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency against the appellant and all the
foregoing accused-at-large.
Sagayaga contested the allegations stating that as the Treasurer of the
Corporation, her work was limited to handling fees and depositing the same to
the bank under the account of the corporation only. The spouses So were the
ones with effective and actual control of the business transactions of the agency.
Moreover, she signed as the Assistant General Manager for the corporation as
allegedly, through the instructions of the spouses. The checks and notes were
never paid according to her because the accused-spouses disappeared and left.
The trial court however ruled for the conviction of the appellant of the crime
charged beyond reasonable doubt, for illegal recruitment in large scale.
ISSUE:Whether or not the Appellant committed acts of illegal recruitment in large
scale.
HELD:
Yes. The appellant committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale. Under
R.A. 8042, illegal recruitment may be committed by any person, whether a nonlicensee, non-holder of authority, licensee or holder of authority if they act as
principals, accomplices and accessories in the crime committed. Since appellant,
as shown by the records of the POEA acted as the Vice-President Treasurer and

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

Assistant General Manager of the corporation, these positions invest on the

incumbent the authority to manage, control and direct the corporate affairs. She
then becomes a Principal by direct participation, having dealt directly with the
complainants. To relieve an accuse of criminal liability under R.A. 8042, a full
reimbursement of the documentation and processing of an applicants
deployment must be had. However, the same was not satisfied by any of the
accused in all three cases, for no full reimbursement was made. Under R.A.
8042, one commits acts of illegal recruitment in large scale if the offense
involved economic sabotage being committed against three (3) or more persons
either individually or as a group. Appellant was therefore guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale.

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

People of the Philippines vs. Rose Dujua, et.al., accused, Ramon Samson
Dujua, accused-appellant. 422 SCRA 169. February 5, 2004.
Facts of the Case:
Ramon Dujua, together with his mother Rose Dujua, aunt Editha Singh and
uncle Guillermo Willy Samson were charged with Illegal recruitment in large
scale and with separate counts of estafa.
An information alleged herein respondents of illegal recruitment in large scale
after promising the recruited complainants of an overseas employment without
having first to secure the required license and authority to recruit from the
Department of Labor as required by law. Two other complainants namely,
Roberto Perlas and Jaime Cabus, also charged the respondents with Estafa
along with the aforementioned case. Four of those who filed the Information
however were the ones who only testified.
Beldon Caluten was promised for a work at Japan and he then complied with the
placement fee, with issued receipts by Rose Dujua except for the last payment.
The promised work was never materialized so he asked for a refund from
Ramon but this was not given, which prompted the former to file charges in the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Jaime Cabus was promised an overseas
work at Taiwan. At the airport, they were prevented from leaving by Ramon after
telling that their tickets were still being processed. Jaime felt that the flight would
not push through and asked for the reimbursement of the previous payment but
the same was never done so by the accused, thus, prompting him to file a case
before the NBI. Roberto Perlas having also been convinced, paid a placement
fee of a total sum of Php 30,000.00 for a promised work at Taiwan. The
employment was also not materialized and no refund was given to him, thus
prompting him to file a complaint against the accused. The same went for
Romulo Partos who was later replaced by his wife and paid Php 25,000.00 and
Php 50,000.00 respectively, for a promised work at Japan. The work was
likewise never materialized and no refund was made thus, the complaint was
filed. During arraignment, the POEA issued a Certification showing that neither
Ramon Dujua nor even the World Pack Travel and Tours is duly authorized and
licensed to recruit workers abroad. Ramon Dujua admitted that he met the
complainants but denied that he recruited the same for he worked at the
company only as a janitor, messenger and an errand boy. He alleged that it was
his aunt Editha Singh who owns the company and his mother, Rose Dujua who
managed the same and that he was charged only because the complainants
were angry at his mother. The RTC rendered its decision convicting Ramon
Dujua of illegal recruitment and oof two (2) counts of estafa. His mother, aunt
and uncle who remained at large were also charged with the offense and their
case was archived.

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant committed acts of illegal

recruitment in large scale.
RULING:
Yes. Ramon Dujua committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale. The
essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused
engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 (b) or
in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not
complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts
against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements have been
established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses were categorical, firm and positive in
identifying the appellant as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. The
appellants mere denials cannot prevail. Second, the appellant did not have any license or
authority to recruit persons for overseas work as evidenced by the Certification by the
POEA. Third, Romulo Partos was included as one of the complainants as evidence
reveals that he was also recruited and thereafter was replaced by his wife. Thus, it reveals
that Ramon Dujua has been alleged and has been proven to have undertaken the
recruitment of three persons, namely, Cabus, Caluten and Partos. Moreover, the elements
of Estafa are also present thus, it is rightful that herein appellant must also be charged
with estafa with the corresponding penalties.

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

People of the Philippines vs. Dominga Corralles Fortuna. 395 SCRA 354. January
16, 2003.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On September 29, 1998, appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
Fortuna undertook a recruitment activity by convincing six (6) applicants without any
license or authority in overseas private recruitment or placement activities. In turn, the
recruited individuals gave and delivered to the accused the total sum of Php 32,400.00
representing he medical fees for the promised employment. However, the applicants
were not able to get a job in Taiwan and as a result, they demanded a reimbursement for
the previous payment but after repeated demands, the same was not fulfilled, prompting
them to file a case against herein appellant. Fortuna, upon arraignment, peaded not guilty
of the crime charged.
Garnot, Magpalayo, and Andasan, three of the complainants, testified that each of them
gave Php 5,400.00 each to herein appellant for the processing fee for medical
examination and other expenses necessary for securing their passports. Only these three
remaining complainants pursued the case since the others were finally able to leave for
abroad. The RTC rendered a decision convicting the appellant of illegal recruitment in
large scale.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fortuna committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale.
RULING:
Yes, Fortuna committed acts pf illegal recruitment in large scale. The crime of illegal
recruitment is committed, when among other things, a person, who without being duly
authorized according to law, represents or gives distinct impression that he or she has the
power or the ability to provide work abroad, convincing those to whom the Impression is
given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment,
Verily, the testimony represented by the complaining witnesses adequately established
the commission of the offense. It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons
to conspire and accuse a stranger of such a serious crime that would take the latters
liability and send him or her to prison. The rule has been said that a person charged with
illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimony of the complainants
if found to be credible and convincing and the absence of receipts to evidence payments
to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being the fatal to the
prosecutions cause. The court finds the information which has charged the appellant
with the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale, defined and penalized in R.A. 8042,
to be sufficient in form and substance. The requisites constituting the offense have been
sufficiently proven. First, the appellandt undeniably has not been duly licensed to engage
in recruitment activities. Second, Fortune has ebgaged in illegal recruitment activities,
offering private employment abroad for a fee. Third, Fortuna has committed the

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

questioned illegal recruitment activites against three or more persons. Thus, the penalty
for Fortuna is deemed affirmed.

Farle P. Almodiel vs. National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC), Raytheon

Philippines, Inc.. 223 SCRA 341. June 14, 1993.

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Petitioner Farle P. Almodiel is a certified public accountant who was hired in October,
1987 as Cost Accounting Manager of respondent Raytheon Philippines, Inc.. His major
duties were to: (1) plan, coordinate and carry out year and physical inventory; (2)
formulate and issue out hard copies of Standard Product costing and other cost/pricing
analysis if needed and required and (3) set up the written Cost Accounting System for the
whole company.
When the standard cost accounting system was installed, the services of a Cost
Accounting Manager allegedly entailed only the submission of periodic reports that
would use computerized forms prescribed and designed by the international head office
of the Raytheon Company in California, USA.
On January 27, 1989, petitioner was summoned by his immediate boss and was told of
the abolition of his position on the ground of redundancy. He pleaded with management
to defer its action or transfer him to another department, but he was told that the decision
of management was final and that the same has been conveyed to the Department of
Labor and Employment. Thus, he was constrained to file the complaint for illegal
dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the National Capital Region, NLRC,
Department of Labor and Employment. He further alleged that functions of his positions
were transferred and absorbed by the Payroll/Mis/Finance Department under the
management of Danny Ang Tan Chai,whom the Petitioner alleged to be a resident alien
without a working permit.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the termination as illegal and without
factual basis. The NLRC however reversed this decision upon appeal, set aside the
decision and directed that a separation pay be given.
ISSUE: Whether or not the termination of the Petitioner is valid and justified based on
the ground of redundancy; and
Whether or not Danny Ang Tan Chai complied with employment requirements to qualify
as a working non-resident alien.
RULING:
1. Yes, the Petitioner had a valid and justified termination due to redundancy. Pursuant to
Article 283 of the Labor Code, there is no dispute that the Petitioner was duly advised
one (1) month prior to termination on the ground of redundancy through a written notice
by his immediate supervisor. He was also issued a check which represented his
separation pay but due to his refusal to accept the check, it was duly sent to him through
a registered mail. The DOLE was likewise sent a copy of the notice of termination of
petitioner in accordance with implementing rules. As contested, there was no bad faith,
malice and irregularity which crept on the abolition of the petitioners position that can

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

be imputed even in the transfer of the function of the position.

2. Destitute of merit is Petitioners imputation of unlawful discrimination when Raytheon
caused corollary functions appertaining to the cost accounting to be absorbed by Danny,
a resident alien without a working permit. Article 40 of the Labor Code which requires
employment permit refers to non-resident aliens. The employment permit is required for
entry into the country for employment purposes and is issued after determination of the
non--availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the
time of application to perform the services for which the alien is desired. Since Danny is
a resident alien, he does not fall within the ambit of this provision.

General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, et.al.
196 SCRA 215. April 22,1995.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

The National Capital Region of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
issued Alien Employment Permit No. M-0689-3-535 in favor of petitioner Earl Timothy
Cone, a United States citizen, as sports consultant and assistant coach for petitioner
General Milling Corporation ("GMC").
Petitioners GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment whereby the latter
undertook to coach GMC's basketball team. In 1990, the Board of Special Inquiry of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation approved petitioner Cone's application for
a change of admission status from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee.
On 9 February 1990, petitioner GMC requested renewal of petitioner Cone's alien
employment permit. GMC also requested that it be allowed to employ Cone as fullfledged coach. The DOLE Regional Director, Luna Piezas, granted the request on 15
February 1990. Thus, Alien Employment Permit No. M-02903-881, valid until 25
December 1990, was issued.
Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines ("BCAP")
appealed the issuance of said alien employment permit to the respondent Secretary of
Labor who, on 23 April 1990, issued a decision ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone's
employment permit on the ground that there was no showing that there is no person in
the Philippines who is competent, able and willing to perform the services required nor
that the hiring of petitioner Cone would redound to the national interest. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed by GMC but the same was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary oof Labor committed grave abuse upon its
revocation of Cones Alien Employment Permit.
RULING:
No. Petitioners claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employers prerogative has no
legal basis at all. Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an employer seeking employment
of an alien must first obtain an employment permit from DOLE. GMCs right to choose
whom to employ is of course limited by this statutory requirement of an alien
employment permit. The Labor Code itself specifically empowers respondent Secretary
to make a determination as to the availability of the services of a person in the
Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the
services for which an alien is desired.
People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Domingo Panis, et.al. GR. No. L-5867477. July 11, 1990.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Four informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo
City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a
license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging
employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and
promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein,
in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an
offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the
four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be
illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised
or offered any employment for a fee. "
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused committed acts of illegal recruitment uder
Articlle 13 (b) of the Labor Code.
RULING:
Yes, Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code was merely to create a presumption and not to
impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto. The number
of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and
placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win
constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is
involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is
collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more
prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be
engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed"
create that presumption.

People of the Philippines vs. Romulo Saulo, accused-appellant, et.al.,

accused. G.R. No. 125903. November 15, 2000.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Assistant city prosecutor has Accused herein appellant along with other accused
with illegal recruitment in large scale.
The accused herein confederating and mutually helping each other to falsely
represent themselves to have the capacity to contract and recruit workers for
employment abroad to Leodegario Maullon, Beny Maligaya and Angeles Javier even
without the due license and authority to do so. The recruited applicants paid for
employment and placement fees. However, their promised work were never
materialized and the demand for refund was not satisfied, thus prompting them to
file charges for illegal recruitment and estafa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant committed acts of illegal recruitment in large
scale.

Michel Louise B. Gutierrez

RULING:

Yes, The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38
(b) of the Labor Code 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 in any 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, whether locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the
same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. Under Art. 13 (b),
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 to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.
The Court finds that the trial court was justified in holding that accused-appellant
was engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement activities. The prosecution clearly
established that accused-appellant promised the three complainants employment in
Taiwan as factory workers and that he asked them for money in order to process their
papers and procure their passports. Relying completely upon such representations,
complainants entrusted their hard-earned money to accused-appellant in exchange for
what they would later discover to be a vain hope of obtaining employment abroad. It is
not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized] nor licensed by the DOLE to
engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or
authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.