G. R. No.

: 167614
Services

Title: Antonio Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime

and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.

Date of Promulgation: March 24, 2009
Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao
En Banc, Austria-Martinez, J.
Series of : 0001
Facts: Serrano was a seafarer hired by Gallant Maritime and Marlow Navigation Co.
for twelve months as Chief Officer. On the date of his departure, he was constrained
to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer,
upon the assurance that he would be made Chief Officer after a month but such
promise of employment did not happen. Serrano decided to refuse his stay as
Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines. He had served only two
months and seven days of his contract leaving an unexpired portion of nine months
and 23 days.
Serrano filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against Gallant Maritime and
Marlow for constructive dismissal and payment for his money claims. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a favourable decision to Serrano by awarding him $8,770.00,
representing his salary for three months of the unexpired portion of his contract of
employment applying Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995), Sec. 10 (5) which states:
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized cause as defined by

law or contract, the workers shall be

entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with

interest of

twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Issue: Is the subject clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less" in 10 (5) of Republic Act 8042, constitutional?
Law: Philippine Constitution: Article III, Section 1. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.
Ruling: No. The subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in
computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally
discharged, it imposes a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired
portion of one year or more in their contracts. However, there is none on the claims
of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. This clause singles out
one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar and unjustified
disadvantage. It also violates the right of Serrano to equal protection and right to
substantive due process because it deprives him of monetary benefits without any
valid governmental purpose.
Also, prior to Republic Act 8042, all OFWs, regardless of contact periods or
unexpired portions, were treated alike in terms of computation of their monetary
benefits in case of illegal dismissal. Their basic salaries multiplied by the entire

unexpired portion of their employment contracts. Therefore, Serrano is entitled to

his salaries for the entire unexpired period, too.
Opinion: I commend the Supreme Court for having a cursory reading of Republic
Act 8042. Our workers, both local and overseas, must be equally protected by the
law especially when it comes to illegal dismissal. I laud Mr. Serrano, too, for raising
the unconstitutionality of R.A. 8042 Sec. 10 (5). I believe that before him, many
OFWs suffered injustices abroad by being promised with a certain employment and
would only find out after meeting their employer abroad that it wasnt the
employment that they had agreed on. Should the OFW decided to sever their
employment because of such reason, the employer would simply pay less of what
an OFW or a local employee with a fixed term employment. Our laws and law
enforcers must be consistent in the mandate of the Constitution to protect all
workers whether locally or overseas.
G. R. No.: 183879
Date of Promulgation: April 14, 2010
Ayuyao
Third Division, Nachura, J.

Title: Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines

Name: Maris Angelica C.
Series of : 0002

Facts: Sometime in the month of March 1997, in the City of Las Pias, Rosita Sy,
the accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by
means of false pretenses and fraudulent representation which she made to the said
complainant that she can deploy her for employment in Taiwan, and complainant
convinced by said representations, gave the amount of P120,000.00 to the said
accused for processing of her papers. She misappropriated, misapplied and
converted the same to her own personal use and benefit.
Sy was charged with one count of illegal recruitment and one count of estafa
in a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court, Sy was exonerated of the illegal
recruitment charge. However, she was convicted of the crime of estafa. Thus, the
instant appeal involves only the crime of estafa.
Issue: Whether one can be charged with the cases of illegal recruitment and estafa
simultaneously?
Laws:
(1) Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 38. Illegal recruitment. Any
recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article
34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, shall
be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
(2) Revised Penal Code: Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow xxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,

qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits. xxx
Ruling: Yes, illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or
separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of
estafa and vice versa. Illegal recruitment and estafa are entirely different offenses
and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. Double
jeopardy will not set in because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which
there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is mala in se, in
prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent in necessary. Therefore, Sys acquittal
in the illegal recruitment case does not prove that he is not guilty of estafa.
Opinion: While the ruling may seem harsh at first glance as one could be punished
by two separate laws in one act, I must agree with the Supreme Court with their
ruling in this one. While a lot of Filipinos are doing everything, including selling their
properties like parcels of land which originated from their ancestors, for the promise
of employment abroad, numerous Filipinos, too, are doing all fraudulent acts and
deceits just to accumulate their money and misappropriate it for their personal use.
The intention of the law is for its workers to have their freedom in choosing where to
work but at the same time protecting them from illegal recruiters who would do
anything for their hard-earned money. Also, in the case People vs. Domingo
(discussed in the next case), the Supreme Court states that even if a person has not
received money yet from his potential clients.
G. R. No.: 181475
Domingo
Date of Promulgation: April 7, 2009
Second Division, Carpio Morales, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Lauro

Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao
Series of : 0003

Facts: Some time on the month of November 1999 to January 20, 2000, in the
Municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Lauro Larry Domingo assured twentythree people to work abroad however this promise never materialized. Later, he was
accused of the crime of illegal recruitment (large scale) and estafa. He argued that
he issued no receipt or document in which he acknowledged as having received any
money for the promised jobs. Therefore, according to him, he should be freed from
any liabilities.
Issue: Was Domingo engaged in recruitment activities?
Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "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. xxx

Ruling: Yes. Even at the time Domingo was promising employment and no cash
was given to him, he is still considered as having been engaged in recruitment
activities since Article 13 of the Labor Code states that the act of recruitment may
be for profit or not. It suffices that Dominguez promised or offered employment for a
fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction of illegal recruitment.
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, it is enough that the prosecution
must prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a
recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34
of the Labor Code; (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) he/she committed the
prohibited practice against three or more persons individually or as a group.
As for the estafa case, Domingo did not have the authority or license to
recruit and deploy, misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had the
capacity to send them abroad for employment. This misrepresentation, which
induced the complaining witnesses to part off with their money for placement and
medical fees, constitutes estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code.
Opinion: The Supreme Court is correct in ruling this case. After all, it is settled that
it is enough that the victims were deceived as they relied on the misrepresentation
and scheme that caused them to entrust their money in exchange of what they
later discovered was a vain hope of obtaining employment abroad. Even though the
proof that he received money from his victims is ambiguous in this case, the fact
that he made him undergo physical examination, made them obtain NBI clearance
and most possibly resign from their employment caused them enough damage
being embarrassed to their family and friends that they are about to obtain
employment abroad. As the famous American entrepreneur, John Rohn quoted, For
every promise, there is price to pay.

G. R. No.: 138431-36

Title: People of the Philippines vs.

Discora Arabia and Francsica Tomas
Date of Promulgation: September 12, 2001
Name: Maris Angelica C.
Ayuyao
Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Series of : 0004
Facts: Sometime in October 1992, private complainants met the accusedappellants at Quezon City where the appellants convinced them and other
applicants to apply for jobs in Taiwan that would give them a monthly pay. Service
fees for processing and placement, private complainants were told by appellants
Arabia and Tomas, would be P16, 000.00 for each of them. Each of the private
complainants gave certain amounts to Arabia at the latter's residence and in the
presence of Tomas. Arabia, did not issue any receipt upon her assurance that she

would not fool them. Various requirements, such as pictures, passports and biodata, were submitted also by private complainants. However, private complainants
were not able to leave for Taiwan because appellants told them that the person who
was supposed to accompany them to Taiwan did not arrive. The departure date was
thus reset but private complainants were still unable to leave. Frustrated, the
private complainants asked for the return of their money as they were no longer
interested in working abroad. They were informed by Arabia's sister, however, that
appellants were arrested by the NBI and detained at the Quezon City Jail. Records
also showed that appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers
for overseas employment. For their defense, the accused-appellants denied having
offered them any employment and told them that they were actually victims of
illegal recruitment, too, by a woman named Rebecca De Jesus.
Issue: Did the accused-appellants committed the crime of illegal recruitment (large
scale)?
Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "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. xxx
Ruling: Yes. Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements:
The accused undertook recruitment activity defined under Article 13 or any
prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code, he did not have the license or
the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers and
he committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
These essential elements are present in this case. Accused-appellants recruited at
least four persons, giving them the impression that they had the capability to send
them to Taiwan for employment. They collected various amounts allegedly for
recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. It is settled
that the fact that an accused in an illegal recruitment case did not issue the receipts
for amounts received from the complainants has no bearing on his culpability so
long as complainants show through their respective testimonies and affidavits that
the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment. On the other hand, Arabia
and Tomas failed to present proof that they indeed filed a case against Rebecca de
Jesus for illegal recruitment. Neither did they present proof that complainants also
filed a case against said Rebecca de Jesus. Accused Arabia presented supposed
complainant-affidavits against Rebecca de Jesus, however, it was not shown that
herein complainants are among those persons who executed an affidavit-complaint.
They were acquitted in two cases of illegal recruitment, though, because of lack of
evidence.

Opinion: I also agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. Nobody
can escape the liability of illegal recruitment simply by stating that they were, in
fact, victimized too by a third person.
G. R. No.: 132376
Angeles
Date of Promulgation: April 11, 2002

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Samina

Name: Maris Angelica C.

Facts: Maria De Sardena was working in Saudi Arabia when she received a call from
her sister, Priscilla who was working in France and advised her to return to the
Philippines and await the arrival of her friend, herein accused, Samina Angeles.
Priscilla states that Angeles would be assisting De Sardena in processing her travel
and employment documents to France. De Sardena, together with her brother,
Marceliano Toloma who was also instructed by Priscilla, met with the accused and
gave money to process their papers to France. However, she disappeared with their
money. Precila Oplindo and Vilma Brina also received the same instructions from
Precilas sister, Analyn, who met the accused in Belgium, who told them that the
accused can help them processing their papers to Canada. The accused told
Oplindo and Brina that it would be easier to complete the processing of their papers
if they would start in Jakarta rather than from Manila. The three of them flew to
Jakarta however the accused left them there after two days and the accused could
not be reached. POEA later presented a certification stating that the accused was
not duly authorized to recruit workers from here and abroad. The accused indicated
that she never represented to the complainants that she could provide them with
work abroad. None of the complainants testified on what kinds of jobs were
promised, names of their prospective employer, how much they would earn and the
length of their employment.
Issue: Is Samina Angeles guilty of illegal recruitment?
Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "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. xxx
Ruling: No. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accusedappellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability
to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part
with their money in order to be employed. To be engaged in the practice of
recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must at least be a promise or offer
of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.
In the case at bar, accused-appellant alleges that she never promised nor offered
any job to the complainants. A perusal of the records reveals that not one of the
complainants testified that accused-appellant lured them to part with their hard-

earned money with promises of jobs abroad. Accused-appellant did not have to
make promises of employment abroad as these were already done by complainants
relatives. Nonetheless, although Samina Angeles did not deceive complainants into
believing that she could find employment for them abroad, she made them believe
that she was processing their travel documents for France and Canada. They parted
with their money believing that Samina Angeles would use it to pay for their plane
tickets, hotel accommodations and other travel requirements. Upon receiving
various amounts from complainants, Samina Angeles used it for other purposes and
then conveniently disappeared. She abused their confidence when she led them to
believe that she can process their travel documents abroad, thus inducing them to
part with their money. When they demanded from Samina their travel documents,
she failed to produce them or return the money they gave her.
Opinion: I agree with the decision although for Oplindo and Brinas case, I believe
that they should have asked for moral and exemplary damages. To be left alone in a
country with hardly anyone to talk to for help because of the language barriers is
one of the spiteful things a person could do to another.
G. R. No.: 124443-46
Nimfa Remullo
Date of Promulgation: June 6, 2002
Second Division, Quisumbing, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs.

Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao
Series of : 0006

Facts: Three private complainants swore that accused-appellant, Nimfa Remullo,

tried recruiting them as factory workers for Malaysia. Appellant told them to fill up
some forms and go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where
Remullo worked. Remullo also asked them to secure clearances from NBI and submit
their respective passports and pictures and asked them also to pay her some
amount of money as placement fee which they all complied. Nonetheless on the
date of their departure, they were not able to leave the country because according
to the immigration officer they possess tourist visas only. One of the private
complainants, Honorina Mejia, inquired from Jamila and Co., regarding their
application papers however the vice president of the said company denied any
knowledge of such papers. According to her, Remullo did not submit anything to
them. She also certified that appellant was not authorized to receive payments on
behalf of Jamila and Co.
In her defense, Remullo denied having recruited private complainants and
receiving any money from them. According to her, she met private complainants at
the Jamila office where she was a marketing consultant. They asked for her help in
obtaining jobs abroad, so she had them fill up bio-data forms and told them to wait
for job openings. She alleged that Jamila had an agreement with Wearness
Electronics, based in Malaysia, concerning the recruitment of workers for Wearness.
Private complainants were supposed to have been recruited for Wearness. She
explained that Steven Mah was the owner of Manifield Enterprise a recruitment
agency. Also, Mah went to Malaysia to look for job opening and he was able to find

this company, Wearness Electronics.Appellant insisted that private complainants did

not hand their placement fees to her but to Steven Mah and to a certain Lani Platon.
Issue: Is Remullo guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa?
Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "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. xxx
Ruling: Yes. This is for the reason that the private complainants were enticed by
Remullo to apply for employment abroad even if she clearly knows that she acted
without a license or lawful authority to do so. Her employer clearly states as a
marketing consultant, it is not within her scope of work to recruit prospective
employees abroad. On the other hand, for the charge of estafa to prosper, the
following elements must be present: (1) that the accused defrauded another by
abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. In
this case, appellant clearly defrauded private complainants by deceiving them into
believing that she had the power and authority to send them on jobs abroad.
Opinion: For one not to be entangled in this crime of illegal recruitment, one must
also be vigilant in knowing who to speak with if he desires to work abroad. In the
instant case, we found out that there are some people who may be working in a
duly registered recruitment firm but recruiting persons per se is none of his
business. We must be wary of these kinds of people because they are easier to
believe than those who are not working in recruitment firms. Fortunately, the
Supreme Court convicted Remulla in this case to serve as a warning to those
working in recruitment firms.
G. R. No.: 129577-80
Bulu Chowdury
Date of Promulgation: June 6, 2002
Second Division, Quisumbing, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs.

Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao
Series of : 0007

Facts: Bulu Chowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale by recruiting three private complainants for employment in South Korea. The
accused-appellant interviewed private complainants in 1994 at Craftrade Overseas
Developers office because at around time, he was an interviewer of Craftrade which
was operating under temporary authority given by POEA although pending the
renewal of license. He was charged based on the fact that he was not registered
with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal capacity,
licensed to recruit overseas workers. The complainants also stated that during their
applications for employment for abroad, the license of Craftrade was already
expired.

For his defense, Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at

Craftrade from 1990 until 1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for
abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed with the instructions given by his
superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency's President and General Manager, and
Mr. Utkal Chowdury, the agency's Managing Director.
Issue: Is the accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the
commission of the crime charged and could be held liable for illegal recruitment?
Law: Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Sec.
6 xxx The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having
control, management or direction of their business shall be liable."
Ruling: No. Supreme Court acquitted, Bulu Chowdury. An employee of a company
or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal,
together with his employer, only if it is shown that he actively and consciously
participated in illegal recruitment. In this instant case, Chowdury merely
performed his tasks under the supervision of his superior. The prosecution failed to
show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the
commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. He is also unaware of Craftrade's
failure to register his name with the POEA and the prosecution failed to prove that
he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to
register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere
employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its
operation. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade
believing that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly
authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. Chowdury simply
confined his actions to his job description as he just interviewed the applicants and
informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money
from them. Hence, it is clear that Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally
participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his
task and unaware of illegality of recruitment.
Opinion: I highly agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in this instant case.
This case not only protected the public from the evils of illegal recruitment but it
also protected labor. The innocent employee was saved by his good faith. Although
we must really safeguard ourselves from the evils of illegal recruitment, the courts
must be very cautious on who are they sending behind bars. Only the parties liable
must be punished and not those who are doing their occupation in good faith.

G. R. No.: 124671-75
Linda Sagayado
Date of Promulgation: September 29, 2000
Ayuyao

Title: People of the Philippines vs.

Name: Maris Angelica C.

Facts: Four private complainants filed a case against accused appellant, Linda
Sagayado, because allegedly, she proposed and encourage them for employment
abroad in South Korea and assured that they are going to have employment there..
Complainants gave their respective payments to the accused for the processing of
their travel papers and passport. Unfortunately, many months have passed by but
their flight never pushed through. They later probed at the Baguio POEA office
whether the accused was a license recruiter and eventually found out that she was
not.
For her defense, the accused denied having recruited any of the private
complainants. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being learning
that she was able to send her three sons to South Korea. Although the accusedappellant acknowledged having received money from the two complainants, she
said she used their money to buy their plane tickets. She explained further that the
two were not able to leave because the Korean government imposed a visa
requirement beginning January 1992. She also was not able to return the money
because according to her, she returned the plane tickets to the Tour Master travel
Agency for refund but said agency did not make reimbursements.
Issue: Is the accused-appellant liable for large scale illegal recruitment and estafa?
Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "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. xxx
Ruling: Yes. To reiterate, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. This crime
requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of
workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the prohibited activities under Article
34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in
the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) committed the infraction against
three or more persons, individually or as a group.
All the aforementioned requisites were present in this case. The accusedappellant made representations to each of the private complainants that she could
send them to Korea to work as factory workers, constituting a promise of
employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13 (b) of the
Labor Code. From the testimonies of the private complainants that the trial court
found to be credible and untainted with improper motives, there is no denying that
accused-appellant gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the
power or ability to send them abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to
part with their money in order to be employed. As against the positive and

categorical testimonies of the complainants, mere denial of accused-appellant

cannot prevail.
Opinion: In a way the factual incidents are similar to the Samina case but the only
difference is in this case the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to
send them abroad for work is proven. With that simple fact, the penalty imposed on
Sagayado was way too much compared to Samina. Perhaps, labor lawyers must
concentrate on this as a defense to at least protect their client.
G. R. No.: 129070
Cabais
Date of Promulgation: March 16, 2002
First Division, Pardo, J.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Nellie

Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao
Series of : 0009

Facts: Sometime in February to May 1994 in Baguio, Nellie Cabais informed the
private respondents that she was connected with Red Sea Employment Agency
(RSEA), a Manila-based agency which was licensed to recruit overseas contract
workers. She said that she could help them through her employer find jobs in South
Korea.
In succeeding meetings, Cabais even introduced Anita Forneas as her boss
and the owner of RSEA and the two of them tried to convince them to submit their
applications so that RSEA could process them. Later on, accused Cabais acquainted
to them a certain Korean named Harm Yo Hong who managed to persuade the
complainants to apply as contract workers in South Korea.
As a defense, the accused-appellant stressed that she is not liable for illegal
recruitment and estafa considering that she was merely an employee of Red Sea
Employment Agency and did not actually recruit applicants.
Issue: Is the accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the
commission of the crime charged and could be held liable for illegal recruitment?
Law: Labor Code of the Philippines: Article 13. Definitions. xxx "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. xxx
Ruling: Yes. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal
recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is
shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. In this
case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who informed
complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She
also received money from them as placement fees. All of the complainants testified
that they personally met accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the
overseas job placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced

by receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accusedappellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.
Furthermore, the accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in
recruitment activities, as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the
testimony of a representative of said government agency. All of her acts constituted
recruitment, and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to
recruit workers for overseas employment, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal
recruitment. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the
company, her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the
corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities. Since the recruitment
involves three or more persons, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in
a large scale punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code.
Opinion: This case is a little trickier than the Chowdury case. In here, the Supreme
Court exhaustively examined all pertinent factual incidences in the case which
made the employee liable together with her employer. Simply put, the big chunk of
ones liability of one after all resides on his good faith.

G. R. No.: 162419
Management
Date of Promulgation: July 10, 2007
Second Division, Tinga, J.

Title: Paul Santiago vs. CF Sharp Crew

Name: Maris Angelica C. Ayuyao
Series of : 0010

Facts: Petitioner had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management, Inc.
(respondent) for about five years.2 On 3 February 1998, petitioner signed a new
contract of employment with respondent, with the duration of nine months. He was
assured of a monthly salary of US$515.00, overtime pay and other benefits.
The following day, the contract was approved by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA). Petitioner was to be deployed on board the
"MSV Seaspread" which was scheduled to leave the port of Manila for Canada on
February 13. 1998. However, he was eventually oddly prevented from leaving the
port of Manila. After which, his deployment wad refused with no lawful reason given
to him. He filed for damages however his employment contract states that the
employer-employee relationship shall commence only upon his actual departure
from the port of Manila therefore, according to the respondent, there was no
employer-employee relationship and thus the award given by the labor arbiter who
had heard their case in favor of the petitioner must be vacated.
Issue: Is the petitioner entitled to relief under Migrant Workers Act in absence of
employer-employee relationship?
Law: Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), Sec. 10:
Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after

the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee

relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for
overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms
of damages.
Ruling: Yes. Despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the NLRC
still has jurisdiction over the complaint of the petitioner because the labor arbiters
power is not limited to claims arising from employer-employee relationship. The law
provides that labor arbiters shall have jurisdiction over claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages.
Since the present case involves the employment contract entered into by the
petitioner for overseas employment, his claims are cognizable by the labor arbiters
of NLRC.
Opinion: I am very much pleased with the judgment of this case. If the Supreme
Court otherwise decided against the petitioner, the man shall be very unfortunate.
Most likely, he has nowhere to go to after giving up his five year employment. It
must be a lesson that employers must not abuse their so-called management
prerogative power and just let their supposed future employee down in the last
minute after cancelling his last employment. Employment is very valuable to any
person because it is an important property that sustains his everyday life. The state
must always serve the best interest of its citizens when it comes to employment.