Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

G.R. Nos. 124443-46 June 6, 2002 Singapore and Malaysia.

On that same day, private complainants

happened to be at the Jamila office.
Appellant also claimed that private complainants later transacted
business with Mah without the knowledge of Jamila. According to
her, Lani Platon told her that private complainants were supposed
to leave on June 6, 1993.
Private complainants JENELYN QUINSAAT,
Also for the defense, witness AMADO PANCHA testified that he
went to appellant’s house sometime in March 1993, where
came to know appellant when he was applying for a job abroad
appellant told them she was recruiting factory workers for
through Jamila. He claimed that he was at the Jamila office on
Malaysia. Appellant told them to fill up application forms and to
May 30, 1993 and saw some people, presumably private
go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where
complainants, inside appellant’s office.27 He met Lani Platon and
appellant worked. Appellant also required each applicant to submit
asked her what she was doing at Jamila. Platon allegedly replied
a passport, pictures, and clearance from the National Bureau of
that she was recruiting female workers for jobs abroad. She
Investigation (NBI); and then to undergo a medical examination.
introduced Pancha to her Singaporean companion, Steven Mah.28
Appellant told them the placement fee was P15,000 for each
Thereafter, according to Pancha, private complainants gave Platon
applicant, which private complainants gave her. Appellant did not
an envelope containing money that Platon put inside her bag.
issue receipts for any of the payments. At the Jamila office, private
Private complainants then handed Platon a piece of bond paper
complainants met a certain Steven Mah, the alleged broker from
with something typewritten on it, which the latter signed.29
the company in Malaysia that was interested in hiring the women.
Appellant signed on the same piece of paper.
Mah told them they were fit to work. Private complainants were
supposed to leave for Malaysia on June 6, 1993. On May 28, 1993,
private complainant Quinsaat testified that she and the others met The trial court found appellant guilty. Hence, the
with appellant at the Philippine General Hospital where appellant appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
showed them their plane tickets. Appellant also told them to fill up
departure cards by checking the word "holiday" thereon. At the
ISSUE: Whether or not Nimfa Remullo is guilty of the crime
airport on June 6, 1993, an immigration officer told private
charged against her.
complainants they lacked a requirement imposed by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Their passports
were cancelled and their boarding passes marked "offloaded". RULING:
Private complainant Mejia testified that appellant told them they
were not able to leave because their visas were for tourists only.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code provides:
Appellant told private complainants they would be able to leave on
June 20, 1993 but this, too, did not push through.
ART. 13. Definitions. -- xxx
Private complainant Mejia inquired from Jamila and
Co. regarding their application papers. In response, Evelyn (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of
Landrito, vice president and general manager to Jamila, denied any canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
knowledge of such papers. Landrito told Mejia that appellant did utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
not submit any document to Jamila. She further certified that referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for
appellant was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or
Jamila. EVELYN LANDRITO testified that appellant was a not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any
marketing consultant for Jamila. As such, her work was limited to manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two
securing job orders for the company through contacts abroad. or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
According to Landrito, appellant went on absence without leave in recruitment and placement.
late 1993. Landrito did not know the private complainants. She
stated that Jamila did not have job orders accredited by the POEA
for Malaysia. She knew of a Steven Mah who represented We are convinced that private complainants, the main witnesses
Manifield Enterprise but the agreement with that company did not for the prosecution, were enticed by appellant to apply for jobs
push through and POEA did not accredit Manifield. abroad. The three private complainants filled up application forms
at appellant’s house, and each paid appellant the amount of
P15,000 as placement fee. However, she acted without license or
In her defense, appellant NIMFA REMULLO denied lawful authority to conduct recruitment of workers for overseas
having recruited private complainants and receiving any money placement. The POEA’s licensing branch issued a certification
from them. According to her testimony, she met private stating that appellant, in her personal capacity, was not authorized
complainant at the Jamila office where she was a marketing to engage in recruitment activities. Evelyn Landrito, general
consultant. They asked for her help in obtaining jobs abroad, so manager of the placement agency where appellant used to work,
she had them fill up bio-data forms and told them to wait for job denied that the scope of appellant’s work included recruiting
openings. She alleged that Jamila had an agreement with Wearness workers and receiving placement fees. Such lack of authority to
Electronics, based in Malaysia, concerning the recruitment of recruit is also apparent from a reading of the job description of a
workers for Wearness. Private complainants were supposed to marketing consultant, the post that appellant occupied at Jamila
have been recruited for Wearness. Appellant explained that Steven and Co.
Mah was the owner of Manifield Enterprise a recruitment agency.
Appellant said that Mah "went to Malaysia to look for job opening
and he was able to find this company, Wearness Anent appellant’s conviction for estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-
Electronics.Appellant insisted that private complainants did not 654 to 95-656, we find no error committed by the trial court. Their
hand their placement fees to her but to Steven Mah and to a certain conviction and sentence are fully supported by the evidence on
Lani Platon.19 She presented in evidence photocopies of receipts record. For charges of estafa to prosper, the following elements
allegedly signed by Platon.20 She said private complainants sought must be present: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
her assistance after they were unable to leave for abroad. She confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice
pointed out that she helped private complainants fax a letter to capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
Steven Mah in Singapore asking for the return of their money.21 third person.39 In this case, appellant clearly defrauded private
She also accompanied them to Batangas where Lani Platon was complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the
supposed to be residing.22 power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. By virtue of
appellant’s false representations, private complainants each parted
with their hard-earned money. Each complainant paid P15,000 as
On cross-examination, appellant insisted that her job at Jamila was recruitment fee to appellant, who then appropriated the money for
not limited to finding prospective employers abroad. She said that her own use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job
her duties included those assigned by Virginia Castro, Jamila’s placements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole,
deputy manager, among them entertaining job applicants. She said complainants were provided defective visas, brought to the airport
that it was actually Castro who told Mah to interview private with their passports and tickets, only to be offloaded that day, but
complainants at the Jamila office. Mah went to Jamila sometime with promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. The
on May 24, 1993 to deliver documents regarding job openings in recruits wait in vain for weeks, months, even years, only to realize
they were gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases
of estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant should Accused-appellant alleged that she never promised nor offered any
be held criminally responsible. job to the complainants.She pointed out that not one of the
complainants testified on what kind of jobs were promised to them,
how much they would receive as salaries, the length of their
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
employment and even the names of their employers, which are
Court, Makati City, Branch 132, is hereby AFFIRMED
basic subjects a prospective employee would first determine.

G.R. No. 132376 April 11, 2002

ISSUE: Whether or not Angeles is guilty with four (4) counts of
estafa and one (1) count of illegal recruitment

1.) Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) elements
concur: 1) that the offender has no valid license or authority
Maria Tolosa Sardeña was working in Saudi Arabia when she required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment
received a call from her sister, Priscilla Agoncillo, who was in and placement of workers; and 2) that the offender undertakes
Paris, France. Priscilla advised Maria to return to the Philippines either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and
and await the arrival of her friend, accused-appellant Samina placement defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices
Angeles, who will assist in processing her travel and employment enumerated under Article 34.3
documents to Paris, France. Heeding her sister’s advice, Maria
immediately returned to the Philippines. Marceliano Tolosa who at
Article 13(b), of the Labor Code provides, thus:
that time was in the Philippines likewise received instructions from
his sister Priscilla to meet accused-appellant who will also assist in
the processing of his documents for Paris, France. (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
Maria and Marceliano eventually met accused-appellant. During
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
their meeting, accused-appellant asked if they had the money
employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or
required for the processing of their documents. Maria gave
not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any
P107,000.00 to accused-appellant at Expert Travel Agency.
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two
Subsequently, she gave another P46,000.00 and US$1,500.00 as
or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
additional payments to accused-appellant. Marceliano, on the other
recruitment and placement.
hand, initially gave P100,000.00 to accused-appellant and he gave
an additional P46,000.00 and US$1,500.00 at the United Coconut
Planters Bank in Makati. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-
appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the
power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that
Analyn Olpindo met accused-appellant in Belgium. At that time,
the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
Analyn was working in Canada but she went to Belgium to visit
employed.4 To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and
her in-laws. After meeting accused-appellant, Analyn Olpindo
placement, it is plain that there must at least be a promise or offer
called up her sister, Precila Olpindo, in the Philippines and told her
of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether
to meet accused-appellant upon the latter’s arrival in the
locally or abroad.
Philippines because accused-appellant can help process her
documents for employment in Canada. Precila Olpindo eventually
met accused-appellant at the Expert Travel Agency. Accused- Plainly, there is no testimony that accused-appellant offered
appellant asked for the amount of $4,500.00, but Precila was only complainants jobs abroad. Hence, accused-appellant Samina
able to give $2,500.00. Angeles cannot be lawfully convicted of illegal recruitment.

No evidence was adduced in relation to the complaint of Vilma 2.) Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
Brina since she did not testify in court. the elements of estafa are: (1) the accused has defrauded another
by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (2) damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
Accused-appellant told Precila Olpindo and Vilma Brina that it
party or third person. Clearly, these elements are present in this
was easier to complete the processing of their papers if they start
from Jakarta, Indonesia rather than from Manila. Precila Olpindo,
Vilma Brina and accused-appellant flew to Jakarta, Indonesia.
However, accused-appellant returned to the Philippines after two Although Samina Angeles did not deceive complainants into
days, leaving behind Precila and Vilma. They waited for accused- believing that she could find employment for them abroad,
appellant in Jakarta but the latter never returned. Precila and Vilma nonetheless, she made them believe that she was processing their
eventually came home to the Philippines. They started looking for travel documents for France and Canada. They parted with their
her but they could not reach her. 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
Elisa Campanianos of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Angeles used it for other purposes and then conveniently
Agency presented a certification to the effect that accused-
disappeared. Complainants trusted Samina Angeles because she
appellant was not duly licensed to recruit workers here and abroad.
was referred to them by their own relatives. She abused their
confidence when she led them to believe that she can process their
In her defense, accused-appellant averred that she never travel documents abroad, thus inducing them to part with their
represented to the complainants that she can provide them with money. When they demanded from Samina their travel documents,
work abroad. She insisted that she was a marketing consultant and she failed to produce them. Likewise, she failed to return the
an international trade fair organizer. She met Priscilla Agoncillo in amounts entrusted to her.
France and they became friends. Priscilla asked her to assist her
siblings, Maria and Marceliano, particularly in the processing of
Clearly, Samina Angeles defrauded complainants by falsely
their travel documents for France. Accused-appellant told Priscilla
pretending to possess the power and capacity to process their travel
that she can only help in the processing of travel documents and
nothing more. It was Priscilla who promised employment to Maria
and Marceliano. She received money from complainants not in the
form of placement fees but for the cost of tickets, hotel P107,000.00 – Maria; 190,00 – Marceliano; 61,200- Precila.
accommodations and other travel requirements. She has the same WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision is
defense for Analyn Olpindo whom she met in Belgium. MODIFIED.

After trial on the merits, the trial court found accused-appellant

guilty of illegal recruitment and four (4) counts of estafa. The case
was elevated to the Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. 93666 April 22, 1991 in preferred areas of investments or in accordance with the
imperative of economic development;
TIMOTHY CONE vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES Article 40 of the Labor Code reads as follows:

FACTS: Art. 40. Employment per unit of non-resident aliens. –– Any alien
seeking admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and
any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien
The National Capital Region of the Department of Labor and
for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment
Employment issued Alien Employment Permit in favor of
permit from the Department of Labor.
petitioner Earl Timothy Cone, a United States citizen, as sports
consultant and assistant coach for petitioner General Milling
Corporation ("GMC"). The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to
the applicant employer after a determination of the non-availability
of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at
Petitioners GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment
the time of application to perform the services for which the alien
whereby the latter undertook to coach GMC's basketball team.The
is desired.
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. For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said
Petitioner GMC requested renewal of petitioner Cone's alien employment permit may be issued upon recommendation of the
employment permit. GMC also requested that it be allowed to government agency charged with the supervision of said registered
employ Cone as full-fledged coach. The DOLE Regional Director enterprise. (Emphasis supplied)
granted the request. Alien Employment Permit valid until 25
December 1990, was issued.
Petitioners apparently suggest that the Secretary of Labor is not
authorized to take into account the question of whether or not
Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the employment of an alien applicant would "redound to the national
Philippines ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of said alien interest" because Article 40 does not explicitly refer to such
employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor who assessment. This argument (which seems impliedly to concede that
issued a decision ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone's the relationship of basketball coaching and the national interest is
employment permit on the ground that there was no showing that tenuous and unreal) is not persuasive. In the first place, the second
there is no person in the Philippines who is competent, able and paragraph of Article 40 says: "[t]he employment permit may be
willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a
petitioner Cone would redound to the national interest. 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." The
Petitioner GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and two (2)
permissive language employed in the Labor Code indicates that the
Supplemental Motions for Reconsideration but said Motions were
authority granted involves the exercise of discretion on the part of
denied by Acting Secretary of Labor. Petitioners elevated the case
the issuing authority. In the second place, Article 12 of the Labor
before the Court on a Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner GMC's
Code sets forth a statement of objectives that the Secretary of
claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative
Labor should, and indeed must, take into account in exercising his
has no legal basis at all. Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an
authority and jurisdiction granted by the Labor Code,
employer seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an
employment permit from the Department of Labor. Petitioner
GMC's right to choose whom to employ is, of course, limited by Art. 12. Statement of Objectives. –– It is the policy of the State:
the statutory requirement of an alien employment permit.
a) To promote and maintain a state of full employment through
ISSUE: improved manpower training, allocation and utilization;

Whether or not Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Omnibus xxx xxx xxx
Rules Implementing the Labor Code is null and void as it is in
violation of the enabling law as the Labor Code does not empower
c) To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons
respondent Secretary to determine if the employment of an alien
seeking work in conformity with the national interest;
would redound to national interest.

d) To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in

conformity with the national interest;

Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing Rules,

e) To regulate the employment of aliens, including the
provides as follows:
establishment of a registration and/or work permit system;

Section 6. Issuance of Employment Permit –– the Secretary of

Thus, we find petitioners' arguments on the above points of
Labor may issue an employment permit to the applicant based on:
constitutional law too insubstantial to require further consideration.

a) Compliance by the applicant and his employer with the

Petitioners have very recently manifested to this Court that public
requirements of Section 2 hereof;
respondent Secretary of Labor has reversed his earlier decision and
has issued an Employment Permit to petitioner Cone. Petitioners
b) Report of the Bureau Director as to the availability or non- seek to withdraw their Petition for Certiorari on the ground that it
availability of any person in the Philippines who is competent and has become moot and academic.
willing to do the job for which the services of the applicant are
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for
certiorari for lack of merit.
(c) His assessment as to whether or not the employment of the
applicant will redound to the national interest;

(d) Admissibility of the alien as certified by the Commission on

Immigration and Deportation;

(e) The recommendation of the Board of Investments or other

appropriate government agencies if the applicant will be employed