Anda di halaman 1dari 7

PEOPLE vs. BACOS The Facts Together with her common law husband Efren Dima uga!

the a""ellant was charged of illegal recruitment in large scale before the #TC! based on the com"laints filed b ten $%&' individuals. The a""ellant and Dima uga "leaded not guilt ! and a (oint trial ensued. Dima uga died during the "endenc of the trial! leaving the a""ellant to face the charges. Of the ten $%&' com"lainants! onl three $)' testified! namel * C nthia De+a! Eli+abeth Paculan and #amelo ,ualve+ $complainants'. The com"lainants claimed that within the "eriod of December %--) to Se"tember %--.! the met Dima uga and the a""ellant at their house. Dima uga re"resented that he was a recruiter who could send them to wor/ in 0a"an. The a""ellant li/ewise assured the com"lainants that the $she and Dima uga' could send them abroad. Believing that Dima uga was a legitimate recruiter! the com"lainants "arted with their mone to be used as "lacement and "rocessing fees. The mone was given b the com"lainants either to Dima uga while in the "resence of the a""ellant! or handed to the a""ellant who gave it to Dima uga. Dima uga issued recei"ts for the mone received. The com"lainants were not de"lo ed within the "eriod "romised b Dima uga. The

com"lainants also discovered that Dima uga and the a""ellant moved to another house. Believing that the had been du"ed! the com"lainants and the other a""licants filed com"laints for illegal recruitment against Dima uga and the a""ellant before the authorities. The "rosecution "resented documentar evidence consisting of two $1' Certifications Bacos are not

$dated December %! %--- and 0anuar %-! 1&&&' from the Phili""ine Overseas Em"lo ment Administration stating that Efren Dima uga! 2arl n P. Bacos and 2arl n #e es authori+ed to recruit wor/ers for overseas em"lo ment. 3n her defense! the a""ellant testified that she had no "artici"ation in the transactions between her husband and the com"lainants. She denied having received an mone from the com"lainants! and li/ewise denied signing an Dima uga then resided. recei"t for "a ments made. The a""ellant claimed that she onl served the com"lainants snac/s whenever the came to where she and

The defense "resented Pulina Luching who testified that Dima uga and the a""ellant were both /nown to her! having lived with them for a time. The witness denied having an /nowledge of the nature of Dima uga4s business.

The Issues The a""ellant assigns the following errors for the Court4s consideration* $%' 3n finding the a""ellant as "rinci"al in the crime charged absent an direct and clear evidence of her active "artici"ation in the illegal recruitment5 and $1' 3n the alternative! the a""ellant is onl circumstances. liable as an accom"lice under the

The Courts Ruling We deny the appeal and affirm the appellants conviction, with modification on the award of damages. Together with #e"ublic Act 6o. 7&.1 $Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995'! the law governing illegal recruitment is the Labor Code which defines recruitment and "lacement as 8an act of canvassing! enlisting! contracting! trans"orting! utili+ing! hiring or "rocuring wor/ers! and includes referrals! contract services! "romising or advertising for em"lo ment! locall or abroad! whether for "rofit or not.9 :); The same Code also defines and "unishes 3llegal recruitment. 3ts Articles )7 and )- state* Art. )7. Illegal Recruitment. < $a' An recruitment activities! including the "rohibited "ractices enumerated under Article ). of this Code! to be underta/en b non=licensees or non=holders of authorit shall be deemed illegal and "unishable under Article )- of this Code. > > > $b' 3llegal recruitment when committed b a s ndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be "enali+ed in accordance with Article )- hereof. > > > 3llegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three $)' or more "ersons individuall or as a grou".

Art. )-. Penalties. = $a' The "enalt of life im"risonment and a fine of One ?undred Thousand Pesos $P%&&!&&&.&&' shall be im"osed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein:.; A""l ing these legal "rovisions to the facts! no doubt e>ists in our mind that the a""ellant committed illegal recruitment activities together with Dima uga. The "rosecution evidence clearl de"lo showed that des"ite the lac/ of license or authorit to engage in recruitment! the a""ellant admitted that she gave the com"lainants 8assurances9 that she and Dima uga could them for em"lo ment in 0a"an. The com"lainants! in this regard! were categorical relied not onl on the re"resentations of Dima uga but also on the in sa ing that the

assurances of the a""ellant that the would be de"lo ed for wor/ in 0a"an. @e arrive at this conclusion after additionall considering the following established acts of the a""ellant* $a' her acce"tance of the "lacement fee given b the com"lainants5 $b' the fact that she communicated to the com"lainants the date of their de"arture5 and $c' her information on how the balance of the "lacement fee should be "aid. These acts indubitabl show that she was engaged in illegal recruitment activities together with Dima uga. Thus! the a""ellant4s liabilit under the circumstances cannot be considered as that of a mere accom"lice! but rather as a "rinci"al directl and activel engaged in illegal recruitment activities. Lastl ! the a""ellant4s argument that she did not derive an consideration from the

transactions or that she made the assurances after Dima uga4s re"resentations were made to the com"lainants cannot serve to e>onerate her from the crime. @e em"hasi+e that the absence of a consideration or misre"resentations em"lo ed b the a""ellant is not material in the "rosecution for illegal recruitment. B its ver definition! illegal recruitment is deemed committed b the mere act of promising emplo ment !it"out a license or aut"orit and !"et"er for profit or not. 2oreover! we "reviousl held that the time when the misre"resentation was made! whether "rior or simultaneous to the deliver of the mone of the com"lainants! is onl material in the crime of estafa under Article )%A$1'$a' of the #evised Penal Code! as amended! and not in the crime of illegal recruitment.:.; Bor all these reasons! we affirm the CA4s finding that the a""ellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale. Santiago vs. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc.

PACL D. SA6T3A,O! "etitioner! vs. CB S?A#P C#E@ 2A6A,E2E6T! 36C.! res"ondent. ,.#. 6o. %E1.%0ul %&! 1&&F T36,A! #.* FACT ! Petitioner had been wor/ing as a seafarer for Smith Bell 2anagement! 3nc. $res"ondent' for about five $A' ears. ?e signed a new contract of em"lo ment with the duration of - months on Beb ) %--7 and he was to be de"lo ed %& da s after. This contract was a""roved b POEA. A wee/ before the date of de"arture! the res"ondent received a "hone call from "etitioner4s wife and some un/nown callers as/ing not to send the latter off because if allowed! he will (um" shi" in Canada. Because of the said information! "etitioner was told that he would not be leaving for Canada an more. This "rom"ted him to file a com"laint for illegal dismissal against the res"ondent. The LA held the latter res"onsible. On a""eal! the 6L#C ruled that there is no em"lo er=em"lo ee relationshi" between "etitioner and res"ondent! hence! the claims should be dismissed. The CA agreed with the 6L#C4s finding that since "etitioner had not de"arted from the Port of 2anila! no em"lo er=em"lo ee relationshi" between the "arties arose and an claim for damages against the so=called em"lo er could have no leg to stand on. I "#! @hen does the em"lo er=em"lo ee relationshi" involving seafarers commenceG

R"$I%&! A distinction must be made between the "erfection of the em"lo ment contract and the commencement of the em"lo er=em"lo ee relationshi". The "erfection of the contract! which in this case coincided with the date of e>ecution thereof! occurred when "etitioner and res"ondent agreed on the ob(ect and the cause! as well as the rest of the terms and conditions therein. The commencement of the em"lo er=em"lo ee relationshi"! as earlier discussed! would have ta/en "lace had "etitioner been actuall de"lo ed from the "oint of hire. Thus! even before the start of an em"lo er=em"lo ee relationshi"! contem"oraneous with the "erfection of the em"lo ment contract was the birth of certain rights and obligations! the breach of which ma give rise to a cause of action against the erring "art . Thus! if the reverse had ha""ened! that is the seafarer failed or refused to be de"lo ed as agreed u"on! he would be liable for damages. #es"ondent4s act of "reventing "etitioner from de"arting the "ort of 2anila and boarding H2SD Seas"readH constitutes a breach of contract! giving rise to "etitioner4s cause of action. #es"ondent unilaterall and unreasonabl reneged on its obligation to de"lo "etitioner and must therefore answer for the actual damages he suffered. Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc. and Chung Gai Ship Management vs. Sulpecio Medequillo, Jr. (G. . No. !""#$%, Januar& !%, '(!') the sea*arer +as initiall& hired ,& his emplo&ers as Third -ssistant .ngineer on ,oard an ocean-going vessel *or nine ($) months. -*ter ,arel& three (/) months o* service, he +as ordered to ,e repatriated ,& the ship master. 0pon his return to

Manila, he +as trans*erred emplo&ment ,& his emplo&ers +ith another vessel *or the same period o* nine ($) months under the *irst contract. 1is second contract +as approved ,& the 23.-. 4espite the commencement o* his second contract ho+ever, his emplo&ers re*used to deplo& him *or no apparent reason. 5e*t +ith no other choice, the sea*arer *iled a case *or illegal dismissal *or the *irst contract and *or *ailure to deplo& under the second contract. The ar,iter, the N5 C, and the Court o* -ppeals all ruled *or the sea*arer, agreeing that +hile the emplo&ers cannot ,e held lia,le under the *irst contract since the second contract novated it, the emplo&ers are lia,le *or ,reach o* the second contract. HELD: The Supreme Court li6e+ise sided +ith the sea*arer, *inding that there +as a innovation o* the *irst contract. 3n the matter o* the non-deplo&ment o* the sea*arer +ithout an& valid reason, the 1igh Court e7plained that the sea*arer has a remed& in such a case even i* the emplo&ment contract has not &et commenced and he has &et to actuall& depart *rom the airport or seaport in the port o* hire. 8or clarit&, the Court distinguished ,et+een the per*ection o* contract9 on the one hand, +hich too6 place +hen the parties agreed on the o,:ect and the cause as +ell as the terms o* the contract, and ;commencement o* the emplo&er-emplo&ee relationship9 on the other hand, +hen the sea*arer +ould have ,een actuall& deplo&ed. The ;per*ection o* contract9 ,rings a,out certain rights, the ,reach o* +hich ma& give rise to a cause o* action. Ta6ing note o* the case o* Santiago v. C8 Sharp Cre+ Management, Inc. (G. . No. !<'#!$, Jul& !(, '(("), the Court o,served that since there +as non-deplo&ment o* the sea*arer herein +hich constituted as a ,reach ,& the emplo&ers o* the parties9 agreement, the emplo&ers are lia,le to pa& the sea*arer actual damages in the *orm o* the loss o* nine ($) months9 +orth o* salar& as stated in the emplo&ment contract.

Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. vs. Amando A. Vinuya, et al. G.R. No. 197528. September 5, 2012. FACTS On March 5, 2008, respondent Vinuya et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner Pert/ PM and its President !ith la"or ar"iter alleging among others that the agency deployed them to !or# as aluminium fa"ricator/installer for the agency$s principal, Modern Metal in %u"ai, &nited 'ra" (mirates for a t!o)year employment !hose contracts !ere appro*ed "y the PO(' pro*iding for nine)hours !or#ing day, salary of +,,50 '(% !ith o*ertime pay, food allo!ance, free and suita"le housing -four to a room.,free transportation, free laundry and free medical and dental ser*ices. /o!e*er, on 'pril 2, 2000, Modern Metal ga*e respondents, e1cept (ra, appointment letters !ith terms different from those in the employment contracts !hich the respondents signed at the agency$s office in the Philippines increasing their employment terms and reducing their salaries and allo!ances and remo*ing certain "enefits. 2urther, the !or#ing conditions !ere not as promised and they repeatedly complained !ith their agency a"out their predicament "ut to no a*ail.

%ue to their un"eara"le li*ing and !or#ing conditions and "y the agency$s inaction on their complaint, respondents resigned from their 3o" citing personal/family pro"lems for their resignation e1cept for (ra !ho mentioned the real reason !hich is due to the company policy. 'fter se*eral !ee#s, petitioner repatriated the respondent to the Philippines !ho shouldered their o!n airfare e1cept for Ordo*e4 and (n3am"re. HELD: 5he agency countered that the respondents !ere not illegally dismissed 'lleging that the respondents *oluntarily resigned from their employment to see# a "etter paying 3o". 5he agency furthered alleged that the respondents e*en *oluntarily signed affida*its of 6uitclaim and release. The agency and its principal, Modern Metal, committed a prohibited practice and engaged in illegal recruitment when they altered or substituted the contracts approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code provides: It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor. Meanwhile, Article 38 (i) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042, defined illegal recruitment to include the substitution or alteration, to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment. Furthermore, the agency and Modern Metal committed breach of contract by providing substandard working and living arrangements, when the contract provided free and suitable housing. The living quarters were cramped as they shared them with 27 other workers. The lodging house was far from the jobsite, leaving them only three to four hours of sleep every workday because of the long hours of travel to and from their place of work, not to mention that there was no potable water in the lodging house which was located in an area where the air was polluted. They complained with the agency about the hardships that they were suffering, but the agency failed to act on their reports. Significantly, the agency failed to refute their claims. Thus, with their original contracts substituted and their oppressive working and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved, the decision to resign is not surprising. They were compelled by the dismal state of their employment to give up their jobs; effectively, they were constructively dismissed. A constructive dismissal or discharge is a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. Without doubt, continued employment with Modern Metal had become unreasonable. A reasonable mind would not approve of a substituted contract that pays a diminished salary from 1350 AED a month in the original contract to 1,000 AED to 1,200 AED in the appointment letters, a difference of 150 AED to 250 AED (not just 50 AED as the agency claimed) or an extended employment (from 2 to 3 years) at such inferior terms, or a free and suitable housing

which is hours away from the job site, cramped and crowded, without potable water and exposed to air pollution. We thus cannot accept the agencys insistence that the respondents voluntarily resigned since they personally prepared their resignation letters in their own handwriting.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai