FACTS:
Imelda Darvin was convicted of simple illegal recruitment under the Labor Code
by the RTC. It stemmed from a complaint of one Macaria Toledo who was
convinced by the petitioner that she has the authority to recruit workers for
abroad and can facilitate the necessary papers in connection thereof. In view of
this promise, Macaria gave her P150,000 supposedly intended for US Visa and
air fare.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of illegal recruitment?
HELD:
The Court found no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant offered a
job to private respondent. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that
she was capable of providing the private respondent work abroad. What is
established, however, is that the private respondent gave accused-appellant
P150,000.
By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another
individual, without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from
the testimony of private respondent, there is nothing to show that appellant
engaged in recruitment activities.
FACTS:
J&B Manpower is an overseas employment agency registered with the POEA
and Eastern Assurance was its surety beginning January 1985. From 1983 to
December 1985, J&B recruited 33 persons but none of them were ever deployed.
These 33 persons sued J&B and the POEA as well as the Secretary of Labor
ruled in favor of the 33 workers and ordered J&B to refund them (with Eastern
Assurance being solidarily liable). Eastern Assurance assailed the ruling claiming
that POEA and the Secretary of Labor have no jurisdiction over non-employees
(since the 33 were never employed, in short, no employer-employee relations).
ISSUE:
Whether or not Eastern Assurance can be held liable in the case at bar.
HELD:
Yes. But only for the period covering from January 1985 when the surety took
effect (as already held by the Labor Secretary). The Secretary of Labor was
given power by Article 34 (Labor Code) and Section 35 and 36 of EO 797 (POEA
Rules) to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all
agencies, but also to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the
objectives and implement the provisions governing said activities.
Implicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims of the
offenses committed by the respondent agency or contractor, specially the refund
or reimbursement of such fees as may have been fraudulently or otherwise
illegally collected, or such money, goods or services imposed and accepted in
excess of what is licitly prescribed. It would be illogical and absurd to limit the
sanction on an offending recruitment agency or contractor to suspension or
cancellation of its license, without the concomitant obligation to repair the injury
caused to its victims.
Though some of the cases were filed after the expiration of the surety bond
agreement between J&B and Eastern Assurance, notice was given to J&B of
such anomalies even before said expiration. In this connection, it may be
stressed that the surety bond provides that notice to the principal is notice to the
surety. Besides, it has been held that the contract of a compensated surety like
respondent Eastern Assurance is to be interpreted liberally in the interest of the
promises and beneficiaries rather than strictly in favor of the surety.
FACTS:
In search for better opportunities and higher income, petitioner
Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine Engineer, sought employment and
was hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized
shipping agent in the Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation.
As evidenced by the Crew Agreement, petitioner was hired to work as Third
Marine Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on
a conduction basis for a period of fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of
the contract was extended to six (6) months by mutual agreement on the promise
of the employer to the petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer.
Thus, while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on July 23, 1985
he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to the alleged failure of private
respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner to the position of
Second Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic
salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was made to shoulder his return
airfare to Manila. In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration(POEA for short), a complaint against
private respondent for payment of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary
for November, 1985 and refund of his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in
the amount of P20,000.00 contending therein that private respondent unilaterally
altered the employment contract by reducing his salary of US$800.00 per month
to US$560.00,causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines. In
resolving aforesaid case, the Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Overseas
EmploymentAdministration or POEA found that petitioner- complainant's total
monthly emolument isUS$800.00 inclusive of fixed overtime as shown and
proved in the Wage Scale submitted to the Accreditation Department of its Office
which would therefore not entitle petitioner to any salary differential; that the
version of complainant that there was in effect contract substitution has no grain
of truth because although the Employment Contract seems to have corrections
on it, said corrections or alterations are in conformity with the Wage Scale duly
approved by the POEA; that the withholding of a certain amount due petitioner
was justified to answer for his repatriation expenses which repatriation was found
to have been requested by petitioner himself as shownin the entry in his
Seaman's Book; and that petitioner deposited a total amount of P15,000.00only
instead of P20,000.00 cash bond. Dissatisfied, both parties appealed the
aforementioned decision of the POEA to the National Labor Relations
Commission. Complainant-petitioner's appeal was
dismissed for lack of merit while respondents' appeal was dismissed for having
been filed out of time. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied. Hence this recourse.
ISSUE:
Whether or not POEA acted in excess of its jurisdiction?
HELD:
As clearly explained by respondent NLRC, the correction was made only
to specify the salary and the overtime pay to which petitioner is entitled under the
contract. It was a mere breakdown of the total amount into US$560.00 as basic
wage and US$240.00 as overtime pay. Otherwise stated, with or without the
amendments the total emolument that petitioner would receive under the
agreement as approved by the POEA is US$800.00 monthly with wage
differentials or overtime pay included.
FACTS:
Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA, charged
petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez
sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the
complaint against him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no
license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas
Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner. It stated
that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or
intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having
verified that petitioner has (1) No valid license or authority from the Department
of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas
employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of
the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. A team was then
tasked to implement the said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and
Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitioners residence. They served the order to
a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team confiscated assorted
costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the
seized properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The said
Order violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of
Rights, and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with
unreasonable force and intimidation.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the
Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest)
under Article 38 of the Labor Code
HELD:
Under the new Constitution, . . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue
warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on
Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, We reiterate that the
Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest
warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that
extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional
and of no force and effect... The power of the President to order the arrest of
aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order arrests)
cannot be made to extend to other cases, like the one at bar. Under the
Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts. Furthermore, the search and
seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the
warrant is null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be
seized.
FACTS:
Appellant was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a
licensed local manning agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose
Gasacao, was the President. As the crewing manager, appellant's duties
included receiving job applications, interviewing the applicants and informing
them of the agency's requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior
to deployment.
On August 4, 2000, appellant and Jose Gasacao were charged with Large Scale
Illegal Recruitment defined under Section 6, paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of
Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995, and penalized under Section 7 (b) of the same law, before the RTC of
Quezon City.
Only the appellant was arrested while Jose Gasacao remained at large. When
arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued. On March 5, 2001, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218,
rendered its Joint Decision convicting appellant of Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240 and acquitting him of the charge in
Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241.
Conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo, 6 which modified
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct
appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed
is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as in this case, as well as this
Court's Resolution dated September 19, 1995, we resolved on February 2, 2005
to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
disposition.
ISSUE:
WON an error attended the trial court's findings, as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of large
scale illegal recruitment.
HELD:
No. It is inconsequential that appellant committed large scale illegal recruitment
while Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc. was holding a valid authority. We thus
find that the court below committed no reversible error in not appreciating that the
manning agency was a holder of a valid authority when appellant recruited the
private complainants.
FACTS:
Firstly, he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by
distinctly impressing upon them that he had the facility to send them for work
abroad. He even showed them his passport to lend credence to his claim. To top
it all, he brought them to Bangkok and not to
Italy. Neither did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the transfer of his
recruits to Italy. Secondly, POEA likewise certified that neither Calonzo
nor R. A. C. Business Agency was licensed to recruit workers for employment
abroad. Appellant admitted this fact himself. Thirdly, appellant recruited five (5)
workers thus making the crime illegal recruitment in large scale constituting
economic sabotage.
Complainants were all united in pointing to the Calonzo as the person who
enticed them to apply for employment abroad. Of course, Calonzo could not
explain what motivated the complaining witnesses to file these cases against
him. The most that Calonzo could do on the witness stand was to deny all the
charges against him. Alas, his denial is at most lame and cannot prevail over the
positive assertions of the complaining witnesses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Calonzo committed illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD:
Article 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as
(A)ny 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.
Illegal recruitment is specifically defined in Art. 38 of the Code thus -
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 x x
xx
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group
of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined
under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal
witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain no improper motive existed
and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Accused-appellant's denial
cannot prevail over the positive assertions of complainants who had no motive to
testify falsely against her except to tell the truth.
Calonzo defrauded complainants through deceit. They were obviously misled into
believing that he could provide them employment in Italy. As a result, the five (5)
complainants who desperately wanted to augment their income and improve their
lot parted with their hard-earned money.
FACTS:
On September 4, 1950, demand was submitted to petitioner by respondent union
through its officers for various concession, among which were (a) an increase of
P0.50 in wages, (b) commutation of sick and vacation leave if not enjoyed during
the year, (c) various privileges, such as free medical care, medicine, and
hospitalization, (d) right to a closed shop, check off, etc., (e) no dismissal without
prior just cause and with a prior investigation, etc. Some of the demands, were
granted by the petitioner, and the other were rejected, and so hearings were held
and evidence submitted on the latter. After the hearing the respondent court
rendered a decision, the most important provisions of which were those fixing the
minimum wage for the laborers at P3.20, declaring that additional compensation
representing efficiency bonus should not be included as part of the wage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not additional compensation representing efficiency bonus should not
be part of the minimum wage, and the wage increase is valid?
HELD:
Yes, that the P3 minimum wage fixed in the law is still far below what is
considered a fair and just minimum is shown by the fact that this amount is only
for the year after the law takes effect, as thereafter the law fixes it at P4. Neither
may it be correctly contended that the demand for increase is due to an alleged
pernicious practice. Frequent demands for increase are indicative of a healthy
spirit of wakefulness to the demands of a progressing and an increasingly more
expensive world. We, therefore, find no reason or ground for disturbing the
finding contained in the decision fixing the amount of P3.20 as the minimum
wage. if it is an additional compensation which the employer promised and
agreed to give without any conditions imposed for its payment, such as success
of business or greater production or output, then it is part of the wage. But if it is
paid only if profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity achieved, it
cannot be considered part of the wages. In the case at bar, it is not payable to all
but to laborers only. It is also paid on the basis of actual production or actual
work accomplished. If the desired goal of production is not obtained or the
amount of actual work accomplished, the bonus does not accrue. It is evidence
that under the circumstances it is paid only when the labor becomes more
efficient or more productive. It is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize there
for, not a part of the wage.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:
FACTS:
Petitioners States Marine Corporation and Royal Line, Inc. were engaged in the
business of marine coastwise transportation, employing therein several
steamships of Philippine registry. They had a collective bargaining contract with
the respondent Cebu Seamen's Association, Inc. On September 12, 1952, the
respondent union filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), a petition
(Case No. 740-V) against the States Marine Corporation, later amended on May
4, 1953, by including as party respondent, the petitioner Royal Line, Inc. The
Union alleged unfair labor practices which includes non-payment of overtime pay,
sick leave, vacation leave, reduction of salaries, requirement of payment of P.40
per meal when employees are on board their vessels and illegal dismissal for
Captain Asensi. Petitioner claim that very much below 30 members were
members of the said union and they cannot be held liable as there is no law
which provides for the payment of sick leave or vacation leave to employees or
workers of private firms. With the payment of meals, they claimed that the
Congress had in mind that the amount of P.40 per meal, furnished the
employees should be deducted from the daily wages. And no illegal dismissal
happened to Captain Asensi as such had his working contract ended. A decision
was rendered on February 21, 1957 in favor of the respondent union. The motion
for reconsideration thereof, having been denied, the companies filed the present
writ of certiorari, to resolve legal question involved.
ISSUES:
Whether or not States Marine Corporation and Royal Line, Inc is liable for the
following unfair labor practices against the respondent union.
HELD:
"Supplements", constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits
given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or
wages. "Facilities", on the other hand, are items of expense necessary for the
laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence so that by express provision
of law (Sec. 2[g]), they form part of the wage and when furnished by the
employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are not so furnished, the laborer
would spend and pay for them just the same. Meals were freely given to crew
members prior to August 4, 1951, while they were on the high seas "not as part
of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the health and
efficiency of the crew personnel during the voyage", the deductions therein made
for the meals given after August 4, 1951, should be returned to them, and the
operator of the coastwise vessels affected should continue giving the same
benefit..
When the work is not continuous, the time during which the laborer is not working
and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be counted",
find no application in his case. Petitioner should be bound to pay overtime pay for
hours beyond 8 hours of work
Considering, however, that Captain Asensi had been laid-off for a long time and
that his failure to report for work is not sufficient cause for his absolute dismissal,
respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate him to his former job without back
salary but under the same terms and conditions of employment existing prior to
his lay-off, without loss of seniority and other benefits already acquired by him
prior to March 20, 1952.
10. AKLAN, ET AL VS. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
FACTS:
Respondent BMA Philasia, Inc. (BMA) is a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of transporting and hauling of cargoes, goods, and commodities of all
kinds. Petitioners are the former employees of respondent BMA at respondent
San Miguel Corporations (SMC) warehouse in Pasig City. They were hired under
fixed-term contracts beginning October 1999. July 2001, petitioners went to
DOLE to file a complaint against BMA for underpayment of wages and non-
payment of premium pay for rest day, 13th month pay, and service incentive
leave pay. BMA agreed to a settlement with some of the complaints for
underpayment wages. BMA also refused to settle the claim of other complaints.
October 2001, petitioners held a strike at the warehouse premises to protest
BMAs refusal to pay the claim for underpayment of the rest of the workers which
disrupted the business operations of private respondents, prompting BMA to
terminate their services.
Petitioners alleged that they were illegally dismissed after filing a complaint for
underpayment of wages and non-payment of benefits before the DOLE; they
were terminated after staging a peaceful picket to protest the non-payment of
their claims. According to them, BMA is a labor-only contractor. SMC was not
only the owner of the warehouse and equipment used by BMA, it was their true
employer. The manner and means by which they performed their work were
controlled by SMC through its Sales Logistic Coordinator who was overseeing
their performance everyday.
The Labor Arbiter and finds that the SMC and BMA are jointly and severally liable
for the non-payment of the said incentives.
Private respondent SMC maintained that it had no employer-employee
relationship with petitioners who were hired and supervised exclusively by BMA
pursuant to a warehousing and delivery agreement in consideration of a fixed
monthly fee. SMC argued that BMA is a legitimate and independent contractor,
duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a
separate and distinct corporation with substantial capitalization, investment,
equipment, and tools. It submitted documentary evidence proving that BMA
engaged the services of petitioners, paid for their wages and benefits, and
exercised exclusive control and supervision over them.
The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, CA reversed and set aside
the decisions of the NLRC hence this case.
ISSUES:
Whether or not SMC have an employee-employer relationship with the
petitioners.
HELD:
SC held that SMC showed that under their contract, BMA provided delivery
trucks, drivers, and helpers in the storage and distribution of SMC products. On a
day-to-day basis, after the routes were made by SMC salesmen, they would
book the orders they obtained. In turn, BMAs Schedular Planner, detailed at the
Pasig Warehouse, downloaded these booked orders from the computer and
processed the necessary documents to be forwarded to the Warehouse Checker,
also an employee of BMA. SMC contended that petitioners were dismissed by
BMA for staging a two-hour strike without complying with the mandatory
requirements for a valid strike. As a result, BMA had to come up with ways and
means in order to avoid the disruption of delivery operations.
A finding that a contractor is a "labor-only" contractor, as opposed to permissible
job contracting, is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee
relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor,
and the "labor-only" contractor is considered as a mere agent of the principal, the
real employer.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the employment contracts of
petitioners duly prove that an employer-employee relationship existed between
petitioners and BMA.
In its ruling, the NLRC considered the following elements to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by
whatever means; and (4) the power to control the workers conduct. All four
elements were found by the NLRC to be vested in BMA.
Petitioners argue mainly that their employer is, in fact, respondent SMC, not
respondent BMA. They contend that BMA is a labor-only contractor and SMC, as
their true employer, should be held directly liable for their money claims, but the
facts of the case belies the contention of the petitioner thus the SC held that
SMC should not be held liable for the money claims of the petitioner.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
Whether petitioner Jethro, as the admitted employer of respondents, could not be
expected to keep payrolls and daily time records in Yakults premises as its office
is in Quezon City, hence, the inspection conducted in Yakults plant had no basis.
HELD:
Jethros failure to keep payrolls and daily time records in Yakults premises was
not the only labor standard violation found to have been committed by it; it
likewise failed to register as a service contractor with the DOLE, pursuant to
Department Order No. 18-02 and, as earlier stated, to pay the wages and
benefits in accordance with the rates prescribed by law.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD: