Doctrine-Illegal Recruitment

Flourish Maritime Shipping vs Almanzor

The choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, or three (3) months salary for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned
has a term of at least one (1) year or more.

The employment contract involved in the instant case covers a two-year period but the overseas
contract worker actually worked for only 26 days prior to his illegal dismissal. Thus, the three months
salary rule applies. There is a similar factual milieu between the case at bench and Olarte v. Nayona.1[20]
The only difference lies in the length of the subject employment contract: Olarte involved a one-year
contract; while the employment in this case covers a two-year period. However, they both fall under the
three months salary rule since the term of the contract is at least one year or more. In Olarte, as well as
in JSS Indochina Corporation v. Ferrer,2[21] we ordered the employer of an illegally dismissed overseas
contract worker to pay an amount equivalent to three (3) months salary.

We are not in accord with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that respondent should be paid his salaries
for 14 months and 4 days. Records show that his actual employment lasted only for 26 days. Applying
the above provision, and considering that the employment contract covers a two-year period, we agree
with the Labor Arbiters disposition, as affirmed by the NLRC, that respondent is entitled to six (6) months
salary. This is obviously what the law provides.

PP vs Nogra

In the present case, evidence for the prosecution showed that Loran

International Overseas Recruitment Co., Ltd. is a duly licensed recruitment agency with authority to
establish a branch office. However, under R.A. No. 8042, even a licensee or holder of authority can be
held liable for illegal recruitment, should he commit or omit to do any of the acts enumerated in Section
6.

A thorough scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence reveals that it failed to prove appellant's liability under
Section 6 (l) of R.A. No. 8042. The law requires not only that the failure to deploy be without valid
reason "as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment." The law envisions that there be
independent evidence from the DOLE to establish the reason for non-deployment, such as the absence
of a proper job order. No document from the DOLE was presented in the present case to establish the
reason for the accused's failure to actually deploy private complainants. Thus, appellant cannot be held
liable under Section 6 (l) of R.A. No. 8042.

As to Section 6 (m) of R.A. No. 8042, the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that private
complainants made payments to Loran, and appellant failed to reimburse the amounts paid by private
complainants when they were not deployed. The prosecution presented the receipts issued by Loran to
private complainants evidencing payment of placement fees ranging from P27,000.00 to P35,000.00.

Appellant does not dispute that private complainants were not deployed for overseas work, and that the
placement fees they paid were not returned to them despite demand. However, he seeks to exculpate
himself on the ground that he is a mere employee of Loran.

The penultimate paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 explicitly states that those criminally liable are
the "principals, accomplices, and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control,
management or direction of their business shall be liable."

The defense of being a mere employee is not a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal
recruitment. In People v. Gasacao18 and People v. Sagayaga,19 the Court reiterated the ruling in People
v. Cabais,20 People v. Chowdury21 and People v. Corpuz22 that an employee of a company or corporation
engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal by direct participation, together with its
employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process.

1
2
Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage if committed in large scale, viz, committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group. In the present case, five complainants testified against appellant’s
acts of illegal recruitment, thereby rendering his acts tantamount to economic sabotage. Under Section
7 (b) of R.A. No. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more
than P1,000.000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage.

PP vs Ganigan

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when these two elements concur: (1) the offenders have no
valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (2) the offenders undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment
and placement defined in Article 13(b) or any prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor
Code. In case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added - that the accused commits
the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

Article 13(b) defines recruitment and placement as "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." In the simplest terms, illegal
recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression
that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.

Since appellant, along with the other accused, made misrepresentations concerning their purported
power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process collected from private
complainants various amounts in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment. In fact, this Court held that illegal recruiters need not even expressly
represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to send workers abroad. It is
enough that these recruiters give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job
placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.

In sum, appellant is correctly found guilty of large scale illegal recruitment tantamount to economic
sabotage.

Pp vs Jamilosa

Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of contracts shall be deemed

illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. 14 Illegal recruitment is
deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group.

To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove three (3) 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) accused did not have the license or the
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) accused committed
the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.16 As gleaned from the collective
testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the appellate court found to be
credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of
evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged. Indeed, the
findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent evidence
that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance.

The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where
he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability. Even in the
absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter is
considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.

It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may
be for profit or not. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant
conviction for illegal recruitment.

The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. As long as the
witnesses can positively show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved
in prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the absence of receipts.
Pp vs Zenchiro

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if it is committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group.29 Clearly, Zenchiro committed illegal recruitment against the three private
complainants.

Pp vs Comilla

Aida Comila cannot escape culpability by the mere assertion that the recruitment activities were done by
Ella Bakisan, Erlinda Ramos and Indira Lastra as if she was just a mere observer of the activities going
on right under her nose, especially so that the seven complainants who testified all pointed to her as
their recruiter. She could not adequately explain why: (1) she had to show and explain the job order and
the work and travel requirements to the complainants; (2) she had to meet the complainants at Jollibee,
Magsaysay Ave., Baguio City and in her residence; (3) she had to be present at the briefings for the
applicants; (4) she received the placement fees even if she claims that she received them from Ella
Bakisan; (5) she had to go down to Manila and accompanied the complainants for their medical
examination; and (6) she had to go out of her way to do all these things even when she was pregnant
and was about to give birth. Certainly, she was not a social worker or a humanitarian who had all the
time in this world to go out of her way to render free services to other people whom she did not know or
just met. To be sure, Aida Comila had children to attend to and a husband who was unemployed to be
able to conduct such time-consuming charitable activities.

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who, without being
duly authorized according to law represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the
power or the ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to
whom the impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that
employment.

In fact, even if there is no consideration involved, appellant will still be deemed as having engaged in
recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas employment to
private complainants. To be engaged in the practice 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.

It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal
recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary
for conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative.