Case title: ESALYN CHAVEZ VS HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ ET.

AL (GR 109808)
Facts: On December 1, 1988, petitioner, an entertainment dancer, entered into a standard employment contract for
overseas Filipino artists and entertainers with Planning Japan Co., Ltd., through its Philippine representative, private
respondent Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation. The contract had a duration of two (2) to six (6) months,
and petitioner was to be paid a monthly compensation of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (US$1,5000.00). On
December 5, 1888, the POEA approved the contract. Subsequently, petitioner executed the following side agreement
with her Japanese employer through her local manager, Jaz Talents Promotion. On December 16, 1988, petitioner left
for Osaka, Japan, where she worked for six (6) months, until June 10, 1989. She came back to the Philippines on June
14, 1989. Petitioner instituted the case at bench for underpayment of wages with the POEA on February 21, 1991. She
prayed for the payment of Six Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$6,000.00), representing the unpaid portion of her basic
salary for six months. Charged in the case were private respondent Centrum Promotions and Placement Corporation,
the Philippine representative of Planning Japan, Co., Inc., its insurer, Times Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., and Jaz
Talents Promotion.
Issue: Whether or not the there was an invalid side agreement present in the case at bar.
Held: Yes, IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED Clearly, the basic salary of One Thousand Five Hundred U.S.
Dollars (US$1,500.00) guaranteed to petitioner under the parties' standard employment contract is in accordance with
the minimum employment standards with respect to wages set by the POEA, Thus, the side agreement which reduced
petitioner's basic wage to Seven Hundred Fifty U.S. Dollars (US$750.00) is null and void for violating the POEA's
minimum employment standards, and for not having been approved by the POEA. Indeed, this side agreement is a
scheme all too frequently resorted to by unscrupulous employers against our helpless overseas workers who are
compelled to agree to satisfy their basic economic needs. Private respondents are held jointly and severally liable to
petitioner for the payment of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS (US$6,000.00) in unpaid wages.
It was expressly stated in the employment contract that any changes or alterations made to any part of said contract
without prior approval from the POEA shall be null and void notwithstanding the fact the employee had agreed to said
contract.

JMM Promotion and Management vs Court of Appeals (GR 120095)

Due to the death of one Maricris Sioson in 1991, Cory banned the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other
destinations. This was relaxed however with the introduction of the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council which
later proposed a plan to POEA to screen and train performing artists seeking to go abroad. In pursuant to the proposal
POEA and the secretary of DOLE sought a 4 step plan to realize the plan which included an Artists Record Book which
a performing artist must acquire prior to being deployed abroad. The Federation of Talent Managers of the Philippines
assailed the validity of the said regulation as it violated the right to travel, abridge existing contracts and rights and
deprives artists of their individual rights. JMM intervened to bolster the cause of FETMOP. The lower court ruled in favor
of EIAC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation by EIAC is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the lower court. The regulation is a valid exercise of police power. Police power concerns
government enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare or the common good. As the assailed Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, it follows that the burden
rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said order, particularly, its ARB requirement, does not enhance the
public welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists, particularly the
women was paramount in the issuance of Department Order No. 3. Short of a total and absolute ban against the
deployment of performing artists to high risk destinations, a measure which would only drive recruitment further
underground, the new scheme at the very least rationalizes the method of screening performing artists by requiring
reasonable educational and artistic skills from them and limits deployment to only those individuals adequately
prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment as artists abroad. It cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at
least lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous individuals and agencies.

People v Panis (142 SCRA 664)

Facts:
Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging
that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of
authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate
a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi
Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was accused of
illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed,
there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any
employment for a fee."
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16
of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of
recruitment and placement without proper authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of
the definition of recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code.

Held:
Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, states that, "(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to
any act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting, transporting, 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."
As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception
thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment
and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or
promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring
or procuring (of) workers."
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and
placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hardearned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical
deception at the hands of their own countrymen.

Darvin vs CA (GR 125044)

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.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment.

Held:
Art. 13 of the Labor Code provides the definition of recruitment and placement as:
...b.) 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 reason 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.
Art. 38 of the Labor Code provides:
a.)Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 43 of the Labor Code, to be
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the
Labor Code.
Applied to the present case, to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two elements need to be shown: (1) the
person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities: and (2) the said person does not have a
license or authority to do so.
In the case, 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.
At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far as to create a suspicion that appellant probably
perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion alone is insufficient, the required quantum of evidence being proof
beyond reasonable doubt. When the Peoples evidence fail to indubitably prove the accuseds authorship of the crime
of which he stand accused, then it is the Courts duty, and the accuseds right, to proclaim his innocence.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby granted and the decision of the CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant is hereby
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonably doubt. The accused is ordered immediately released from her confinement.

People vs Adeser (391 scr 131 GR 179931)

FACTS:
Sometime in November 2002, private complainant Josephine R. Palo met the spouses Tiongson, agents of
Naples Travel and Tours. They introduced Palo to appellant Adeser, owner and general manager of Naples, to discuss
employment opportunities in Australia. After Palo made her payments, she was required to submit her resume and
pictures and was promised that she would be employed in three months. More than three months passed, Palo was not
deployed in Australia. Neither did she get her Australian Visa.
ISSUE: Is appellant Adeser guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment.
LAWS INVOLVED:
Articles 13 (b) and 34 of the Labor Code.
RULING:

Undoubtedly, what transpired in the instant case is illegal recruitment by a syndicate. As categorically testified
by Palo and Caraig, appellant, together with her co-accused, made representations to Palo that they could send her to
Australia to work as an apple picker. There is no denying that they gave Palo the distinct impression that they had the
power or ability to send her abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with a huge amount of money
as placement fee in order to be employed. And this act was committed by appellant and her co-accused even if they
did not have the required license to do so. Hence, they are guilty of syndicated estafa.

People vs Logan (361 scra 581, GR 135030-33)

Facts: Logan was charged with 3 counts of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale. Respondents paid Logan
various amounts of money as placement fee, only to be fed up of the slow processing and demanded the money back,
to which Logan could not give back. Later on, they found out that Logan was not a licensed job recruiter. Logan denied
all of the allegations and said that she only took the money and referred them to Gloria de Leon who would recruit
them for overseas employment.
Issue: WON Logan commited the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Ruling: Yes. The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 39(a) of the Labor
Code are as follows: 1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article
13[23] or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; 2) the accused has not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or
an authority to recruit and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and 3) the accused commits the same against
three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[24]
It has been established that the three (3) private complainants met with the appellant on separate occasions in her
office at 180-D Monterey Street, 15th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City to apply for overseas employment. On the said
occasions, she promised them employment either as construction workers or piggery helpers in Japan for a fee.
Despite subsequent payment of her required fees, she failed to secure for the three (3) private complainants any
overseas employment. Clearly, the appellant was engaged in large scale recruitment and placement activities which
were illegal for the reason that she had no license or authority from the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
The appellant cannot escape liability for her criminal acts by conveniently passing the blame on a certain Gloria de
Leon who has allegedly escaped to Taiwan after reneging on her commitment to secure overseas employment for the
private complainants. Like the trial court, we entertain serious doubts on this version of the appellant which is selfserving and lacks corroborative evidence to support it.

People vs Chua (GR 128280)

FACTS:
Chua was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment committed in large scalefor recruiting and
promising work in Taiwan to 9 people, without a license. According to Chua, shereceived a call from Taiwan informing
her that some people were needed so she called several peopleand collected money but the placement in Taiwan
never materialized. The POEA issued a certificationthat Chua was not licensed to recruit persons/ workers for overseas
employment. Chua argues that she had an approved application for a service contractors authority. But the records
show that she failed tocomply with post- licensing requirements.
ISSUE: WON Chua was licensed to recruit workers for overseas work.
HELD:
The SC held that Chua wasnt licensed to perform recruiting activities. The records show that the license was not
issued due to her failure to comply with post-licensing requirements. It is the issuance of the license which makes the
holder thereof authorized to perform recruitment activates. The law specifically provides that every license shall be
valid for at least 2 years from the date of issuance unless sooner canceled or revoked by the Secretary. Chua admitted
herself that she wasnt licensed when she replied to the Taiwan Company.