Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Title: Esalyn Chavez Vs Hon. Edna Bonto-Perez Et. Al (GR 109808)
Case Title: Esalyn Chavez Vs Hon. Edna Bonto-Perez Et. Al (GR 109808)
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.
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.
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.
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.