SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C.

CABILES
G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014

FACTS:

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency. Joy C. Cabiles,
submitted her application for a quality control job in Taiwan. Joy’s application was accepted. Joy was
later asked to sign a oneyear employment contract for a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was
deployed to work for TaiwanWacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997. On July 14, 1997, a certain Mr.
Huwang from Wacoal informedJoy, without prior notice, that she was terminated and that "she should
immediately report to their office to get her salary and passport." She was asked to "prepare for
immediate repatriation." On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations
Commission against petitioner and Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally dismissed. Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent's termination was due to her inefficiency,
negligence in her duties, and her "failure to comply with the work requirements [of] her foreign
[employer]." On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint. Acting Executive Labor
Arbiter Pedro C.Ramos ruled that her complaint was based on mereallegations. Joy appealed36 to the
National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission declared that Joy was
illegally dismissed.38 It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was
based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. Aggrieved by the ruling, The Court of
Appeals50 affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission with respect to the finding
of illegal dismissal, Joy’s entitlement to the equivalent of three months worth of salary, reimbursement
of withheld repatriation expense, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations
Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed.

RULING:

The court held that Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for
causing Joy’s dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law. Indeed,
employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work.58 They may also impose
reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply with these standards.59 Failure to comply may be a just
cause for their dismissal.60 Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of anemployee
who is guilty of acts that are inimical to the interest of the employer.61 While the law acknowledges the plight
and vulnerability of workers, it does not "authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer."
Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence. This prerogative, however, should
not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure."63Workers are entitled to
substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from employment
without a validor just cause as determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.
Moreover, the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs in
this jurisdiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Contract of Employment entered into by and
between petitioners and private respondent was executed here in the Philippines with the approval of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Hence, the Labor Code together with its
implementing rules and regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case. Furthermore, Petitioner
failed to comply with the twin notices and hearing requirements. Respondent started working on June 26,
1997. She was told that she was terminated on July 14, 1997 effective on the same day and barely a month
from her first workday. She was also repatriated on the same day that she was informed of her termination.
The abruptness of the termination negated any finding that she was properly notified and given the
opportunity to be heard. Her constitutional right to due process of law was violated.
ANTONIO M. SERRANO vs. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO.,
INC.
G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd.
(respondents) under a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration On March 19, 1998, the date of
his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position
of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of
respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. Respondents did not deliver
on their promise to make petitioner Chief Officer.7 Hence, petitioner refused to stay on as Second
Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998. Petitioner's employment contract was
for a period of 12 months or from March 19, 1998 up to March 19, 1999. Petitioner filed with the Labor
Arbiter (LA) a Complaint9 against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money
claims in the total amount of US$26,442.73. The LA rendered a Decision dated July 15, 1999, declaring
the dismissal of petitioner illegal and awarding him monetary benefits. Respondents appealed15 to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to question the finding of the LA that petitioner was
illegally dismissed. The NLRC corrected the LA's computation of the lump-sum salary awarded to
petitioner by reducing the applicable salary rate from US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No.
8042 "does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which should be proven to have been actually
performed, and for vacation leave pay."

ISSUE: Whether or not the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 is
unconstitutional.

RULING:

The answer is in the affirmative. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution guarantees:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the law.

Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all members of the labor sector, without
distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare.

Such rights are not absolute but subject to the inherent power of Congress to incorporate, when it
sees fit, a system of classification into its legislation; however, to be valid, the classification must comply with
these requirements: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to the purposes of the law; 3) it
is not limited to existing conditions only; and 4) it applies equally to all members of the class.

The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042 introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the
money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment periods, in the process singling out one
category whose contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar
disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired
portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the while sparing the other category from such prejudice, simply
because the latter's unexpired contracts fall short of one year. The word salaries in Section 10 (5) does not
include overtime and leave pay. For seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department Order No. 33, series 1996,
provides a Standard Employment Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage,
exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work
"performed" in excess of the regular eight hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any work "performed"
on designated rest days and holidays. Wherefore, the subject clause "or for three months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042
is DECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FE ABELLA y BUHAIN
January 20, 2016 G.R. No. 195666

FACTS:

The said accused conspiring and confederating with another whose true name, real identity and
present whereabouts is still unknown, and mutually helping each other, representing herself to have the
capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement as
Laundrywomen/Laundrymen and Waiter in Istanbul, Turkey and Dubai, without first having secured the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, charged or accept directly
or indirectly from said complainants amounts which are in excess of or greater than those specified in
the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Department of Labor and Employment under
Memorandum Order No. 5, Series of 1985 and having failed to deploy aforesaid complainants,
continuously fails to reimburse despite demands, the expenses they incurred in connection with the
documentation and processing for their deployment. The RTC rendered a Decision finds the accused FE
ABELLA y BUHAIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved, Abella appealed before the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated September 30, 2010, affirmed the RTC judgment of
conviction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment.

RULING:

The court held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur:
(a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
recruitment placement of workers: (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning
of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise
known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995); and (c) the offender committed the
same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. Furthermore, The elements of illegal
recruitment in large scale are all obtaining in this case and that the prosecution had sufficiently proved
that Abella is guilty of said offense. First, it is undisputed that neither Abella nor RBC was licensed as a
recruitment agency. The Certification14 dated May 17, 2005 signed by OIC Paragua of the POEA
Licensing Division states that "per available records of this Office, Fe Abella y Buhain, in her personal
capacity, and ROFEMA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY with address at 1807 Nakpil St., Brgy. 697, Malate,
Manila, are not licensed by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment. Second,
both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that Abella had engaged in recruitment activities. And
Lastly, it was established that there were at least three victims in this case, namely, Miguel, Marcelino,
and Callang, who all testified before the RTC in support of their respective complaints.
 CARMEN RITUALO y RAMOS vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 178337 June 25, 2009

FACTS:

In 1993, Felix Biacora went to Saudi Arabia for overseas employment that was facilitated by one
Cynthia Libutan (Libutan) who worked for a recruitment agency.12 Several years after his return to the
country, Biacora accidentally met Libutan in Baclaran Church sometime in 2000. Libutan then gave
Biacora the name, address and contact number of her friend, one Carmen Ritualo, the petitioner herein,
who was able to help Libutan’s sister find work in Australia. Biacora thereafter called petitioner Ritualo
to set up a meeting. On 1 May 2000, accompanied by his wife, Biacora went to the house of petitioner
Ritualo and inquired from her whether she could help him secure overseas employment in
Australia. Biacora was then assured that He could leave for Australia [in a month’s time] if [he] will give
[petitioner Ritualo] a total amount of ₱160,000.00, and [his] salary would be US$700.00 per month as a
farm worker.14

Biacora paid petitioner Ritualo the amount of ₱40,000.00 as downpayment, with the balance to be
completed before he left for Australia. On 4 May 2000, Biacora again gave petitioner Ritualo ₱20,000.00
as additional payment, making the total amount received by the latter ₱60,000.00. Again, petitioner
Ritualo issued a Cash Voucher. On 1 June 2000, Biacora went to see petitioner Ritualo to follow up the
date of his departure. Petitioner Ritualo asked from Biacora another ₱20,000.00 and told the latter to be
patient.

Several dates were set for Biacora’s departure, but none pushed through. To top it all, his Australian
Visa application was denied by the Australian Embassy. Consequently, on 9 September 2000, Biacora
demanded from petitioner Ritualo the return of the ₱80,000.00. The latter promised to pay back the
money on the 13th of September 2000. None came. Thereafter, Biacora filed the subject criminal
complaints against petitioner Ritualo.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that Carmen gave Biacora a
distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send him abroad for work such that the latter
was convinced to part with his money."

RULING:

The court held that the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment is defined and penalized under Sec. 6
of Republic Act. No. 8042. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code 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:
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. In this case, the first
element is, indeed, present. As to the second element, it must be shown that the accused gave the
private complainant the distinct impression that he/she had the power or ability to send the private
complainant abroad for work, such that the latter was convinced to part with his/her money in order to
be employed.41 Thus, to be engaged in illegal recruitment, it is plain that there must at least be a
promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. 42 In
the case at bar, the second element is similarly present. As to the sentence imposed upon petitioner
Ritualo the correct penalty that should have been imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is imprisonment for
the period of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum. 52 The
imposition of a fine of ₱500,000.00 is also in order.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MICHELLE DELA CRUZ
June 28, 2017 G.R. No. 214500

FACTS:

Appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and three (3) counts of estafa
under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Criminal Case No. 05-412 for Illegal
Recruitment (Large Scale) states that in or about and sometime from September 21, 2004 to February
18, 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused not being authorized by the POEA of the Department of Labor and Employment
to recruit workers for overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
promise and recruit the following complainants, to wit: ARMELY AGUILAR UY, SHERYL AGUILAR
REFORMADO & ADONA LUNA QUINES LA VARO for an overseas job placement abroad and in
consideration of said promise, said complainants paid and delivered the total amount of Php300,000.00
as processing fees of their papers, but despite said promise, accused failed to deploy complainants and
despite demand to reimburse/return the amount which complainants paid as processing fees, accused
did then and there refuse and fail to reimburse/return to said complainants the aforesaid amount, thus
in large scale amounting to economic sabotage, in violation of the aforecited law. Appellant denied that
she promised private complainants any deployment abroad, specifically in South Korea. She claimed
that she just told them to secure the needed documents. Appellant averred that she introduced the
complainants to her agent named "Rosa," who assisted her in going to Korea.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner can be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment because she merely
assisted private complainants in processing their travel documents without any promise of employment.

RULING:

The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penalized under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,40 as follows:

SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree
No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such
non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two
or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is
deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group.

Thus, in order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the
offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under
Article l 3(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the
Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In
the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, as in this case, a third element is required: that the offender
commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as
a group.

In the instant case, appellant committed the acts enumerated in Section 6 of R.A. 8042. As testified to by
Aguilar-Uy, Reformado and Lavaro, appellant gave them an impression that she is capable of sending
them to South Korea as domestic helpers.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERCEDITAS MATHEUS DELOS REYES
June 7, 2017 G.R. No. 198795

FACTS:

On January 15, 2003, Suratos went to an office in Cubao, Quezon City where she met the
accused-appellant, who promised her a job in Cyprus as a caretaker. Suratos gave the accused-appellant
an amount totaling to PhP55,000, inclusive of her passport and medical examination report. After three
months, Suratos became suspicious. She demanded the return of her money, but the accused-appellant
simply told her to wait. A month later, Suratos learned that the accused-appellant was already detained
and could no longer deploy her abroad. She filed a complaint for illegal recruitment docketed as
Criminal Case No. Q-03-119663. The same incident happened to Alayon, Guillerte, Bagay, Duldulao and
Doria who filed subsequent cases against the petititoner. On November 26, 2008, the RTC rendered its
Decision, 10 convicting accused-appellant of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment and five counts of
estafa.

ISSUE: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA.

RULING:

The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: 15 (l} the person
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; 16 (2) accused did not
have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused
committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.

These elements are obtaining in this case. First, the RTC found accused-appellant to have undertaken
recruitment activity when she promised the private complainants overseas employment for a
fee.1avvphi1 This factual finding was affirmed by the CA. Second, the March 1, 2004 Certification issued
by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration unmistakably reveals that the accused-appellant
neither had a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Third, it was established
that there were five complainants, i.e., Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Duldulao. The court
likewise affirm accused-appellant's conviction for five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the
RPC. It is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment
under RA 8042 or the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOLORES OCDEN
G.R. No. 173198 June 1, 2011

FACTS:

During the period from May to December, 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment as factory workers in Italy to more
than three (3) persons including, but not limited to the following: JEFFRIES C. GOLIDAN, HOWARD C.
GOLIDAN, KAREN M. SIMEON, JEAN S. MAXIMO, NORMA PEDRO, MARYLYN MANA-A, RIZALINA FERRER,
and MILAN DARING without said accused having first secured the necessary license or authority from
the Department of Labor and Employment. Ocden was originally charged with six counts of estafa in
Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, 16350-R, 16369-R, 16964-R, and 16966-R. Ocden denied recruiting
private complainants and claimed that she was also an applicant for an overseas job in Italy, just like
them and identified Ramos as the recruiter. Also, Ocden denied deceiving Mana-a and Ferrer. Ocden
alleged that she turned over to Ramos the money Mana-a and Ferrer gave her, although she did not
indicate in the receipts she issued that she received the money for and on behalf of Ramos.

ISSUE: Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT COMMITTED IN LARGE SCALE ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

RULING:

Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code defines and enumerates the acts which constitute
recruitment and placement:

(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising for 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. The amendments to the Labor Code introduced by Republic Act
No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the
concept of illegal recruitment and provided stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute
economic sabotage

It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. (1) Ocden informed Mana-a,
Ferrer, and Golidan about the job opportunity in Italy and the list of necessary requirements for
application; (2) Ocden required Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard, to attend the
seminar conducted by Ramos at Ocden’s house in Baguio City; (3) Ocden received the job applications,
pictures, bio-data, passports, and the certificates of previous employment (which was also issued by
Ocden upon payment of ₱500.00), of Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard; (4) Ocden
personally accompanied Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard, for their medical
examinations in Manila; (5) Ocden received money paid as placement fees by Mana-a, Ferrer, and
Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard, and even issued receipts for the same; and (6) Ocden assured
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s sons, Jeffries and Howard, that they would be deployed to Italy.
Furthermore, Ocden committed illegal recruitment as described in said provision by receiving placement
fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s two sons, Jeffries and Howard, evidenced by receipts Ocden
herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s two sons the amounts
they had paid when they were not able to leave for Italy, through no fault of their own.
 SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C. CABILES
G.R. No. 170139 August 5, 2014

FACTS:

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency. Joy C. Cabiles,
submitted her application for a quality control job in Taiwan. Joy’s application was accepted. Joy was
later asked to sign a oneyear employment contract for a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was
deployed to work for TaiwanWacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997. On July 14, 1997, a certain Mr.
Huwang from Wacoal informedJoy, without prior notice, that she was terminated and that "she should
immediately report to their office to get her salary and passport." She was asked to "prepare for
immediate repatriation." On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations
Commission against petitioner and Wacoal. She claimed that she was illegally dismissed. Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency alleged that respondent's termination was due to her inefficiency,
negligence in her duties, and her "failure to comply with the work requirements [of] her foreign
[employer]." On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Joy’s complaint. Acting Executive Labor
Arbiter Pedro C.Ramos ruled that her complaint was based on mereallegations. Joy appealed36 to the
National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission declared that Joy was
illegally dismissed.38 It reiterated the doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was
based on a just or valid cause belongs to the employer. Aggrieved by the ruling, The Court of
Appeals50 affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission with respect to the finding
of illegal dismissal, Joy’s entitlement to the equivalent of three months worth of salary, reimbursement
of withheld repatriation expense, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for the unexpired
portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorney’s fees and reimbursement of
amounts withheld from her salary.

RULING:

The court upholds the finding that respondent is entitled to all of these awards. The award of the
three-month equivalent of respondent’s salary should, however, be increased to the amount equivalent to
the unexpired term of the employment contract.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of1995, states that overseas workers who were terminated without just, valid, or authorized cause "shall
be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve (12%) per annum, plus his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less." The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement
agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provisions shall be
incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. In
case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or
contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve
(12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3)
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.NENITA B. HU
G.R. No. 182232 October 6, 2008

FACTS:

An Information5 for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale was filed against Hu and Ethel V. Genoves.
Upon arraignment, Hu assisted by counsel entered a plea of not guilty while Genoves remained at large.
Hu was the President of Brighturn International Services, Inc. (Brighturn), a land-based recruitment
agency duly licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to engage in the business
of recruitment and placement of workers abroad, with principal address at No. 1916 San Marcelino St.,
Malate, Manila. Brighturn was authorized by the POEA to recruit, process and deploy land-based
workers for the period 18 December 1999 to 17 December 2001.8

Genoves worked as a consultant and marketing officer of Brighturn. He was also connected with
Riverland Consultancy Service (Riverland), another recruitment agency. Private complainants Orillano,
Panguelo, Abril and Garcia sought employment at Brighturn for the positions of factory worker and
electronic operator in Taiwan. Upon Hu's instruction, Panguelo paid in full the placement fee in the
amount of P50,000.00 to Genoves. Panguelo waited for three years to be deployed to Taiwan. His
waiting was all for naught. Thus, Panguelo decided to abort his application and demanded from Hu the
return of the amount he paid for the placement fee, but Hu could no longer return the money.10

Also sometime in September 2001, Abril went to Brighturn to apply as a factory worker in Taiwan. At
Abril was required by Hu to pay the placement fee to Genoves in the amount of P44,000.00. Abril was
assured by Hu that he would be deployed to Taiwan by December 2001 which was subsequently reset to
April 2002. Despite several postponements, Abril was not able to leave the country.

Orillano was interviewed at Brighturn by a Taiwanese principal in October 2001.Believing that Hu could
send him abroad, Orillano faithfully complied with these requirements including the placement fee, the
payment of which was made to Genoves at Brighturn's office. Despite such payment, however, Orillano
was not able to leave the country. Garcia suffered the same fate as her co-applicants. The trial court
rendered a Decision16 finding Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale.The Court of Appeals, in its Decision17 dated 9 October 2007, confirmed the presence of all
the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale,

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING HU GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE.

RULING:

The court held the they cannot sustain the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. Illegal
recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined
under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.19Recruitment and placement is "any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contact 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." In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to
adduce sufficient evidence to prove that illegal recruitment was committed against three or more
persons. Illegal recruitment cannot successfully attach to the allegations of Panguelo, Abril and
Orillano, since they testified that they accomplished their pre-employment requirements through
Brighturn from June 2001 up to October of the same year,24 a period wherein Brighturn's license to
engage in recruitment and placement was still in full force and effect. The prosecution, nonetheless,
failed to establish that Hu engaged in illegal recruitment acts against at least three of these
complainants. Regrettably, we cannot affirm the conviction of Hu for the offense of illegal recruitment in
large scale. Failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Hu beyond reasonable doubt does not
absolve her of her civil obligation to return the money she collected from private complaints Panguelo,
Abril and Orillano, plus legal interest in accordance with our ruling in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals.
The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the foregoing two elements concur, with the
addition of a third element - the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons,
individually or as group.

Irrefragably, the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Hu of the charge of illegal
recruitment against Garcia when the former referred the latter to another agency without the license or
authority to do so. In fine, the Court will have to discard the conviction for illegal recruitment in large
scale meted out by the RTC, since only one applicant abroad was recruited by Hu without license and
authority from the POEA.

EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, PHILIPPINE

FACTS:

From June 1983 to December 1985 thirty three (33) persons applied for overseas employment
with (J & B). In consideration of promised deployment, complainants paid respondent various amounts
for various fees. Most of' the receipts issued were sighed by Mrs. Baby Bundalian, Executive Vice-
President of (J & B). Because of non-deployment the applicants filed separate complaints with the
Licensing and Regulation Office of POEA against (J & B) for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor
Code between the months of April to October 1985. Despite summons/notices of hearing (J & B) failed
to file Answer nor appear in the hearings conducted. In its separate Answer EASCO essentially
disclaimed liability on the ground that the claims were not expressly covered by the bond, that POEA
had no jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the bond, that some of the claims were paid beyond or prior to
the period of effectivity of the bond. On September 8, 1986, the POEA Administrator issued the Order in
favor of complainants.

ISSUE: Whether or not the POEA had no jurisdiction over the claims for refund filed by non-employees
and neither did the Secretary of Labor have jurisdiction of the claims.

RULING:

Section 4 (a) of EO 797 providing in part 8 that the POEA has —

. . . original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employer-
employee relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for
overseas employment including seamen . . .

The complaints are however for violation of Articles 32 and 34 a) of the Labor Code. The penalties of
suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed for violations of the above quoted
provisions, among others. And the Secretary of Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to
apply these sanctions, as well as the authority, conferred by Section 36, not only, 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. Pursuant
to this rule-making power thus granted, the Secretary of Labor gave the POEA 9 "on its own initiative or
upon filing of a complaint or report or upon request for investigation by any aggrieved person, . . .
(authority to) conduct the necessary proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of the license or
authority of any agency or entity" for certain enumerated offenses. The Administrator was also given
the power to "order the dismissal of the case or the suspension of the license or authority of the
respondent agency or contractor or recommend to the Minister the cancellation thereof." 11

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.