Republic of the Philippines vs. Humanlink Manpower Consultants, Inc.

, violation of rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor, the

G.R. No. 205188, April 22, 2015 Overseas Employment Development Board, and the National Seamen
Board, or for violation of the provisions of this and other applicable laws,
Facts: General Orders and Letters of Instruction.
Carlos applied at Worldview as a heavy equipment driver in Doha, It is inconsequential therefore whether or not the POEA or the DOLE
Qatar after undergoing the required medical examination, Worldview stated then in their decision that persons, officers and directors are
submitted Carlos' application and other documents to the POEA under disqualified from participating in the government's overseas employment
Humanlink as his recruiting agency. While awaiting his departure at the program. The law and rules implementing the same unequivocally state that
airport, he was made to sign an employment contract stating that he was to once a recruitment license of an entity is cancelled, its officers and directors
work as a duct man with, instead of the heavy equipment driver position he are automatically prohibited from engaging in such activity. The failure of the
applied for. He was told that the duct man contract was only for entry POEA and DOLE to indicate this fact cannot by any means indicate the
purposes and was assured that he would work as a heavy equipment driver contrary. Dura lex sed lex.
in Doha as advertised.

Upon his arrival in Doha, he worked as a duct installer. Carlos

complained that the terms of the employment contract were not complied
with. The foreign employer made Carlos sign a new employment contract
reducing his monthly salary. Carlos filed a complaint with the Philippine
Overseas Labor Office but the complaint was not acted upon. This prompted
him to speak with the Qatar Labor Office where he discussed his grievance.
Later on Carlos was informed that his visa was cancelled and that he was
being repatriated at his own expense.

Issue:
Whether the POEA has the power to automatically disqualify officers
and directors from participating in the government's overseas employment
program upon the cancellation of a license.

Ruling:
Yes. One of the roles of the POEA is the regulation and adjudication
of private sector participation in the recruitment and placement of overseas
workers.

Article 25 of the Labor Code

“Private Sector Participation in the Recruitment and Placement of
Workers. — Pursuant to national development objectives and in order to
harness and maximize the use of private sector resources and initiative in the
development and implementation of a comprehensive employment program,
the private employment sector shall participate in the recruitment and
placement of workers, locally and overseas, under such guidelines, rules and
regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of Labor.”

The Secretary of Labor shall have the power to suspend or cancel

any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment for
C.F. Sharp Crew Management Inc. vs. Espanol, et. al, G.R. No. 155903, advertising for employment, locally or abroad whether for profit or not:
September 14, 2007 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
Facts: recruitment and placement. On the basis of this definition—and contrary to
Louis Cruise Lines (LCL), a foreign corporation duly organized and what C.F. Sharp wants to portray—the conduct of preparatory interviews is a
existing under the laws of Cyprus, entered into a Crewing Agreement with recruitment activity.
Papadopolous Shipping, Ltd. (PAPASHIP). PAPASHIP in turn appointed
private respondent Rizal International Shipping Services (Rizal) as manning The fact that C.F. Sharp did not receive any payment during the
agency in the Philippines, recruiting Filipino seamen for LCL's vessel. interviews is of no moment. From the language of Article 13(b), the act of
recruitment may be “for profit or not.” Notably, it is the lack of the necessary
LCL terminated the Crewing Agreement with PAPASHIP. It then license or authority, not the fact of payment that renders the recruitment
appointed C.F. Sharp as crewing agent in the Philippines. C.F. Sharp activity of LCL unlawful.
requested for accreditation as the new manning agency of LCL with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), but Rizal objected
on the ground that its accreditation still existed and would only expire on
December 31, 1996.

Pending approval of the accreditation, Theodoros Savva and Adrias

Tjiakouris of LCL arrived in the Philippines and conducted a series of
interviews for seafarers at C.F. Sharp's office. Rizal reported LCL's
recruitment activities to the POEA and requested an ocular inspection of C.F.
Sharp's premises.

POEA representatives conducted an inspection and found Savva

and Tjiakouris at C.F. Sharp interviewing and recruiting hotel staffs, cooks,
and chefs for M/V Cyprus, The Inspection Report signed by Corazon Aquino
of the POEA and countersigned by Mr. Reynaldo Banawis of C.F. Sharp was
thereafter submitted to the POEA. Rizal filed a complaint for illegal
recruitment

The POEA Administrator was not persuaded and found C.F. Sharp
liable for illegal recruitment. According to the Administrator, the inspection
report of Ms. Aquino established that Savva and Tjiakouris had conducted,
and, at the time of the inspection, had been conducting interviews, selection
and hiring for LCL, without any authority from the POEA. The Administrator
also held that C.F. Sharp violated Section 29 of the Labor Code when it
designated officers and agents without prior approval of the POEA.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for illegal recruitment.
Ruling:
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
 (c) The contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right
More Maritime Agencies, et. al. vs. NLRC recognized by law.
G.R. No. 124927, May 18, 1999
Compensability of an ailment does not depend on whether the injury
Facts: or disease was pre-existing at the time of the employment but rather
Petitioner hired private respondent Homicillada as an oiler on board if the disease or injury is work-related or aggravated the worker’s
the vessel MV Rhine and he boarded the vessel at Port Sete, France. When condition.
the vessel was anchored in Brazil, Homicillada was tasked to clean the main
engine, and the first and second cylinders of the air trunk, which he did four
consecutive days. As he went about his work, he experienced pain on his left
leg which began to swell thereafter.
The ship doctor said Homicillada should be allowed to rest for five
days, but the Captain still required him to work. He was repatriated to the
Philippines and underwent a series of physical examinations. The ACT-scan
image of Homicillada’s lower back revealed a “slipped-disc,” so the
diagnostic center suggested laminectomy and dissection on his lower back to
alleviate his pain.
However, petitioner disregarded the recommendation and proposed
instead a pelvic traction treatment, a less costly procedure, which did not
improve Homicillada’s condition. Homicillada filed a complaint to the POEA
for disability and medical benefits as well as for payment of his two months
basic salary which petitioners had withheld.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to disability benefits

RULING:

Being more inclined to believe the findings of the POEA, which are
supported by substantial evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the
petition.

The law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less
compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from
demanding benefits to which he is entitled.

Requisites for a valid quitclaim:

(a) There was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;

(b) The consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable;

and,
 seafarer’s fitness for sea duty, which ought to be the job of the company-designated
physician.

Carcedo vs. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., G. R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015
Eyana vs. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc. G.R. No. 193468, January 28, 2015
Facts:
Carcedo, the seafarer, was medically repatriated due to a wounded foot. Facts:
After his right big toe was amputated, the company-designated doctor recommended
an impediment disability grading of 8 percent loss of the toe. Respondent PTCI is a local manning agency- hired the petitioner to assume
the position of a utility cleaner on board M/V Century. His tasks were predominantly
Unfortunately, the suffering of Carcedo did not end as he again underwent manual in nature, which involved lifting, carrying, loading, transporting and arranging
medical procedure on his foot. He then sued for total and permanent disability food supplies, and floor cleaning.
benefits, sickness allowance and other damages. In the meanwhile, a doctor of his The petitioner felt a sudden pain in his back after lifting a 30-kilo block of
choice again operated of him and removed a second toe. cheese from the freezer shelf. He was no longer able to carry the cheese to the
kitchen. He reported the incident to his superior. He was medically repatriated to the
Issue:  Philippines PTCI immediately referred the petitioner to Dr. Alegre for treatment
Whether or not the failure of the company-designated physician to give a -advised to undergo physical therapy thrice a week. The petitioner was hesitant to
definitive impediment rating of disability beyond the extended temporary disability undergo surgery, Dr. Alegre recommended the administration of epidural steroid
period lapsed, by operation law, into a total and permanent disability. injection to decrease the pain and swelling, and the continuation of physical therapy.
Dr. Alegre informed PTCI that the petitioner still suffered from persistent back pains
Ruling: and restricted truncal mobility.
The petitioner sought the opinion of Dr.Garduce an orthopedic surgeon- Dr.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the seafarer’s right to disability Garduce concluded that the petitioner had a Disability Grade of One and was thus
benefits is governed not only by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the POEA- unfit for sea duty.The petitioner filed a complaint15 for disability benefits.
Standard Employment contract entered into by the parties, but also the provisions on
disability of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation Issue:
(AREC) implementing Title II, Book Code concept of permanent total disability applies Whether Petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits
to seafarers whereby it is not the injury which is compensated in a disability Ruling:
compensation matter, but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of The Supreme Court disagreed with the argument that he refused to undergo
one’s earning capacity. surgery as recommended by the company doctor.  At the time the company doctor
The High Court pointed out that the declaration/ certification of the company- made the disability assessment, he still presented physical therapy as an option
designated physician as to (a) the fitness of the seafarer to engage in sea duty or (b) stating in his medical certificate “as the seafarer is still young, conservative
his final disability assessment, during the 120-day or 240-day treatment period allows management with physical therapy has been recommended by Orthopedics.” The
the employer to determine whether the seafarer is fit for sea duty or permanently seafarer did not refuse treatment. He just availed himself of an option presented to
disabled and the degree of such disability. The absence of such declaration/ him, the physical therapy instead of surgery. Besides, even if he underwent surgery,
certification transforms the temporary total disability status of the seafarer to there is likewise no assurance of full recovery. The Philippine Overseas Employment
permanent total disability, regardless of the disability grade. Administration (POEA) contract states that in the course of the treatment, a medically-
repatriated seafarer shall report regularly to the company-designated physician
The Supreme Court found the 8% disability grading assessment of the specifically on the prescribed dates. The seafarer  is duty-bound to comply with his
company-designated physician to be merely an interim one and not final since medical treatment, physical therapy sessions, including the recommended
Carcedo continued with his medical treatments beyond the 120-day period and the consultation to specialists to give the company-designated doctor the opportunity to
extended temporary disability period of after 120-day period but less than 240 days. determine his fitness to work or to assess the degree of his disability. Failure of the
No definitive impediment rating of Carcedo’s disability was ever given. In the same
token, the said 8% disability grading assessment did not include a certification of the
seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but does not bother OFWs with
forfeiture of the right to claim the appropriate medical benefits. unexpired contracts short of one year.
The Court concluded “the subject clause contains a suspect classification in
that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are
illegally dismissed, it imposes a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an
unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of
other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment.”
The Court likewise added that the clause violates the petitioner-seafarer’s
Antonio M. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. right to substantive due process for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary
Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009 benefits without any existing valid governmental purpose. With the above ruling, the
Supreme Court has reverted to the old, simple, and logical manner by which claims of
Facts: illegally dismissed OFWs are computed, i.e., their basic salaries multiplied by the
Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime entire unexpired portions of their contracts, and accordingly disregarded any
Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a POEA-approved contract of distinction relating to the OFWs’ contract periods or the unexpired portions thereof.
employment for 12 months, as Chief Officer.
On the date of his departure, Serrano was constrained to accept a
downgraded employment contract upon the assurance and representation of
respondents that he would be Chief Officer.
Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make Serrano Chief Officer.
Hence, Serrano refused to stay on as second Officer and was repatriated to
the Philippines, serving only two months and 7 days, leaving an unexpired portion of
nine months and twenty-three days.
Serrano filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this time he
questioned the constitutionality of the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of
RA 8042

Issue:
In case of illegal dismissal, how much is a seafarer entitled to receive from
his employers?
Ruling:
It made certain that the seafarer should receive his salaries for the entire
unexpired portion of his contract, and not just for three months.
Supreme Court declared the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042 as
violative of Section 1, Article III (right to due process and equal protection), Section
18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII (protection of rights of all Filipino workers,
whether deployed locally or overseas) of the Constitution.

The High Court observed that the questioned clause has a discriminatory
intent against overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) at two levels, i.e., OFWs with
employment contracts of LESS THAN 1 YEAR vis-à-vis OFWs with contracts of ONE
YEAR OR MORE, and OFWs vis-a-vis local workers with fixed-period employment.

The clause only limits the monetary awards of OFWs, whose contracts have
an unexpired portion of one year or more, to their salaries for three months or for the
 parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the
approval of the Secretary of Labor. Meanwhile, Article 38 (i) of the Labor
Code, as amended by R.A. 8042, defined “illegal recruitment” to include the
substitution or alteration, to the prejudice of the worker, of employment
contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and
including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the
Department of Labor and Employment.
PERT/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. vs. Armanda Vinuya, et. al., Furthermore, the agency and Modern Metal committed breach of
G.R. No. 197528, September 5, 2012 contract by providing substandard working and living arrangements, when
the contract provided free and suitable housing. The living quarters were
Facts: cramped as they shared them with 27 other workers.  The lodging house was
far from the jobsite, leaving them only three to four hours of sleep every
Respondent Vinuya et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal workday because of the long hours of travel to and from their place of work,
against the petitioner Pert/CPM and its President with labor arbiter alleging not to mention that there was no potable water in the lodging house which
among others that the agency deployed them to work as aluminum was located in an area where the air was polluted.  They complained with the
fabricator/installer for the agency’s principal,Modern Metal in Dubai, United agency about the hardships that they were suffering, but the agency failed to
Arab Emirates for a two-year employment whose contracts were approved by act on their reports.  Significantly, the agency failed to refute their claims.
the POEA providing for nine-hours working day, salary of 1,350 AED Thus, with their original contracts substituted and their oppressive
withovertime pay, food allowance, free and suitable housing (four to a room), working and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved, the decision to
free transportation, freelaundry and free medical and dental services. resign is not surprising.  They were compelled by the dismal state of their
However Modern Metal gave respondents, except Era, appointment employment to give up their jobs; effectively, they were constructively
letters different from that of originally signed, increasing their employment dismissed.  A constructive dismissal or discharge is “a quitting because
terms and reducing their salaries and allowances and removing certain continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as,
benefits. Further, the working conditions were not as promised and they an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.”
repeatedly complained with their agency about their predicament but to no We thus cannot accept the agency’s insistence that the respondents
avail. Respondents resigned from their job voluntarily resigned since they personally prepared their resignation letters in
Citing personal/family problems for their resignation except for Era who their own handwriting.
mentioned the real reason which is due to the company policy. After several
weeks, petitioner repatriated the respondent to the Philippines who
shouldered their own airfare except
The agency countered that the respondents were not illegally
dismissed alleging that the respondents voluntarily resigned from their
employment to seek a better paying job. The agency furthered alleged that
the respondents even voluntarily signed affidavits of quitclaim and release.

Issue:
Whether there was illegal recruitment
Ruling:
The agency and its principal, Modern Metal, committed a prohibited
practice and engaged in illegal recruitment when they altered or substituted
the contracts approved by the POEA. Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code
provides: It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of
authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified
by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the
 (2)  That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the
intended date of retrenchment;

(3)  That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay
equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of
  service, whichever is higher;
International Management Services/Marilyn C. Pascual vs. Roel P. (4)  That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in
Logarta, G.R. No. 163657, April 18, 2012 good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent
the employees’ right to security of tenure; and
Facts:
The petitioner recruitment agency, International Management (5)  That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who
Services (IMS), deployed respondent Roel P. Logarta to work for Petrocon would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such
Arabia in connection with general engineering services of Petrocon for the as status, x x x efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial
Saudi Arabian Oil Company hardship for certain workers.

Saudi Aramco notified Petrocon that due to changes in the general Petrocon exercised its prerogative to retrench its employees in good
engineering services work forecast for 1998, the man-hours that were faith and the considerable reduction of work allotments of Petrocon by Saudi
formerly allotted to Petrocon is going to be reduced by 40%, and as a Aramco was sufficient basis for Petrocon to reduce the number of its
consequence, Petrocon was constrained to reduce its personnel that were personnel.
employed, one of whom was respondent. As for the notice requirement, however, contrary to petitioner’s
contention, proper notice to the DOLE within 30 days prior to the intended
Thus, Petrocon gave respondent a written notice informing the latter date of retrenchment is necessary and must be complied with despite the fact
that due to the lack of project works related to his expertise, he is given a 30- that respondent is an overseas Filipino worker.
day notice of termination, Petrocon also informed respondent that all due
benefits in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment In the present case, although respondent was duly notified of his
contract will be paid to respondent, including his ticket back to the termination by Petrocon 30 days before its effectivity, no allegation or proof
Philippines. was advanced by petitioner to establish that Petrocon ever sent a notice to
the DOLE 30 days before the respondent was terminated.
Upon his return, respondent filed a complaint the NLRC against
petitioner, seeking to recover his unearned salaries covering the unexpired Thus, this requirement of the law was not complied with. Despite the
portion of his employment on the ground that he was illegally dismissed. fact that respondent was employed by Petrocon as an OFW in Saudi Arabia,
still both he and his employer are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code
Issue: when applicable.
Was there a valid retrenchment
Ruling: The basic policy in this jurisdiction is that all Filipino workers, whether
Retrenchment is a valid exercise of management prerogative subject employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor
to the strict requirements set by jurisprudence, to wit: and social legislations.

(1)  That the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent

business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but
substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably
imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;
 (1) The parties come to agree upon its terms; and

(2) Concur in the essential elements thereof:

(a) Consent of the contracting parties,
(b) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract, and
(c) Cause of the obligation. The object of the contract was the
Bright Maritime Corporation (BMC)/Desiree P. Tenorio vs. Ricardo B. rendition of service by the seafarer on board the vessel for which service he
Fantonial, G.R. No. 165935, February 8, 2012 would be paid the salary agreed upon.

Facts: Hence, in this case, the employment contract was perfected on

The employment contract provided that respondent shall be January 15, 2000 when it was signed by the parties, the seafarer and the
employed as boatswain of the foreign vessel M/V AUK for one year manning agency, who entered into the contract in behalf of their principal,
Respondent was made to undergo a medical examination and was Ranger Marine S.A., thereby signifying their consent to the terms and
issued a Medical Certificate, which certificate had the phrase “FIT TO conditions of employment embodied in the contract, and the contract was
WORK” stamped on its lower and upper portion.   approved by the POEA on January 17, 2000. However, the employment
Respondent, after having undergone the pre-departure orientation contract did not commence, since the manning agency did not allow the
seminar and being equipped with the necessary requirements and seafarer to leave on January 17, 2000 to embark the vessel M/V AUK in
documents for travel, went to the Airport upon instruction of petitioners.   Germany on the ground that he was not yet declared fit to work on the day of
Petitioners’ liaison officer met respondent at the airport and told him that he departure, although his Medical Certificate dated January 17, 2000 proved
could not leave on that day due to some defects in his medical certificate. that respondent was fit to work.
The liaison officer instructed respondent to return to the Christian Medical
Clinic. A recruitment agency must ensure that an applicant for employment
Respondent went back to the Christian Medical Clinic the next day, abroad is technically equipped and physically fit because a labor contract
and he was told by the examining physician, that there was nothing wrong or affects public interest. Nevertheless, in this case, the manning agency failed
irregular with his medical certificate. Respondent went to petitioners’ office for to prove with substantial evidence that they had a valid ground to prevent the
an explanation, but he was merely told to wait for their call. However, seafarer from leaving on the scheduled date of his deployment. 
respondent never got a call from petitioners. Respondent filed a complaint
against petitioners for illegal dismissal, payment of salaries for the unexpired While the POEA Standard Contract must be recognized and
portion of the employment contract. respected, neither the manning agent nor the employer can simply prevent a
seafarer from being deployed without a valid reason.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners’ reason for preventing respondent from
leaving Manila is valid.

Ruling:
The Court ruled that the manning agency’s act of preventing the
seafarer  from leaving and complying with his contract of employment
constitutes breach of contract for which manning agency  is liable for actual
damages to seafarer for the loss of one-year salary as provided in the
contract.

The Supreme Court explained that an employment contract, like any

other contract, is perfected at the moment
 That the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less” is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and
substantive due process.
              
  A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It
“confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it
is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all.”
              
  The Court said that they are aware that the clause “or for three (3) months
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Joy C. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” was reinstated in Republic Act
August 05, 2014 No. 8042 upon promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 in 2010.

Facts: People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Hernandez, et. al, G.R. Nos. 141221-36,
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and March 7, 2002
placement agency.
 Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a one-year employment Facts:
contract. Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan (Wacoal) .She alleged that in her Eight (8) informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and
employment contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year. In Taiwan, eight (8) informations for estafa were filed against accused-appellants and
she was asked to work as a cutter. Hernandez. The evidence of the prosecution consisted of testimonies of private
                Sameer claims that, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, complainants and a certification from POEA that the accused were neither licensed
without prior notice, that she was terminated and that “she should immediately report nor authorized by POEA to recruit workers for overseas employees.
to their office to get her salary and passport.” She was asked to “prepare for Accused contended that they could not be convicted for large scale illegal
immediate repatriation.” Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to July 14, recruitment based on several information filed by only one applicant.
1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, Wacoal deducted
NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila. Issue:
                On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal Whether on not they were guilty of illegal recruitment even if several
Issue: informations were filed by only one applicant.
Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to the unexpired portion of her salary
due to illegal dismissal. Ruling:Yes, they were guilty of illegal recruitment. The Supreme Court held that
where only one complainant filed several complaints, there is no illegal recruitment in
Ruling: large scale, but the conspiring recruiters can be held guilty of illegal recruitment by a
Respondent Joy Cabiles is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of syndicate.
her contract, in accordance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The award of
the three-month equivalence of respondent’s salary must be modified accordingly.
Since she started working on June 26, 1997 and was terminated on July 14,
1997, respondent is entitled to her salary from July 15, 1997 to June 25, 1998.
“To rule otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and
would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and
recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFW’s security of tenure which an
employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an
unconstitutional provision of law.”
 Cruz, which payment is also evidenced by a receipt. Finally, Maullon pay to a
certain Loreta Tumalig, a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt.
Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on the promised employment.
Maullon thus filed a complaint with the POEA.

Issue:
Whether or not ROMULO SAULO is guilty of the act of Illegal
Recruitment and estafa.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court finds that the trial court was justified in holding that
accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement
activities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant
People of the Philippines vs. Saulo
promised the three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and
G.R. no. 125903, November 15, 2000
Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan as factory workers and that he
asked them for money in order to process their papers and procure their
Facts: passports. It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor
Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo licensedby the Department of Labor and Employment to engage in recruitment
de la Cruz, were charged with violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or authority
Code[1] illegal recruitment in large scale and the accused were also charged renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.
with three counts of estafa.                 It is also well established in jurisprudence that a person may be
charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for
Saulo told Maligaya that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as a this is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa is
factory worker once she gave him the fees for the processing of her malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary
documents. Maligaya also met with Dela Cruz and Clodualdo Dela Cruz at for conviction in the former, but is required in the latter.
their house in Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her that they were
authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for Taiwan. Maligaya paid
accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz which is evidenced by a receipt
signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz. Seeing that he had
reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint
against accused-appellant with the POEA.
              
  Meanwhile Javier was told by Ligaya, accused-appellants wife, to
apply for work abroad through accused-appellant. At a meeting in accused-
appellants Quezon City residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that
he could get her a job in Taiwan as a factory worker and that she should give
him P35,000.00 for purposes of preparing Javier’s passport. Javier gave an
initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-appellant, but she did not ask for a
receipt as she trusted him. As the overseas employment never materialized,
Javier was prompted to bring the matter before the POEA.
                Maulion, upon the invitation of his neighbor Araceli Sanchez, went
to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for gaining
employment abroad. As in the case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-
appellant assured Maullon that he could secure him a job as a factory worker
in Taiwan if he pays him for the processing of his papers. Maullon pay to
accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt. Thereafter, Maullon paid an
additional amount in the presence of accused-appellant and Amelia de la
 All the aforementioned requisites were present in this case.

The accused-appellant made representations to each of the private complainants that

she could send them to Korea to work as factory workers

As to the license requirement, the record showed that accused-appellant did not have
the authority to recruit for employment abroad, per certification issued by the POEA

People of the Philippines vs. Linda Sagaydo People of the Philippines vs. Gener Turda alias “Boy” G.R. Nos. 97044-46, July
6, 1994
G.R. No. 124671-75, September 29, 2000
Facts:
Facts:
Baguio City Prosecutor II Estrellita P. Bernabe filed with the RTC, Baguio Spouses Turda offered job abroad to Florante, Shirley and Celina, with the
City, Branch 59, separate informations charging accused Linda Sagaydo with one (1) agreement that the three will pay them a recruitment service fee. The said offer will be
case of illegal recruitment in large scale, and four (4) cases of estafa. accommodated with the aid of Carmen Manera who claimed to be engaged in
Upon arraignment on, accused pleaded not guilty to all the five (5) charges recruitment for overseas jobs and was running a recruitment agency in Ermita,
against her. Thus, trial ensued. The complainants recounted their respective Manila.After payment of placement and processing fees with a promise to secure an
experience with accused Linda Sagaydo. The accused denied having recruited any of overseas job, several attempts of follow-ups were made but despite repeated
the private complainants. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being promises, the three of them were not able to leave nor work abroad prompting them
informed that she was able to send her three (3) sons to Korea. While accused to demand for the return of their money. When the spouses failed to return the
admitted having received money from complainants Gina Cleto and Naty Pita, she money, a criminal case was file against them.Mr. Turda denies having ever engaged
said she used their money to buy their plane tickets. Gina and Naty were not able to in illegal recruitment activities. He claims that he was himself a victim of the illegal
leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement. When asked why recruitment activities of his co-accused Carmen Manera.
she was not able to return the money of Gina and Naty, accused said that she
returned the plane tickets to the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency Issue:
did not make reimbursements. With respect to complainants Jessie Bolinao and Whether or not Spouses Turda is guilty of illegal recruitment
Rogelio Tibeb, the accused denied having received any money from them. Ruling:
Yes. The recruitment of persons for overseas employment without the
ISSUE: necessary recruiting permit or authority from the POEA constitutes illegal recruitment.
Whether or not the accused, Sagaydo is guilty of one (1) case of illegal Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
recruitment in large scale. considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
Ruling: accordance with Article 39 hereof.
“Recruitment and Placement meaning” Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another
three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.” “This crime requires proof that in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under
the accused: the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
(1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
in any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; Recruitment and Placement
(2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and Thus, the acts of spouses Turda conclusively established a common criminal design
(3) committed the infraction against three or more persons, individually or as a group.” mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves.
 (3) It was established that there were five complainants. Clearly, the existence of the
Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers or promising them offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution.
overseas employment under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code. 5 Since appellant
did not have the license or authority to recruit and yet recruited at least three (3) Mateo's argument that there was no proof that they received money from
persons, he is guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment under Art. 38, penalized under Manuel et al is baseless. Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment
Art. 39, of the Labor Code. considering that the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law states "whether for
profit or not."

People of the Philippines vs. Mateo

G.R. No. 198012, April 22, 2015
People of the Philippines vs. Fernandez
Facts: G.R. No. 199211, June 4, 2015

Facts:
Five private complainants met appellants on separate occasions at Plaza
Out of the testimonies of the complainants that the appellant promised them
Ferguzon, Malate, Manila to apply for overseas employment. Mateo represented
employment abroad. The appellant represented to the complainants that he had the
himself to have a tie-up with some Japanese firms, and promised them employment
power and ability to send them in Hongkong, and that by virtue of this representation
in Japan as conversion mechanics, welders, or fitters for a fee.
and fraud, the complainants were convinced to part with their money in order to be
He assured their departure after three weeks’ time as direct hires. However,
employed.
after the private complainants paid the required fees, Mateo failed to secure any
overseas employment for them. Issue:
Mateo likewise failed to return private complainants' money. Manuel went to Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale is committed
the POEA and was given certification stating that Mateo was not licensed to recruit
applicants for overseas employment. So Manuel et al filed a case with the NBI then
Ruling:
the DOJ which subsequently found probable cause against appellants for large scale For illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove
illegal recruitment and estafa. three essential elements, namely:

Issue: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
Whether Mateo et al are guilty of large scale illegal recruitment practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
Ruling:
recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons
YES. individually or as a group
The offense of illegal recruitment is present in this case. The elements of
large scale are the following: There is illegal recruitment when one who does not possess the necessary
authority or license gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad.
Corollary, where the offense is committed against three or more persons, as in this
(1) The person charged undertook any recruitment activity when they promised case, it is qualified to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a higher
private complainants employment in Japan for a fee. penalty.
Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as "any recruitment activities,
(2) Accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of (the Labor Code), to
recruitment of workers. be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority."
 The term "recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, received them. He claimed that he underwent training and medical examination; he
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including likewise attended an orientation conducted by Inovero at which time, he and his
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or batchmates were advised what clothes to wear on the day of their departure; he was
abroad, whether for profit or not, provided that any person or entity which, in any assured of deployment on the first week of June 2003, however, on the eve of his
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be supposed "pre-departure orientation seminar," Paulino texted him that the seminar
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. was cancelled because Inovero, who had the applicants’ money, did not show up. He
testified that he was not deployed. Neither was his money returned, as promised.
On cross-examination, Brizuela testified that Inovero was the one who conducted the
orientation, and represented to all the applicants that most of the time, she was in the
Japanese Embassy expediting the applicants’ visa.

Aguirre,
the third complainant to testify, alleged that she went to HARVEL, to apply
as caregiver in Japan; there, Diala informed her that Inovero was oneof the owners of
HARVEL and Velasco was its President; she paid and submitted her documents,
People of the Philippines vs. Velasco receipt of which was acknowledged by Diala; despite her undergoing medical
G.R. No. 195668, June 25, 2015 examination and several training seminars, she was however not deployed to Japan.
Worse, she found out that HARVEL was not licensed to recruit workers.
Facts:
Amoyo,
Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City filed in the RTC two informations the fourth complainant, testified that she went to HARVEL’s office on May
charging respondents with illegal recruitment.The prosecution presented the five (5) 28, 2003 to apply as caregiver in Japan, and Diala required her to submit certain
private complainants as witnesses to prove the crime of Illegal Recruitment. documents, to undergo training and medical examination, and to pay Thirty Five
Thousand Pesos (₱35,000.00) as placement and processing fees. However, after
Baful complying with said requirements, she was never deployed as promised.
testified that she, together with her sister-in-law, went to Harvel International
Talent Management and Promotion ("HARVEL") at Unit upon learning that Marbella w
recruitment for caregivers to Japan was on-going there. On said date, she allegedly as the last complainant to testify. She alleged that she applied for the
met Inovero; Velasco, and Diala, and saw Inovero conducting a briefing on the position of janitress at HARVEL sometime in December 2002; just like the rest of the
applicants. She also testified that Diala, the alleged talent manager, directed her to complainants, she was required to submit certain documents and to pay a total
submit certain documents, and to pay as training fee, as well as as placement and amount of Twenty Thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) as processing fee; after paying said
processing fees. Diala also advised her to undergo physical examination. fee, Diala and Inovero promised her and the other applicants that they will be
After complying with the aforesaid requirements and after paying Diala the deployed in three (3) months or in June 2003; however, the promised deployment
amounts, Baful was promised deployment within two (2) to three (3) months. She never materialized; she later found out that HARVEL was not even licensed to recruit
likewise testified that Inovero briefed her and her co-applicants on what to wear on workers. [Mildred] Versoza, on the other hand, is a Labor and Employment Officer at
the day of their departure. However, she was never deployed. Finally, she testified the POEA Licensing Branch. She testified that she prepared a Certification certifying
that she found out that HARVEL was not licensed to deploy workers for overseas that neither HARVEL nor Inovero was authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment. employment as per records at their office.

Brizuela, Issue:
Another complainant, testified that he went to HARVEL’s office to inquire on Whether several accused in illegal recruitment committed in large scale
the requirements and hiring procedure for a caregiver in Japan. There, Diala told him Ruling:
the amount required as processing fee and the documents to be submitted. And when The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are:
he submitted the required documents and payments, it was, this time, Paulino who
(1) that the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or in any prohibited activities under contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and shall
Article 34 of the same Code; mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
(2) that the accused had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract services,
Labor and Employment with respect to the requirement to secure a license or promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not,
authority to recruit and deploy workers; and ( when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated
3) that the accused committed the unlawful acts against three or more persons. In under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-
from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers
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. 
abroad for employment purposes.
Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that Ms. Mayel committed illegal
recruitment in large scale by giving you the impression that she can give you
employment abroad despite the fact that she had no authority or license to do so.

Suliman vs. People

People of the Philippines vs. Salvatierra G.R. No. 190970, November 24, 2014
G.R. No. 200884, June 4, 2014
Facts:
Facts:
Mildred M. Salvatierra engaged in recruitment when she represented
herself to be capable of deploying workers to South Korea upon submission Vilma Suliman and one Luz P. Garcia were charged before the
of the pertinent documents and payment of the required fees. Regional Trial Court of Manila with two (2) counts of illegal recruitment under
Apellant claimed to be the liaison officer of Llanesa Consultancy Section 6, paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise
Services, the victims believed that she indeed had the capability to deploy known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as well as
them abroad. four (4) counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
All the witnesses and the supposed victims identified appellant as the Penal Code. Only petitioner was brought to trial as her co-accused, Garcia,
one who made such representation and received the payments they made eluded arrest and remained at-large despite the issuance of a warrant for her
evidenced b the petty cash vouchers and receipts she signed. Moreover, arrest.
appellant was caught in an entrapment operation when she received the
amount demanded allegedly as additional requirement before they can be Crime charged: 2 counts of illegal recruitment and 4 counts of estafa
deployed abroad.
It was, likewise, certified to by the Philippine Overseas Employment Issue:
Administration Licensing Division that neither appellant nor Llanesa Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment
Consultancy Services were licensed to recruit workers for overseas Ruling:
employment. YES, the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment. In the present case,
both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution has established that
Issue: petitioner and her co- accused committed the acts enumerated under the
Whether or notn the appellant committed illegal recruitment provisions of Section 6 (a), (l) and (m) of R.A. 8042 when: (1) they separately
charged the private complainants the amounts of P132,460.00, P120,000.00
Ruling: and P21,400.00 as placement fees ; (2) they failed to actually deploy the
YES The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penalized under private complainants without valid reasons , and; (3) they failed to reimburse
Sections 6 and 7 of RA 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos the said complainants after such failure to deploy .
Act of 1995, to wit:
 Whether appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment?

Ruling:

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.

The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proven in this case.
One, appellant has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and
placement of workers. Two, appellant clearly engaged in recruitment activities and
promised employment abroad to the complainant as proven by their testimonies.
Three, appellant committed illegal recruitment against three persons.

Powerhouse Staffbuilders International Inc. vs. Rey

People vs. Arnaiz G.R. No. 190203, November 7, 2016
G.R. No. 205153, September 9, 2015
Facts:
Facts: Powerhouse hired respondents as operators for its foreign principal, Catcher
Suzette Arnaiz, Ruel Garcia, and Chita Lorenzo were charged with the crime Technical Co. Ltd./Catcher Industrial Co. Ltd. (Catcher), based in Taiwan. Sometime,
of Illegal recruitment committed in large scale. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the Catcher informed respondent employees that they would be reducing their working
charges against her. days due to low orders and financial difficulties. The respondent employees were
Cayetano testified that she learned that appellant was recruiting workers for repatriated to the Philippines.
Australia. So she gave money for the processing fee however she was not able to Respondent employees filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, refund
leave for Australia of placement fees, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, against
Bunuan, went to appellants travel agency, Florida Travel and Tours after Powerhouse and Catcher
learning that it was recruiting factory workers for South Korea, Bunuan gave appellant Initially, they refused to be repatriated but they eventually gave in because Catcher
money believing that he will be deployed soon. Bunuan discovered that appellant sent stopped providing them food and they had to live by the donations/dole outs from
26 persons to Korea but all were sent back to the Philippines. He went to appellant’s sympathetic friends and the church.
office only to find out that it was already padlocked On the other hand, Powerhouse maintained that respondent employees
Flerminio Cantor Jr testified that her went to appellant’s office to apply as a voluntarily gave up their jobs following their rejection of Catcher's proposal to reduce
factory worker in Korea. He gave money also and the when he arrived in Korea, he their working days. It contended that before their repatriation, each of the respondents
was sent back by the immigration officer after confirming that his visa and passport accepted payments by way of settlement, with the assistance of Labor Attache
were fake. Romulo Salud.
During trial, all the complainants identified appellant in open court as Suzette
Arnaiz also known as Baby/Rosita Rosal to whom they gave their money. Issue:
Appellant testified that her office was only a travel agency and they only WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IF WORKERS
processed the issuance of visas in the different embassies in the Philippines CHOOSE TO LEAVE THEIR PLACE OF WORK.

Ruling:
Respondent employees were illegally dismissed. The onus of proving that an
Issue: employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed, his dismissal was not illegal, fully rests
on the employer, and the failure to discharge the onus would mean that the dismissal Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability
was not justified and was illegal. benefits.
The burden of proving the allegations rests upon the party alleging and the
proof must be clear, positive, and convincing.[50]Here, there is no reason to overturn Ruling:
the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, all of which have NO. The Court upheld the CA's dismissal of petitioner's claim for
unanimously declared that respondent employees were made to resign against their permanent total disability benefits. In its decision, the complaint was
will after the foreign principal, Catcher, stopped providing them food for their dismissed on the grounds of: (a) premature filing; and (b) failure to comply
subsistence as early as March 2, 2001, when they were informed that they would be with the mandated conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC.
repatriated, until they were repatriated on March 11, 2001.
The filing of complaints for illegal dismissal immediately after repatriation It is undisputed that petitioner was repatriated and immediately subjected to
belies the claim that respondent employees voluntarily chose to be separated and medical treatment. Despite the lapse of the initial 120-day period, such
repatriated. Voluntary repatriation, much like resignation, is inconsistent with the filing treatment continued due to persistent pain complained of by petitioner, which
of the complaints. was observed until his 180th day of treatment. In this relation, the CA
correctly ruled that the filing of the complaint for permanent total disability
benefits was premature, and should have been dismissed for lack of cause of
action. Moreover, petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed procedure
under the afore-quoted Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the joint
appointment by the parties of a third doctor, in case the seafarer's personal
Gargallo vs. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Mla), Inc. doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician's fit-to-work
G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016 assessment.
Facts:
The POEA-SEC and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer
The petitioner filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness
against respondents before the National Labor Relations Commission. The or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated
complaint stemmed from his claim that: (a) he accidentally fell on deck while physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
lifting heavy loads of lube oil drum, with his left arm hitting the floor first, company-designated physician's assessment, the opinion of a third doctor
may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the
bearing his full body weight; (b) he has remained permanently unfit for further
decision final and binding on them. Thus, while petitioner had the right to
sea service despite major surgery and further treatment by the company-
seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose
designated physicians; and (c) his permanent total unfitness to work was duly
decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure.
certified by his chosen physician whose certification must prevail over the Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have
palpably self-serving and biased assessment of the company-designated no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification is
physicians the final determination that must prevail
For their part, respondents countered that the fit-to-work findings of
the company-designated physicians must prevail over that of petitioner's
independent doctor, considering that: (a) they were the ones who
continuously treated and monitored petitioner's medical condition; and (b)
petitioner failed to comply with the conflict-resolution procedure under the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment
Contract (POEA-SEC). Respondents further averred that the filing of the
disability claim was premature since petitioner was still undergoing medical
treatment within the allowable 240-day period at the time the complaint was
filed.

Issue:
 Is Molina guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale?
Ruling:
Yes.

Illegal recruitment in large scale is an offense involving economic

sabotage under Section 6, paragraph (m) of R.A. No. 8042, known as
“Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”.

The provisional license granted by the POEA to the recruitment

agency Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation, but was
subsequently suspended for non-compliance with its undertaking to submit
requirements within 30 days from the date of issuance of its license as a
landbased agency. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals
that accused-appellant cannot escape from liability for large scale illegal
recruitment on the ground that she did not recruit private complainants and
participate in their transactions with Juliet Pacon to whom complainants
made their payments, as the recruitment was made in the recruitment agency
of which accused-appellant is the President. Moreover, private complainants
Logo, Ubiña, Bolda and Luya testified that they saw accused-appellant at the
agency and she was introduced to them by Pacon as the owner of the
People of the Philippines v. Delia C. Molina agency, and she even assured them that they would be deployed for
G.R. No. 229712; February 28, 2018 employment soon. Private respondent Delos Santos also testified that he
saw accused-appellant at the agency and Pacon told him that she was the
Facts: boss and owner of the agency. Further, the cash vouchers, evidencing the
Molina and Pacon were accused of Illegal Recruitment in Large payments made by private complainants to Pacon, contained the name of the
Scale for recruiting for a fee and promise of employment/job placement recruitment agency or its office address in Makati City, showing that it was
abroad of five persons namely, Maria C. Luya, Gilbert B. Ubina, Wilfred I. received by Pacon in behalf of the agency whose President was accused-
Logo, Benjamin B. Delos Santos, and Maylen S. Bolda for an aggregate appellant
amount of Php. 400,000.00, in connection with the documentation and
processing of their papers for purposes of their deployment. The accused
failed or refused to deploy the complainants abroad without the fault of the
applicants and to reimburse them with the amounts paid, to their damage and
prejudice. The case proceeded only against accused-appellant Delia C.
Molina, as Juliet Pacon was at-large.

In her defense, Molina admitted that she was the former President of
Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation, which was a duly
licensed recruitment agency as evidenced by the provisional license issued
by POEA. The agency was not able to do its business for failure to submit the
requirements of the POEA. Her former secretary Angelita Palabay took
charge of the agency. She also stated that her co-accused Julie Pacon had
no relation to her or to her agency in any capacity as Pacon was a total
stranger and had no authority to act for the agency.

Issue:
 obtain an employment permit from the Department of labor. GMC’s right to
choose whom to employ is limited by the statutory requirement of an
employment permit.

The Labor Code empowers the Labor Secretary to determine as to

the availability of the services of a “person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at the time of the application to perform the
services for which an alien is desired.”

General Milling Corporation vs. Torres (G.R. No. 9366, April 22, 1991)
WPP Marketing Communication, Inc. et. al. vs. Jocelyn Galera, G.R. No. 169207
Jocelyn Galera vs. WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. et. al., G.R. No.
169239, March 25, 2010
FACTS:
Earl Timothy Cone is a US citizen, who was hired by General Milling Facts:
as a sports consultant and assistant coach. He possessed an alien Petitioner is Jocelyn Galera (GALERA), an American citizen who was
employment permit which was changed to pre-arranged employee by the recruited from the United States of America by private respondent John Steedman,
Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Chairman-WPP Worldwide and Chief Executive Officer of Mindshare, Co., a
GMC requested that Cone’s employment permit be changed to a full-fledged corporation based in Hong Kong, China, to work in the Philippines for private
coach, which was contested by The Basketball Coaches Association of the respondent WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. (WPP), a corporation registered
Philippines. Alleging that GMC failed to show that there is no competent and operating under the laws of Philippines.
person in the Philippines to do the coaching job. Secretary of Labor cancelled Employment of GALERA with private respondent WPP became effective on
Cone’s employment permit. September 1, 1999 solely on the instruction of the CEO and upon signing of the
contract, without any further action from the Board of Directors of private respondent
ISSUE: WPP.
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor act with grave abuse of Four months had passed when private respondent WPP filed before the
discretion in revoking Cone’s Alien Employment Permit? Bureau of Immigration an application for petitioner GALERA to receive a working visa,
wherein she was designated as Vice President of WPP. Petitioner alleged that she
HELD: was constrained to sign the application in order that she could remain in the
The Secretary of Labor did not act with grave abuse of discretion in Philippines and retain her employment.
revoking Cone’s Alien Employment Permit. GMC’s claim that hiring of a On December 14, 2000, petitioner GALERA alleged she was verbally
foreign coach is an employer’s prerogative has no legal basis. Under Section notified by private respondent STEEDMAN that her services had been terminated
40 of the Labor Code, an employer seeking employment of an alien must first
from private respondent WPP. A termination letter followed the next day. Thus, a
complaint for illegal dismissal was filed against WPP.

Issue:
Does the LA have jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling:
The law and the rules are consistent in stating that the employment permit
must be acquired prior to employment.  The Labor Code states: “Any alien seeking
admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and any domestic or foreign
employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall
obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.” 

Section 4, Rule XIV, Book 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations

provides: “No alien seeking employment, whether as a resident or non-resident, may
enter the Philippines without first securing an employment permit from the Ministry.  If
an alien enters the country under a non-working visa and wishes to be employed
thereafter, he may only be allowed to be employed upon presentation of a duly
approved employment permit.”

Galera worked in the Philippines without a proper work permit but now wants
to claim employee’s benefits under Philippine labor laws.  She cannot come to this
Court with unclean hands.  To grant Galera’s prayer is to sanction the violation of the
Philippine labor laws requiring aliens to secure work permits before their
employment.