Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Law Social Legislation 1
Labor Law Social Legislation 1
3. What are the other prohibited activities under Art. 34, and considered as
illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022?
Answer:
The following acts are the prohibited activities under Art. 34, and considered as illegal
recruitment under Sec.6 of BA. No. 8042 (as amended by R.A. No. 10022):
Illegal exaction - To charge greater amount than that specified in the schedule of
allowable fees;
False information -To furnish any false information in relation to recruitment
or employment;
False statements - To give any false notice, testimony, etc. or commit any act of
misrepresentation to secure a license or authority;
Obstruct inspection To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Labor
Secretary or his authorized representatives;
Unjustified non-deployment - Failure to deploy a contracted worker without a
valid reason as determined by the DOLE;
Non-reimbursement upon failure TO DEPLOY - Failure to reimburse
expenses incurred by the worker in connection with the documentation and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not
actually take place without the worker's fault;
Delegation to an alien - To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a
licensed repayment/manning agency;
Withholding travel documents - To withhold travel documents from applicant
workers before departure for unauthorized monetary considerations;
Answer:
No, the contention is not correct. For illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the
prosecution has to prove three essential elements: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment
activity under Article 13(6) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor
Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal
activity against three or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, all the
elements are present. K cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her participation
as a cashier of R Agency. Section 6 of RA 8042, as amended, is equivocal that illegal
recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is immaterial therefore whether K remitted
the placement fee to the agency treasurer or appropriated them. Even if K was a mere
cashier, such fact did not make her any less an employee to be held liable for illegal
recruitment as principal by direct participation, together with the employer, as it was
shown that she actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process (People
v. Chua, G.R. No. 184058, March 10, 2010).