Labor Standards Digests 3

Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal

Title People v. Valenciano GR No. 180926 10 December 2008 Velasco, Jr., J.

Facts Lour Lourde dess Valen Valenci cian ano, o, Tere Teresi sita ta Marque Marquezz aka Teresi Teresita ta Imperia Imperial, l, Rome Romeo o Marq Marque uezz aka aka Roda Rodant ntee Imperial, and Rommel Marquez aka Romm Rommel el Impe Imperi rial al purp purpor orte ted d themse themselve lvess to be connec connected ted with with Middle East International Manpower  Resources, Inc. and obtained money from from four four peop people le whom whom they they   promi promised sed to recrui recruitt for work at a fact factor ory y in Taiwa Taiwan. n. Vale Valenc ncia iano no received received the payments, but turned turned them them over over to the Marquez Marquezes es who issued receipts.

While the Marquezes remain at large, Valenciano was caught and tried. She was found guilty by the lower court of illegal recruitment recruitment in large scale. The CA affirmed the decision.

Issue/s W/N Valencian Valenciano o was engage engaged d in illegal recruitment.

Ruling Doctrine/s YES. Valenciano’s Valenciano’s claim that she One One canno cannott escap escapee liab liabil ilit ity y by was a mere mere employ employee ee of her co- claiming claiming that he is not aware that accused accused does not relieve relieve her of   before working for his employer in liability. An employee of a company the recruitment recruitment agency, agency, he should should or corpor corporati ation on engage engaged d in illega illegall first be registered registered with the POEA. recruit recruitmen mentt may be held held liable liable as Illegal Illegal recruitment in large scale is  principal, together with his employer, malum prohibitum, prohibitum , not malum in se. se. if it is shown shown that the employee employee Good faith is not a defense. actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Mo ne ne y is n ot ot ma te te ri ria l t o a 1. As test testif ifie ied d to by the the  prosecution for illegal recruitment, as definition of “recruitment “recruitment and complainant complainants, s, accusedaccused- the definition placem cemen ent” t” in the the Labo Laborr Code Code appel appella lant nt was was amon among g   pla includes the phrase, phrase, “whether “whether for  t ho hos e w ho ho me t a nd nd includes trans transact acted ed with with them them  profit or not.”

Valenciano Valenciano appealed, appealed, claiming claiming that she was an ordinary employee of the Middle East International Manpower  Resources, Inc., and that her promise that that the the four four recru recruit itss woul would d be employed employed in Taiwan was made in good faith, and in the performance of  her duties as a clerk in the company.

2.

r eg egarding the job  placement offers. In some instances, instances, she made the effort to go to their houses to recruit them. She even gave assurances that they woul would d be able able to find find employment employment abroad and leave for Taiwan after the filing of their   applic applicati ations ons.. Accuse Accuseddappel appella lant nt was was clea clearl rly y engaged engaged in recruit recruitmen mentt activities, notwithstanding her gratuitous protestation that that her her actio actions ns were were merely done in the course of her employment as a clerk. I t i s s uf uf fi fi ci ci en en t t ha ha t t he he accu accuse sed d prom promis ises es or  offers for a fe e employ employmen mentt to warrant warrant convi convict ctio ion n for for ille illega gall recruit recruitmen ment. t. Accuse Accuseddappellant made repr repres esen enta tati tion onss that that compl complai ainan nants ts woul would d rece receiv ivee empl employ oyme ment nt abroad, and this suffices for her conviction, even if  her name does not appear  on the receipts issued to complainants as evidence

To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to   prove prove three essential elements: elements: (1) the person person charge charged d underto undertook ok a recruitment recruitment activity under Article 13(b) 13(b) or any prohib prohibite ited d practi practice ce under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recru recruit itme ment nt and plac placem emen entt of  workers; and (3) accused committed the the same same agai agains nstt three three or more more  persons individually or as a group.

1

Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal

that payment was made. Cert Certif ific icat atio ions ns mad madee by the the POEA stated that accused-appel accused-appellant lant in her   personal capacity was not licensed or authorized to recr recrui uitt work worker erss for  for  overseas employment and that that any any recru recruit itme ment nt activities activities undertaken undertaken by her are illegal illegal,, and that her name does not appear  on the list of employees employees submitted by Middle East Internation International al Manpower  Manpower  Resources, Inc. Accusedappellant thus could point to no authority authority allowing her to recruit complainant complainants, s, as she was n ot ot a n e mp mp lo loy ee ee o f   Middle East, nor was she allowed to do so in her    per perso sona nall capa capaci city ty.. Fur th ther mo more, she undert undertook ook recruit recruitmen mentt activ activit itie iess outs outsid idee the the  premises of the office of a licen license sed d recru recruit itme ment nt agency, which can only   be done with the prior  approval of the POEA.   NO. NO. A convic convictio tion n for large large scale scale Illegal Illegal recruit recruitmen mentt is commit committed ted illegal recruitment must be based on when two elements concur: (1) the a findin finding g in each case case of illegal illegal offend offender er has no valid valid licens licensee or  recruitment of three or more persons authority required by law to enable whether individually or as a group. him him to lawfu lawfull lly y enga engage ge in the the While it is true that the law does not recru recruit itme ment nt and plac placem emen entt of  require require that that at least least three three victim victimss workers; and (2) he undertakes any testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is acti activi vity ty with within in the the mean meanin ing g of  necessary necessary that there is a sufficient sufficient “recruitment and placement” defined evidence evidence proving proving that the offense under under Articl Articlee 13(b) 13(b) of the Labor  was committed against three or more Code. The crime crime becomes becomes Illegal Illegal   pers person ons. s. In the the case case at bar, bar, the the Recruitment in Large Scale when the   pro prose secu cuti tion on faile failed d to addu adduce ce foregoing two elements concur, with suffici sufficient ent eviden evidence ce to prove prove that that the addition of a third element—the illegal illegal recruitment recruitment was committed committed recruiter committed the same against against three or more persons. The three or more persons, individually or  illegal illegal recruitment recruitment was committed committed as a group. against against only only one person person:: Garcia, Garcia, 3.

People v. Hu GR No. 182232 6 October 2008 Chico-Nazario, J.

  Nen Nenit itaa Hu is the the Pres Presid iden entt of  W/N Hu was engaged in recruitment Brighturn International Services, Inc. in large scale. a land-based recruitment agency duly licensed by the POEA to engage in the busin business ess of recruit recruitmen mentt and  placement  placement of workers workers abroad. abroad. Ethel Genoves, on the other hand, worked as a consultant and marketing officer  of Brighturn. Aside from her stint at Brighturn, Brighturn, she was also connected connected with Riverland Consultancy Service, anot anothe herr recr recrui uitm tmen entt agen agency cy.. Brighturn was authorized to recruit,   proce process, ss, and deploy deploy land-b land-base ased d work worker erss for for the the peri period od of 18 Decemb December er 1999 1999 to 17 Decemb December  er  2001.

2

Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal

Genoves and Hu were charged with Illegal Illegal Recruitment Recruitment in Large Scale follow following ing the compla complaint int from 6  people that they promised the latter  employment employment/job /job placement placement abroad and and coll collect ected ed fees fees from from them them.. However, when the job placements never materialized, the complainants demanded that the money they gave as placem placement ent fees be return returned ed to them. Hu was not able to refund the same.

  beca becaus usee Hu refer referred red Garc Garcia ia to The act of referral, which means the another agency without the license or  act of passing along or forwarding an authority to do so. Illegal recruitment applicant after an initial interview to cannot cannot succes successfu sfully lly attach attach to the a selected selected employer, employer, placement or  allegations allegations of the others since they  bureau, is included in recruitment. testified that they accomplished their    pre pre-em -empl ploy oyme ment nt requ requir irem emen ents tsThe absence of receipts in the case of  through Brighturn from June 2001 up illegal recruitment does not warrant to October of the same year, a period the acquittal of the appellant and is where wherein in Brig Bright htur urn’ n’ss lice licens nsee to not fatal to the prosecution’s case. As engage in recruitment and placement long long as the prosecut prosecution ion is able able to was still in full force and effect. esta establ blis ish h thro throug ugh h credi credibl blee and and test testim imon onia iall evid eviden ence ce that that the the However, However, failure failure of the prosecution prosecution appell appellant ant had engage engaged d in illegal illegal to prove the guilt of Hu beyond beyond recrui recruitme tment, nt, a convic convictio tion n for the reasonable reasonable doubt does not absolve absolve offense can be very well justified. her of her civil obligation to return the money she collec collected ted from the Obiter: compla complaina inants nts.. Neithe Neitherr does does her    Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non acquitt acquittal al herein herein exempt exempt her from qui negat – he who asserts, not he subsequent criminal prosecution for  who denies, must prove. estafa provided that deceit, which is an essential element element of estafa, estafa, be  proven by the prosecution.

Four Four of these these compla complaina inants nts were were   promised promised employment employment during the validi validity ty of Bright Brighturn urn’s ’s licens license. e. Garcia applied on April 2002, when Bright Brighturn urn’s ’s licens licensee had alread already y expired. expired. She was referred to Best One, another recruitment agency, but her placement placement fee was paid with with Brighturn.

Villar v. People GR No. 176169 14 November 2008 Tinga, J.

For her defense, Hu cited that the recei receipt ptss that that the the comp compla lain inan ants ts s ho ho we we d h er er w er er e is su sue d by Riverla Riverland. nd. She denied denied knowin knowing g Genoves. In January 1993, Rosario Villar and Dolores Dolores Placa represented represented to Nila Panilag that they would be able to find her a job abroad and obtained from the latter P6,500 as placement fee, but they did not have any license or authority to do so. An Information was filed against Villar and Placa with with the title title design designati ating ng their  their  offens offensee under under RA 8042. 8042. In 2002, 2002, after the trial, the RTC held Villar  liable liable for the offens offensee of illegal illegal recruitment under the Labor Code.

W/N W/N Vill Villar ar is guil guilty ty of ille illega gall recruitment.

Villar Villar appeale appealed d to the CA, which which found that Villar should have only  been charged  under Article 13(b) of  the Labor Code and not under RA 8042. It then held that Villar was liable under Article 38 of the Labor  Code, in relation to Article 13(b) and Article Article 39 of the same Code. It then

Under which law should Villar be held accountable?

W/N RA 8042 was retroactively used as basis for filing a criminal action against Villar for illegal recruitment.

  NO. Petitioner was charged in 1998 The real nature of the crime charged u nd nd er er an I nf nf or or ma ma titio n t ha ha t is determined, not from the caption or  erroneously designated the offense as  preamble of the information nor from covered by RA 8042, but alleged in the specification of the law alleged to its body acts which are punishable punishable have been violated, but by the actual under under the Labor Labor Code. As it was recital of facts in the complaint complaint or    proven proven that she had committed committed the recital information. What controls is not the acts she was charged with, she was  properly convicted under the Labor  designation but the description of the Code, and not under RA 8042. offens offensee charge charged. d. If the accuse accused d   perfo performe rmed d the acts acts alleged alleged in the YES. The prosecution prosecution established established   body body of the inform informati ation, on, in the   bey beyon ond d reaso reasona nabl blee doub doubtt that that   petitioner petitioner had performed performed the acts manner stated, the then he ought to be pu ni nis he he d a nd nd pu ni ni sh sh ed ed constitutin constituting g the offense defined defined in   be adequa adequatel tely, y, whatev whatever er may be the Art. 38, in relation to Art. 13(b) and   punis punished hed by Art. Art. 39 of the Labor  Labor  name of the crime which those acts Code, as alleged in the body of the constitute. Information. THE LABOR CODE. A criminal act is punishable under the laws in force

3

Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal

affirmed the trial court’s decision. Villar appealed, claiming that the CA failed failed to consid consider er that that RA 8042 8042 cannot be given retroactive effect and the decision of the RTC constitutes a viol violat atio ion n of the the cons consti titu tuti tion onal al  prohibition against ex post facto law.

People v. Diaz GR No. 112175 26 July 1996 Torres, Jr., J.

Three women (Navarro, (Navarro, Fabricante, Fabricante, and Ramirez) were enrolled at the Henichi Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural Cultural Foundation in Davao City, studying  Niponggo, when they were informed  by their teacher, Mrs. Aplicador, that she knew of a Mr. Paulo Lim who also knew of one Engineer Engineer Erwin Diaz who was recruiting applicants applicants for Brunei. Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three women went to Mr. Lim who told told them them that that his children children had already applied with Engr. Diaz. The four women were then accompanied   by Mr. Lim to the CIS Detent Detention ion Center where Engr. Diaz was already   being being detained. detained. After Navarro Navarro and Ramirez Ramirez had already already given 20k as  placement fee, Fabricante went to the office of the POEA and found out the Engr Engr.. Diaz Diaz was was not not licen license sed. d. Fabricante informed the two women about about her discovery discovery and they all withdrew withdrew their application applications. s. Engr. Diaz refunded their payments.

People v. Chowdury GR No. 129577-80 15 February 2000  Puno, J.

The trial court held Engr. Diaz guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Bulu Bulu Chowdu Chowdury, ry, a consul consultan tantt of  Craftra Craftrade de Overse Overseas as Develo Developer pers, s, interviewed interviewed potential potential applicants applicants for  work at a factory factory in South Korea, Korea,

at the time of its commission. Thus, Villar can only be charged and found guilty under the Labor Code which was in force in 1993 when the acts attributed to her were committed. W /N /N RA 8 04 042 wa s a pp pp lilie d retroactively in Villar’s case.

  NO. Neither the trial court nor the appell appellate ate court court give give RA 8042 8042 a retroactive application because both courts passed upon Villar’s case only under the aegis of the Labor Code. The proceedings before the trial court and the appellate court did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto law law nor nor invo involv lved ed a retr retroa oact ctiv ivee application of RA 8042 in any way. W/N Diaz was engaged engaged in illegal illegal YES. Diaz was neither a licensee nor  The crime of illegal recruitment, as recruitment. a holder of authority to qualify him defi define ned d unde underr Arti Articl clee 38(a 38(a)) in to lawfully engage in recruitment and relation to Articles 13(b) and 34 and  placement activity. Appellant told the   penal penalize ized d under under Articl Articlee 39 of the three women that he was recruiting Labor Code, as amended by PD 1920 cont contra ract ct work worker erss for for abro abroad ad,, and PD 2018, 2018, is any recruitme recruitment nt   particularl particularly y Brunei, Brunei, and promised promised activity, activity, including including the prohibited prohibited them job opportunit opportunities ies if they can   practices practices enumerated enumerated under Article Article  produce  produce various various amounts amounts of money 34, undertaken by a non-licensee or  for expens expenses es and proces processin sing g of  non-holder of authority. documents. He manifestly gave the impression to the three women that A pers person on is guil guilty ty of ille illega gall he had the ability to send workers recru recruit itme ment nt when when he give givess the the abroad. Misrepresenting himself as a impression that he has the power to recruiter recruiter of workers for Brunei, Brunei, he send workers abroad.   promised them work for a fee and convinced convinced them to give their money for for the the purp purpos osee of gett gettin ing g an employment overseas.

W/N Chowdury should be held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.

 NO. The persons criminally liable for  illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices, and accessories. In case of juridi juridical cal persons persons,, the the office officers rs

The existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate corporate agent who knowingly knowingly and intentiona intentionally lly causes the corporation corporation

4

Labor Standards Case Digest Matrix 3 – Stef Macapagal

namely Aser Sasis, Sasis, Estrella Estrella Calleja, Calleja, and Melvin Miranda. The three were charged charged processing processing fees which were received by one Josephine Ong. They were promised that they would be able to work abroad, but they were never deployed. They tried to refund their money from Craftrade Craftrade to no avai avail, l, and file filed d a case case agai agains nstt Chowdury for illegal recruitment. It appe appears ars that that Craft Craftrad radee was was  previously licensed to recruit workers for abroad, and the license expired on 15 December 1993. It was granted a temp tempor orar ary y licen license se effec effecti tive ve 16 December December 1993 until 11 September  September  1994. From 11 September, the POEA granted Craftrade another temporary author authority ity to proces processs the expiri expiring ng visas of overseas workers who have alre already ady been been depl deploy oyed. ed. On 14 December December 1994, POEA suspended suspended Craftra Craftrade’ de’ss tempor temporary ary licens license. e. Chowdu Chowdury, ry, for his part, was an interviewer interviewer for Craftrade Craftrade until his resignation on 12 November 1994.

having having contro control, l, manage managemen mentt or  to commit a crime. direction direction of their business business shall be liable. An employee of a company or  T he he e mp mp lo lo ye ye e o r a ge ge nt nt of a corp corpor orat atio ion n enga engage ged d in ille illega gall corpor corporati ation on engaged engaged in unlawf unlawful ul recruit recruitmen mentt may be held held liable liable as  business naturally aids and abets in  principal, together with his employer, the carrying on of such business and if it is shown that he actively and will be prosecuted as principal if with consciousl consciously y participated participated in illegal illegal know knowle ledg dgee of the the busi busine ness ss,, its its recruitment. recruitment. However, at the time   purpose purpose and effect, he consciously consciously Chow Chowdu dury ry was was empl employ oyed ed by contributes his efforts to its conduct Craf Craftr trad ade, e, the the comp compan any y was was and promotion, promotion, however however slight slight his oper operat atin ing g unde underr a temp tempor orar ary y contribution may be. autho authori rity ty give given n by the the POEA POEA  pending renewal of its license. The tempor temporary ary licens licensee includ included ed the autho authori rity ty to recrui recruitt work workers ers.. Although Craftrade failed to register  Chowdury’s name in the POEA as an employee, employee, Chowdury Chowdury was unaware unaware of that fact.

The trial trial court court found found Chowdu Chowdury ry guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

5