G.R. No.

176264

January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TERESITA LAOGO

FA TS
Susan Navarro invited Teodulo dela Cruz, Billy dela Cruz, Jr., Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, Rogelio Enriquez, and ary Bustillos and several individuals to !er !ouse in Bula"an, Bula"an to "ele#rate t!e town $iesta. Teresita %Tessie& Laogo, t!e proprietor and 'anager o$ Laogo Travel Consultan"y, was a'ong t!e several guests in Susan(s !ouse during t!e said o""asion. During t!e $iesta, ary introdu"ed Teodulo to Susan as so'e#ody w!o "ould !elp !i' $ind wor) a#road. Sin"e Susan was ary(s aunt, Teodulo i''ediately trusted Susan. Susan told !i' !e "an apply as assistant "oo) and "an wor) in ua', *S+. *pon Susan(s instru"tion, t!ey $illed out an appli"ation $or' and gave several a'ounts o$ 'oney. ,ont!s later, w!en Susan(s pro'ise to send !i' a#road re'ained un$ul$illed, Teodulo, along wit! several ot!er appli"ants, went to Tessie(s o$$i"e and to Susan(s !ouse to $ollow up t!eir appli"ation, #ut t!e two always told t!e' t!at t!eir visas !ave yet to #e released. ,ont!s passed #ut Rogelio !eard not!ing $ro' eit!er Susan or Tessie. +ppre!ensive, Rogelio veri$ied t!e status o$ t!e Laogo Travel Consultan"y wit! t!e -!ilippine .verseas E'ploy'ent +d'inistration /-.E+0. 1ro' t!e -.E+, Rogelio learned t!at Susan, Tessie, and Laogo Travel Consultan"y did not !ave any li"ense to re"ruit wor)ers $or e'ploy'ent a#road. +ggrieved, Rogelio, toget!er wit! !is si2 "o'panions, $iled a "o'plaint against Susan and Tessie.

ONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

T!e respondent "o''itted a large s"ale illegal re"ruit'ent.

ISS!E
3as large s"ale illegal re"ruit'ent "o''itted4

R!LING
5ES. Re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent re$ers to t!e a"t o$ "anvassing, enlisting, "ontra"ting, transporting, utilizing, !iring or pro"uring wor)ers, and in"ludes re$errals, "ontra"t servi"es, pro'ising or advertising $or e'ploy'ent, lo"ally or a#road, w!et!er $or pro$it or not. 3!en a person or entity, in any 'anner, o$$ers or pro'ises $or a $ee e'ploy'ent to two or 'ore persons, t!at person or entity s!all #e dee'ed engaged in re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent. +rti"le 67/a0 o$ t!e La#or Code, as a'ended, spe"i$ies t!at re"ruit'ent a"tivities underta)en #y non8li"ensees or non8!olders o$ aut!ority are dee'ed illegal and punis!a#le #y law. +nd w!en t!e illegal re"ruit'ent is "o''itted against t!ree or 'ore persons, individually or as a group, t!en it is dee'ed "o''itted in large s"ale and "arries wit! it sti$$er penalties as t!e sa'e is dee'ed a $or' o$ e"ono'i" sa#otage. But to prove illegal re"ruit'ent, it 'ust #e s!own t!at t!e a""used, wit!out #eing duly aut!orized #y law, gave "o'plainants t!e distin"t i'pression t!at !e !ad t!e power or a#ility to send t!e' a#road $or wor), su"! t!at t!e latter were "onvin"ed to part wit! t!eir 'oney in order

to #e e'ployed. 9t is i'portant t!at t!ere 'ust at least #e a pro'ise or o$$er o$ an e'ploy'ent $ro' t!e person posing as a re"ruiter, w!et!er lo"ally or a#road. 9n t!is "ase, Teodulo, Billy, Dante, Edwin, and Rogelio were pro'ised to #e sent a#road #y Susan and Tessie as "oo)s and assistant "oo)s. T!e $ollow up transa"tions #etween Tessie and t!e $ive persons were done inside t!e said travel agen"y. ,oreover, all $our re"eipts issued to t!e said persons #ear t!e na'e and logo o$ Laogo Travel Consultan"y, wit! two o$ t!e said re"eipts personally signed #y Tessie !ersel$. Tessie and Susan "ould t!us #e said to !ave a"ted toget!er in 'a)ing t!e' #elieve t!at t!ey were transa"ting wit! a legiti'ate re"ruit'ent agen"y and t!at Laogo Travel Consultan"y !ad t!e aut!ority to re"ruit t!e' and send t!e' a#road $or wor) w!en in trut! and in $a"t it !ad none as "erti$ied #y t!e -.E+.

G.R. No. 17"7#2

Au$us% "1, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHIIPPINES vs. ROSARIO &ROSE' O HOA FA TS

9n +pril :;;;, t!e RTC $ound Rosario ."!oa guilty #eyond reasona#le dou#t o$ illegal re"ruit'ent on a large s"ale and t!ree "ounts o$ esta$a. ."!oa t!en $iled a Noti"e o$ +ppeal in w!i"! s!e stated !er intention to appeal t!e RTC <udg'ent o$ "onvi"tion and prayed t!at t!e re"ords o$ !er "ase #e $orwarded to t!e Court o$ +ppeals. 9n a Resolution dated +ugust 7, :;;;, t!e Court o$ +ppeals granted ."!oa(s 1irst ,otion $or E2tension o$ Ti'e to $ile !er #rie$. T!e "ourt o$ appeals pro'ulgated its de"ision a$$ir'ing t!e appealed RTC de"ision #e"ause neit!er t!e plainti$$ nor t!e de$endant ever raised t!e issue o$ <urisdi"tion. +lt!oug! t!ey de"lared t!at it !ad no <urisdi"tion over ."!oa(s appeal. =owever, t!e Supre'e Court !as in pra"ti"e allowed t!e trans$er o$ re"ords $ro' t!is Court to t!e !ig!est "ourt. 9n w!i"! "ase, t!e Supre'e Court s!all su#s"ri#e to t!is pra"ti"e in t!e interest o$ su#stantial <usti"e.

ONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

T!at ."!oa is guilty o$ illegal re"ruit'ent "onstituting e"ono'i" sa#otage.

ONTENTION OF THE RESPON(ENT

."!oa, in !er personal "apa"ity, is neit!er li"ensed nor aut!orized to re"ruit wor)ers $or overseas e'ploy'ent > was already re<e"ted #y t!e RTC during t!e !earings on #ail $or #eing !earsay, and s!ould not !ave #een ad'itted #y t!e RTC a$ter t!e trial on t!e 'erits o$ t!e "ri'inal "ases. 9nad'issi#le eviden"e during #ail !earings do not #e"o'e ad'issi#le eviden"e a$ter $or'al o$$er. 3it!out t!e -.E+ "erti$i"ation, t!e prose"ution !ad no proo$ t!at ."!oa is unli"ensed to re"ruit and, t!us, s!e s!ould #e a"quitted.

S!e s!ould not #e $ound personally and "ri'inally lia#le $or illegal re"ruit'ent #e"ause s!e was a 'ere e'ployee o$ +?9L and t!at s!e !ad turned over t!e 'oney s!e re"eived $ro' private "o'plainants to +?9L.

ISS!E
3!et!er or not ."!oa is guilty o$ illegal re"ruit'ent.

R!LING
."!oa was "!arged wit! violation o$ Se"tion @ o$ Repu#li" +"t No. 7;A:. Said provision #roadens t!e "on"ept o$ illegal re"ruit'ent under t!e La#or Code and provides sti$$er penalties, espe"ially $or t!ose t!at "onstitute e"ono'i" sa#otage, i.e., illegal re"ruit'ent in large s"ale and illegal re"ruit'ent "o''itted #y a syndi"ate. 9t is well8settled t!at to prove illegal re"ruit'ent, it 'ust #e s!own t!at appellant gave "o'plainants t!e distin"t i'pression t!at s!e !ad t!e power or a#ility to send "o'plainants a#road $or wor) su"! t!at t!e latter were "onvin"ed to part wit! t!eir 'oney in order to #e e'ployed. +ll eig!t private "o'plainants !erein "onsistently de"lared t!at ."!oa o$$ered and pro'ised t!e' e'ploy'ent overseas. ."!oa required private "o'plainants to su#'it t!eir #io8 data, #irt! "erti$i"ates, and passports, w!i"! private "o'plainants did. -rivate "o'plainants also gave various a'ounts to ."!oa as pay'ent $or pla"e'ent and 'edi"al $ees as eviden"ed #y t!e re"eipts ."!oa issued to "o'plainants. Despite private "o'plainants( "o'plian"e wit! all t!e require'ents ."!oa spe"i$ied, t!ey were not a#le to leave $or wor) a#road. -rivate "o'plainants pleaded t!at ."!oa return t!eir !ard8earned 'oney, #ut ."!oa $ailed to do so. +s $ound in t!e o$$i"e(s re"ords, appellant, in !er personal "apa"ity, is neit!er li"ensed nor aut!orized to re"ruit wor)ers $or overseas e'ploy'ent. 9t #ears stressing, too, t!at t!is is not a "ase w!ere a "erti$i"ation is rendered inad'issi#le #e"ause t!e one w!o prepared it was not presented during t!e trial. Regardless o$ w!et!er or not ."!oa was a li"ensee or !older o$ aut!ority, s!e "ould still !ave "o''itted illegal re"ruit'ent. Se"tion @ o$ Repu#li" +"t No. 7;A: "learly provides t!at any person, w!et!er a non8li"ensee, non8!older, li"ensee or !older o$ aut!ority 'ay #e !eld lia#le $or illegal re"ruit'ent $or "ertain a"ts as enu'erated in paragrap!s /a0 to /'0 t!ereo$. +'ong su"! a"ts, under Se"tion @/'0 o$ Repu#li" +"t No. 7;A:, is t!e $ailure to rei'#urse e2penses in"urred #y t!e wor)er in "onne"tion wit! !is do"u'entation and pro"essing $or purposes o$ deploy'ent, in "ases w!ere t!e deploy'ent does not a"tually ta)e pla"e wit!out t!e wor)er(s $ault.B ."!oa "o''itted illegal re"ruit'ent as des"ri#ed in t!e said provision #y re"eiving pla"e'ent and 'edi"al $ees $ro' private "o'plainants, eviden"ed #y t!e re"eipts issued #y !er, and $ailing to rei'#urse t!e private "o'plainants t!e a'ounts t!ey !ad paid w!en t!ey were not a#le to leave $or Taiwan and Saudi +ra#ia, t!roug! no $ault o$ t!eir own. 9llegal re"ruit'ent w!en "o''itted #y a syndi"ate or in large s"ale s!all #e "onsidered an o$$ense involving e"ono'i" sa#otage.

9llegal re"ruit'ent is dee'ed "o''itted #y a syndi"ate i$ "arried out #y a group o$ t!ree /60 or 'ore persons "onspiring or "on$ederating wit! one anot!er. 9t is dee'ed "o''itted in large s"ale i$ "o''itted against t!ree /60 or 'ore persons individually or as a group. 9n !er argu'ent t!at s!e was <ust a 'ere e'ployee o$ +?9L, ."!oa was not a#le to present t!e 'ost #asi" eviden"e o$ e'ploy'ent, su"! as appoint'ent papers, identi$i"ation "ard /9D0, andCor payslips. T!e re"eipts presented #y so'e o$ t!e private "o'plainants were issued and signed #y ."!oa !ersel$, and did not "ontain any indi"ation t!at ."!oa issued and signed t!e sa'e on #e!al$ o$ +?9L. +lso, ."!oa was not a#le to present any proo$ t!at private "o'plainants( 'oney were a"tually turned over to or re"eived #y +?9L.

G.R. No. 171644

Nov)*+)r 2", 2011

(ELIA (. RO,ERO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RO,!LO PA(LAN AN( ART!RO SIAPNO FA TS
-rivate respondent Ro'ulo -adlan went to petitioner Delia D. Ro'ero to inquire a#out se"uring a <o# in 9srael. Convin"ed #y petitioner(s words o$ en"ourage'ent and inspired #y t!e potential salary o$ *SDE;; to *SDF,:;; a 'ont!, respondent raised t!e a'ount o$ *SD6,@;;, w!i"! !e gave to petitioner so t!at !is papers "ould #e pro"essed. Respondent le$t $or 9srael and se"ured a <o# wit! a 'ont!ly salary o$ *SD@G;. *n$ortunately, a$ter two and a !al$ 'ont!s, !e was "aug!t #y 9srael(s i''igration poli"e and deported $or la") o$ a wor)ing visa. .n !is return, respondent de'anded $ro' petitioner t!e return o$ !is 'oney #ut t!e later re$used. Respondent $iled a "o'plaint $or 9llegal Re"ruit'ent against petitioner.

ONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

S!e did not re"ruit t!e respondents #e"ause t!e latter inquired to t!e petitioner(s sister regarding t!eir possi#le wor) in 9srael.

ISS!E
3!et!er or not 9llegal Re"ruit'ent was "o''itted.

R!LING
5es. +rti"le F6 /#0 o$ t!e La#or Code de$ines %re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent& asH %any a"t o$ "anvassing, enlisting, "ontra"ting, transporting, utilizing, !iring or pro"uring wor)ers, and in"ludes re$errals, "ontra"t servi"es, pro'ising or advertising $or e'ploy'ent, lo"ally or a#road, w!et!er $or pro$it or notH -rovided, t!at any person or entity w!i"!, in any 'anner, o$$ers or pro'ises $or a $ee, e'ploy'ent to two or 'ore persons s!all #e dee'ed engaged in

re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent.& T!e "ri'e o$ illegal re"ruit'ent is "o''itted w!en two ele'ents "on"ur, na'elyH /F0 t!e o$$ender !as no valid li"ense or aut!ority required #y law to ena#le one to law$ully engage in re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent o$ wor)ersI and /:0 !e underta)es eit!er any a"tivity wit!in t!e 'eaning o$ %re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent& de$ined under +rti"le F6 /#0, or any pro!i#ited pra"ti"es enu'erated under +rti"le 6A o$ t!e La#or Code. T!us, t!e trial "ourt did not err in "onsidering t!e "erti$i"ation $ro' t!e Depart'ent o$ La#or and E'ploy'ent8Dagupan Distri"t .$$i"e stating t!at petitioner !as not #een issued any li"ense #y t!e -.E+ nor is a !older o$ an aut!ority to engage in re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent a"tivities. 1ro' t!e a#ove testi'onies, it is apparent t!at petitioner was a#le to "onvin"e t!e private respondents to apply $or wor) in 9srael a$ter parting wit! t!eir 'oney in e2"!ange $or t!e servi"es s!e would render. T!e said a"t o$ t!e petitioner, wit!out a dou#t, $alls wit!in t!e 'eaning o$ re"ruit'ent and pla"e'ent as de$ined in +rti"le F6 /#0 o$ t!e La#or Code.