Mariveles Shipyard vs CA , 415 SCRA 573

Facts : Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the services of Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. Due
to poor performance of its security guards, Mariveles terminated the contract with Longest. In turn, Longest terminated the
employment of the security guards assigned to Mariveles. Petitioners filed a case against Mariveles for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of wages pursuant to the PNPSOSIA-PADPAO rates, non-payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holiday
and rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13
th
month pay and attorneys fees, against both Longest Force and petitioner,
before the Labor Arbiter.
Labor Arbiter held both Mariveles and Longest solidarily liable to the employees. Mariveles appealed to NLRC but the
decision of the LA was sustained.
Issue: Petitioner argues that it should not be held jointly and severally liable with Longest Force for underpayment of wages
and overtime pay because it had been religiously and promptly paying the bills for the security services sent by Longest
Force and that these are in accordance with the statutory minimum wage. Also, petitioner contends that it should not be
held liable for overtime pay as private respondents failed to present proof that overtime work was actually performed.
Held: Petitioners liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force, pursuant to Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor
Code which provide as follows:
ART. 106. CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the
performance of the formers work, the employees of the contractor and of the latters subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the
employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the
work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by
him.
ART. 107. INDIRECT EMPLOYER. The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any
person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project.
ART. 109. SOLIDARY LIABILITY. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, every employer or
indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of
this Code. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered
as direct employers.
In this case, when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security agency that hired private
respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation, petitioner became an indirect employer of private respondents
pursuant to Article 107 abovecited. Following Article 106, when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards, the
corporation as principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the guards wages. This is mandated by the Labor Code to
ensure compliance with its provisions, including payment of statutory minimum wage. The security agency is held liable by
virtue of its status as direct employer, while the corporation is deemed the indirect employer of the guards for the purpose
of paying their wages in the event of failure of the agency to pay them. This statutory scheme gives the workers the ample
protection consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner cannot evade its liability by claiming that it had religiously paid the compensation of guards as stipulated under
the contract with the security agency. Labor standards are enacted by the legislature to alleviate the plight of workers
whose wages barely meet the spiraling costs of their basic needs. Labor laws are considered written in every
contract. Stipulations in violation thereof are considered null. Similarly, legislated wage increases are deemed
amendments to the contract. Thus, employers cannot hide behind their contracts in order to evade their (or their
contractors or subcontractors) liability for noncompliance with the statutory minimum wage.
However, we must emphasize that the solidary liability of petitioner with that of Longest Force does not preclude the
application of the Civil Code provision on the right of reimbursement from his co-debtor by the one who paid.
PEOPLE vs PANIS
***Information against Panis for recruiting without license. His defense is that recruitment requires offering to two or more
persons per Article 13b. SC held this was merely a presumption (a rule of evidence) and not an indispensable requirement in
the crime charged.

FACTS:
Respondent is charged by four Informations by four individuals, charging him of violating Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of
the Labor Code for operating a fee-charging employment agency without the requisite license from the Ministry of Labor.
The issue lies in the interpretation of Article 13b of the Labor Code:

(b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally
or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.

Respondent moved to quash on the ground that the Informations did not charge an offense since the above article
specifies that there must be at least two or more persons being promised employment to be considered as being engaged
in recruitment.

Petitioners however contend that Article 16 and Article 39 should stand alone, and that the above articles requirement of
two or more persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment to
such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article may involve even
only one person and are not necessarily for profit.

RTC initially ruled against the Motion, but overturned it on appeal. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a person must employ two or more to be engaged in recruitment.

HELD:
NO. However, the interpretation of petitioner is not correct.

The proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to
create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever
he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made
in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of
the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective
worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a
promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be
deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement.

Accordingly, the Informations are reinstated.

PEOPLE vs SAULO
***sss

FACTS:
Respondent is charged by two Informations based on similar acts (one for 3 counts of estafa, and one for illegal recruitment
in large scale) by three individuals, Maligaya, Javier, and Maullon.

Maligaya avers that he learned that Saulo was recruiting workers for Taiwan, and he went to his house, and respondent told
him he could leave for Taiwan once he gave him fees for the processing of documents. He paid 35K to respondent,
evidenced by a receipt.

Javier learned of the respondent through the respondents wife. Respondent told her he could get her a job as a factory
worker in Taiwan for a fee. She gave him 20K, but did not ask for a receipt as she trusted him.

Maullon learned of respondent through a neighbor. As in the case of the others, he was told by respondent to pay a fee so
that respondent could get him a job as a factory worker in Taiwan for 35K, which he paid in installments, evidenced by a
receipt.

Respondent was charged when he failed to get the complainants work.

RTC found him guilty of 3 counts of estafa and of illegal recruitment in large scale. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he is guilty of recruiting in large scale.

HELD:
YES.

The elements of the crime of recruitment in large scale are:
1. He engages in recruiting according to Article 13b, or does prohibited acts under Article 34.
2. He fails to comply with the guidelines issued by DOLE re: license or authority to recruit.
3. He commits the same against three or more persons.

The clear and convincing evidence of the prosecution clearly made out a case of illegal recruitment in large scale against
respondent. His defense of bare denial will not save him against the straightforward and explicit testimonies of the
complainants.

His contention that he cannot be charged since the licenses are only issued to corporations and not natural persons
(through the testimony of a POEA labor officer) is specious and illogical. The Labor Code states that "any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement." Corrolarily, a nonlicensee or nonholder of authority is any person, corporation or entity which
has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or
whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked, or canceled by the POEA or the Secretary. It also bears stressing
that agents or representatives appointed by a licensee or a holder of authority but whose appointments are not previously
authorized by the POEA fall within the meaning of the term nonlicensee or nonholder of authority. Thus, any person, whether
natural or juridical, that engages in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority shall be penalized under
Art. 39 of the Labor Code.

It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor licensed by the Department of Labor and Employment to
engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or authority renders all of accused-
appellants recruitment activities criminal.

People vs Buli-e and Josefina Alolino : Illegal Recruitment : Large Scale

FACTS:
-
Buli-e et al represented themselves as recruiters to Taiwan

-
They don't have license or authority from the proper government agency. They ask for 40k placement fee 15k of which
was paid in advance

-
8 Informations filed against them for estafa.

-
Complainants were assured by one or both of the spouses (Josefina and husband) that they were licensed to recruit
overseas contract workers and that they can deploy workers within two to three months

-
Weary of waiting, complainants went to POEA and found out the so-called recruiters had no license.

-
During trial, Buli-e testified that she worked for RSI and had been referring applicants to the agency before 1991. She met
Josefina a year after she resigned from RSI. Josefina was then Marketing Director of RSI

-
Later on Buli-e went to Josefinas house after the latters request and was then appointed as an agent of Josefina.

-
Buli-e was tasked to find job applicants for Taiwan, Korea or Singapore whom she can refer to RSI through Josefina. Buli-
e would then be paid for each referral. When Buli-e asked Josefina if the latter was authorized or had any license to
recruit for overseas placement, Josefina answered in the affirmative.

-
Josefina denied that Buli-e was her agent and insisted that she never gave Buli-e authority to recruit for RSI

-
TC ruled finding both Buli-e and Josefina guilty beyond reasonable doubt for all 8 informations filed and guilty of illegal
recruitment

-
TC ruled that by their acts, Buli-e and Josefina, conspired and confederated with one another in the illegal recruitment of
complainants for overseas employment. Buli-e performed the recruitment activities in Baguio and Josefina, in Manila.
The trial court specifically noted Buli-es acts of accompanying the complainants to Manila for their medical
examinations, securing complainants NBI clearances and passports as an indication that she directly participated in
the recruitment of all complainants. The trial court observed that Buli-e practically confessed her acts of recruitment in
open court and justified the same by claiming that she was just acting as an agent of Josefina or was authorized to act
in behalf of the latter.

-
Hence this appeal. Assailing the decision finding Buli-e guilty of illegal recruitment when she only honestly believed
Josefina was a bonafide recruiter


ISSUE: Did the court err in finding Buli-e guilty?

HELD: No. The decision is affirmed but with modifications on the damages awarded to 2 of the complainants

Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and include referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; provided that any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment or
placement.

The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are (1) the accused engages in acts of
recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the
Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas;
and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
When illegal recruitment is committed in large scale or when it is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a
group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another, it is considered as an offense involving
economic sabotage.

The factual backdrop shows that appellants engaged in recruitment activities involving eight persons. The
recruitment activities were made by appellants without having the license or authority to do so as evidenced by the
certification issued by Legal Officer of the POEA Regional Extension Unit, Cordillera Administrative Region, which stated that
Alona Buli-e, Hilario Antonio, Josie Alolino and Jose Alolino were not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment in the City of Baguio or in any part of the region.
Appellant Buli-e herself does not deny that she had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas
employment. She, however, insists that she had never directly participated in recruiting complainants since it was in fact
complainants who sought her help in applying for overseas employment. Buli-e explained that she merely referred
complainants to the spouses Alolino whom she honestly believed to be bona fide overseas job recruiters and, since she,
herself, had intentions of applying for overseas work, she tagged along with complainants to Manila to see the spouses
Alolino. Inasmuch as she and complainants were all from Baguio City, complainants allegedly designated her to conduct
all negotiations and follow up of their applications with the spouses.

People vs Dujua: Illegal Recruitment : Large Scale

FACTS:
-
Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle, Guillermo Samson charged with illegal recruitment in
large scale.

-
10 complainants filed informations against them.

-
All of them were promised work abroad upon payment of fees but they were not actually deployed.

-
Only Ramon was arrested.

-
Pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations that he was a recruiter. He admitted having met private complainants but
denied that he was a recruiter. He claimed that he was a mere janitor, messenger and errand boy of the World Pack
Travel and Tours, where he worked from October 28, 1991 up to June 20, 1992.The company is owned by his aunt, Editha
Singh, and managed by his mother Rose Dujua

-
RTC ruled finding Ramon guilty of illegal recruitment

-
Dujua appealed contending that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the
crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.


ISSUE: Did Ramon Dujua et al commit illegal recruitment in a large scale?

HELD:
The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: 1) The accused engages in acts of recruitment
and placement of workers defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment particularly with
respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers either locally or overseas; and
3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons individually or as a group.
All three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt.

First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved that Dujua promised them employment and
assured them of placement overseas. All of them identified Dujua as the person who recruited them for employment
abroad. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujuas mere denials cannot
prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in
illegal recruitment , a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.
Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as shown by the
Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority.

Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the recruitment of more than three persons.

CF Sharp Crew Management Inc vs Espanol
1. Louis Cruise Lines (LCL), a foreign corp entered into a Crewing Agreement
3
with Papadopolous Shipping, Ltd.
(PAPASHIP). PAPASHIP appointed Rizal International Shipping Services (Rizal) as manning agency in the Phil
2. LCL terminated the Crewing Agreement with PAPASHIP and appointed C.F. Sharp as crewing agent in the Phil.
3. C.F. Sharp requested for accreditation as the new manning agency of LCL with the POEA but Rizal objected on
the ground that its accreditation still existed.
4. Pending approval of the accreditation, Theodoros Savva and Adrias Tjiakouris of LCL arrived in the Phil and
interviewed seafarers at C.F. Sharps office. Rizal reported LCLs recruitment activities to the POEA and requested
an ocular inspection.
5. POEA found Savva and Tjiakouris at C.F. Sharp interviewing and recruiting hotel staffs, cooks, and chefs for M/V
Cyprus scheduled for deployment in January 1997.
6. Rizal filed a complaint for illegal recruitment with the POEA and for violation of Sec 29 of the LC for appointing
agents, representatives and employees, without prior approval from the POEA.
7. C.F. Sharp admitted that interviews were conducted but denied that they were for recruitment purposes. It claims
that the interviews were held for LCLs ex-crew members who had various complaints against Rizal.
8. POEA Administrator found C.F. Sharp liable for illegal recruitment. Sec of DOLE affirmed POEA ruling C.F. Sharp
Crew Management, Inc. is found guilty of having violated Sec. 6, R.A. 8042 in relation to Article 13 (b) and (f), and
Article 16 of the LC, Book I and Sec 1 and 6, Rule I, Book II, POEA Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas
Employment. CA affirmed.
ISSUES: WON C.F. Sharp is liable for illegal recruitment.
RULING: LCL had no approved POEA license to recruit. C.F. Sharps accreditation as LCLs new manning agency was still
pending approval at that time. Yet Savva and Tjiakouris along with C.F. Sharp entertained applicants for LCLs vessels and
conducted preparatory interviews.
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad whether for profit or not:
Provided, That any person or entity which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
On the basis of this definition and contrary to what C.F. Sharp wants to portray - the conduct of preparatory interviews is a
recruitment activity.
The fact that C.F. Sharp did not receive any payment during the 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 license or authority, not the
fact of payment, that renders the recruitment activity of LCL unlawful.
Lapasaran vs Phil
1. Menardo Villarin (Menardo) and his sister Vilma Villarin (Vilma) met Arlene N. Lapasaran employee of Silver Jet
Travel Tours Agency (Silver Jet) .
2. Lapasaran undertook the processing of the papers necessary in the amt of 85k as processing fee for the
deployment (under a tourist visa) and employment of Menardo in South Korea as a "factory worker". Later, it was
changed to "bakery worker."
3. Menardo left for S. Korea. Thereafter, he was incarcerated by South Korean immigration authorities and was
immediately deported to the Philippines for having fake travel documents.
4. Lapasaran promised to send him back to South Korea but failed to do so.
5. Menardo and sister Vilma demanded Lapasaran to return the processing fee. They later found out that petitioner
was no longer connected with Silver Jet.
6. They filed separate charges for illegal recruitment and estafa against Lapasaran.
7. Lapasaran denied allegations of private respondents.
8. RTC ruled that Lapasaran is guilty of illegal recruitment and estafa. CA affirmed.
Issue: WON Lapasaran is guilty of illegal recruitment
Ruling: YES. Lapasarans claim that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she merely tried to help the
complainants secure a tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment, it being enough that she gave the
impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad
She was charged with illegal recruitment, defined and penalized by the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 8042.

Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct impression that
she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that the latter was convinced to part with his
money in order to be employed.To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must, at
least, be a promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. Petitioners
misrepresentations concerning her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and the collection
from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
People vs Reyes 242 scra 264
Facts: Spouses Thelma Reyes and Nick Reyes were charged with illegal recruitment, filed by their victims, making promises of
overseas employment in consideration for sum of money comprising recruitment fees.
She admitted that the receipts (Exhs. A, B and E) were all written and signed by her husband, but she denied she had
anything to do with her husband's activities. She said they had been estranged since March 1986 precisely because she did
not approve of her husband's illegal activities.
On cross-examination she admitted that there were fourteen (14) other cases of Illegal Recruitment filed and/or pending
against her and her husband in different courts of Manila and claimed that some of the cases had been dismissed or
settled after she had refunded the money of the complainants.
On the basis of the parties' evidence, the trial court found Thelma Reyes guilty of illegal recruitment and sentenced her as
stated in the beginning. Hence this appeal.
Issue: IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS IN THE INFORMATION FILED ON
DECEMBER 11, 1986 AGAINST THE ACCUSED HENCE THEY CANNOT BE PROSECUTED UNDER ARTICLE 38, P.D. NO. 442.
Appellant contends that in any event the testimonies of the two complainants could not be the basis for a finding of illegal
recruitment on a large scale and for imposing the penalty of life imprisonment on her. The Labor Code prescribes the
penalty of life imprisonment for illegal recruitment when committed on a "large scale." Art. 38 (b) of the Code provides:
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense
involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
And Art. 39 (a) provides:
Art. 39. Penalties. (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
Held: There is no large scale illegal recruitment
Ratio: In this case the information against appellant mentioned only the two complainants Fabian Baradas and Rosalino
Bitang as having been illegally recruited by appellant and her husband. The trial Court, however, held appellant guilty of
illegal recruitment on a large scale because aside from Baradas and Bitang, appellant and her husband allegedly recruited
others, namely, Lorenzo Blanza, Edgardo Garcia, Ramon Mendoza, and Dionisio de Castro.
There are, it is said, 14 other cases filed pending in the courts against the accused for illegal recruitment. These cases
cannot be taken into account for the purpose of Art. 38(b). When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment "committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group," it must be understood as referring to the number of
complainants in each case who are complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment
can be cummulated to make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a conviction for large scale illegal
recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or
as a group.
Moreover, even it Blanza and Garcia had been illegally recruited so as to make the number of persons illegally recruited
four and make the crime that of illegal recruitment on a large scale, since this was not alleged in the information and this is
the more serious offense which includes that which was charged, the appellant can only be found guilty of the less serious
offense charged, pursuant to Rule 120, 4.
Accordingly, appellant must be punished under Art. 39(c) of the Labor Code which provides:
(c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating any
provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor
more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and another one is rendered, finding appellant Thelma Reyes guilty of
illegal recruitment on two (2) counts and is hereby sentenced for each crime to suffer imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to
8 years and pay a fine of P50,000.00; and ordered to indemnify Rosalino Bitang in the amount of P13,500.00 and Fabian
Baradas in the amount of P18,000.00 and pay the costs.
People vs Meris 329 scra 33
Facts:
Napoleon Ramos, complainant, testified that he was at the house of the accused with co-complainants Nadal, Conseja
and Bombarda when the accused told the private complainants that she knew someone in Manila who could help them
secure employment in Hongkong; that if they are interested she would take them to Manila on January 12, 1991, and that
they should be prepared to make an initial payment of P15,000.00 each, for their placement fees.
Ramos, Nadal, Conseja and Bombarda together with the accused proceeded to Manila by bus. They went directly to a
house on Lardizabal Street, Sampaloc, Manila, where they were served breakfast. After a while, a woman arrived and was
introduced by the accused to the private complainants as Julie Micua. The complainants were assured by Micua that she
could get them overseas employment and upon payment of their placement fees of P35,000.00 each, they would leave for
Hongkong within one month. Ramos, Nadal, Conseja and Bombarda made a downpayment of P5,000.00 each to the
accused and her husband. The corresponding receipts, however, which were prepared by the accused, were in the name
of and signed by Micua.
Complainants failed to secure the jobs as promised and thus instituted a complaint for illegal recruitment.
The accused denied the charges, and claimed that she too was duped by Julie Micua. RTC ruled against the accused. The
court maintains that the accused took a direct and active participation in the recruitment of the private complainants by
referring and persuading them to apply for deployment abroad, accompanying them all the way from Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, to Manila to refer them to Micua, who presented herself as a recruiter of worker(s) for overseas employment,
personally collecting and receiving from them various amounts for their placement fees, and preparing the receipts
therefor.
Issue : Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment.
Held: Accused is guilty as charged.
Ratio:
The prosecution undoubtedly proved that accused-appellant, without license or authority, engaged in recruitment and
placement activities. This was done in collaboration with Julie Micua, when they promised complainants employment in
Hongkong. Art. 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; Provided that any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement."
In People v. Agustin, therein appellant argued that she could not be convicted of illegal recruitment because in introducing
the complainants to the alleged recruiters, she merely acted "out of the goodness of her heart."
In resolving said case, the Court ruled:
Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the
Goce couple or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed
further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was
Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they
learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they
had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency.
As such, the Court concluded that appellant was an employee of the Goce spouses, as she was actually making referrals
to the agency. She was, therefore, engaged in recruitment activities.
The same factual circumstance obtains in this case. Although accused-appellant was not an employee of the alleged
illegal recruiter Julie Micua, the evidence show that she was the one who approached complainants and prodded them to
seek employment abroad. It was through her that they met Julia Micua. This is clearly an act of referral. Worse, accused-
appellant declared that she was capable of placing them in jobs overseas. Suffice it to say that complainants recruitment
would not have been consummated were it not for the direct participation of accused-appellant in the recruitment
process.
PEOPLE vs FORTUNA
***Recruitment during a Tupperware Seminar. Three victims are enticed by Fortuna, whereas her defense is bare denial and
a concocted story. SC upheld the conviction, despite the lack of receipts, as the case can be proved by oral testimonies of
the complainants that are clear and convincing.

FACTS:
Fortuna was charged by an Information accusing her of committing illegal recruitment in large scale for having represented
to at least 3 victims (herein complainants) that she can get them jobs in Taiwan for 5,300. She pleads not guilty.

Complainants aver that they met her during a seminar for Tupperware products being held for sale in Cabanatuan. Fortuna
took the occasion then to converse with complainants and convinced them that she can get them jobs abroad for only
Php 5,300 for the processing and medical fees. They paid the money, and a week later, they took their medical
examinations in Manila. Soon, they never heard of her, and she went into hiding. They filed the complaint after finding out in
POEA that she had no license, and she was caught.

Fortuna avers that she did attend the seminar on Tupperware products, but that she purchased some Tupperware products
from complainants after they convinced her to be their sub-agent. Initially she was able to remit some money to them, but
when she failed to make subsequent remittances, they threatened her with criminal action.

RTC found her guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not she is guilty of recruiting in large scale.

HELD:
YES.

The elements of the crime of recruitment in large scale are:
1. He engages in recruiting according to Article 13b, or does prohibited acts under Article 34.
2. He fails to comply with the guidelines issued by DOLE re: license or authority to recruit.
3. He commits the same against three or more persons.

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who, without being duly authorized
according to law, represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the ability to provide work
abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom the impression is given to thereupon part with
their money in order to be assured of that employment.

The clear and convincing evidence of the prosecution clearly made out a case of illegal recruitment in large scale against
respondent. It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of such a serious
crime like this that would take the latters liberty and send him or her to prison. Against the prosecutions overwhelming
evidence, accused could only offer a bare denial and an obviously concocted story.

Doctrinally, the assessment made on testimonial evidence by the trial judge is accorded the highest respect for it is he who
has the distinct opportunity to directly perceive the demeanor of witnesses and personally ascertain their reliability. The rule
has been said that a person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimony of the
complainants, if found to be credible and convincing, and that the absence of receipts to evidence payment to the
recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being fatal to the prosecution's cause.

RODOLFO vs PEOPLE
***Rodolfo referred her neighbors to a recruitment agency without a license. SC upheld her conviction based on the
strength of complainants testimony, even though she did not profit therefrom.

FACTS:
Rosa Rodolfo was charged by an Information accusing her of committing illegal recruitment. She pleads not guilty.

Complainants aver that they were approached by Rodolfo individually and invited them to apply for overseas employment
in Dubai. Since Rodolfo was their neighbor, they agreed and went to Rodolfos office, which bore the name Bayside
Manpower Export Specialist. Complainants gave certain amounts to Rodolfo for processing. After numerous delays in the
departure (along with a myriad of excuses), they started to suspect something was wrong. They demanded for the return of
their money, but Rodolfo failed to pay the same. Hence they filed the complaint.

Rodolfo avers that she was approached by complainants, not the other way around. They approached her for help in
finding jobs abroad, and she brought the complainants to the Bayside Manpower agency because she knew the owner
there. She averred that she did so as a good neighbor. Further, while she admitted receiving money from the complainants,
she claims she merely remitted all of it with the agency. She denied being the owner or an employee of Bayside. She
presented as evidence the testimony of one of the companions of the complainants that she did not recruit them, and the
testimony of Baysides cashier that she was not an employee and that he saw them give money to Rodolfo, but that she
turned them over to the agency.

RTC found her guilty of illegal recruitment. CA affirmed with modification to correct the penalty (taking into account the
Indeterminate Sentence Law). Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not she is guilty of illegally recruiting.

HELD:
YES.

The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) that the offender undertakes
any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code.

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" as "[a]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not."

In weighing contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight must be given to the positive testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant. Rodolfo was clearly and obviously not licensed to recruit
workers. Further the second element is present as well. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment, is "the act of
passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau." Even if she remitted the same to the agency, the Article
clearly punishes the act of illegal recruitment even if done for profit or not.

Parenthetically, why petitioner accepted the payment of fees from the private complainants when, in light of her claim that
she merely brought them to the agency, she could have advised them to directly pay the same to the agency, she
proferred no explanation.