PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
RESTITUTO PABALAN
FACTS:
Accused-Appellant Restituto C. Pabalan was charged with illegal recruitment in large
scale and three counts of estafa in separate informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 171.
Upon arrival in Japan, they were detained and immediately sent back to the Philippines, while
Pabalan kept on assuring to that they will go back to Japan and work thereat but nothing
materialized on the said promises.
According to June D. Barrera, he met appellant on May 9, 1993 in Lacmit, Arayat,
Pampanga. Appellant told him that he could send him abroad and promised him a job in a
construction company in Japan. On that assurance, Barrera gave an initial amount of P2,000.00
on that same day to appellant for the processing of his passport. Thereafter, he gave
another P5,000.00 on May 15, 1993. On May 19, 1993, Barrera went to appellants residence in
Marulas, Bulacan and gave him P20,000.00 for the airplane ticket for the trip to Japan. These
three amounts were covered by a receipt for P27,000.00 breaking down the expenses as follows:
services rendered, round-trip plane ticket, travel tax and hotel reservations.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the absence of receipts for illegal recruitment warrants acquittal

RULING:

The Court has ruled in several cases that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal
recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies
that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the
offense despite the want of receipts.
The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts in
order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal
recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses.
The finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is justified whenever the following elements are
present: (1) that the offender engages in the recruitment and placement of workers as defined in
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the same code;
(2) that the offender does not have a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally or overseas; and (3) that the offender commits the same against three (3) or more
persons, individually or as a group. Article 13(b) characterizes 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.
It will readily be noted, as earlier explained, that the exhibition of receipts is not necessary for
the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale. Since all of the
above elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution before the court a quo through
the testimonies of its witnesses and by competent documents, then the non-presentation of
receipts should not in any way hinder the conviction of appellant.
TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORPORATION
vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR

FACTS:
From July 24 to September 9, 1987, petitioner Trans Action Overseas Corporation, a private fee-
charging employment agency, scoured Iloilo City for possible recruits for alleged job vacancies in
Hongkong. Private respondents sought employment as domestic helpers through petitioner's
employees, Luzviminda Aragon, Ben Hur Domincil and his wife Cecille. The applicants paid
placement fees ranging from P1,000.00 to P14,000.00, but petitioner failed to deploy them.
Their demands for refund proved unavailing; thus, they were constrained to institute complaints
against petitioner for violation of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, as amended.
ISSUE: Whether or not the cancellation order based on the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties is
not valid for non-compliance with the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 regarding its
registration with the U.P. Law Center.

RULING:
As regards petitioner's alternative argument that the non-filing of the 1987 POEA Schedule of
Penalties with the UP Law Center rendered it ineffective and, hence, cannot be utilized as basis
for penalizing them, we agree with Secretary Confesor's explanation, to wit: On the other hand,
the POEA Revised Rules on the Schedule of Penalties was issued pursuant to Article 34 of the
Labor Code, as amended. The same merely amplified and particularized the various violations of
the rules and regulations of the POEA and clarified and specified the penalties therefore (sic).
Indeed, the questioned schedule of penalties contains only a listing of offenses. It does not
prescribe additional rules and regulations governing overseas employment but only detailed the
administrative sanctions imposable by this Office for some enumerated prohibited acts. Under
the circumstances, the license of the respondent agency was cancelled on the authority of
Article 35 of the Labor Code, as amended, and not pursuant to the 1987 POEA Revised Rules on
Schedule of Penalties.
IMELDA DARVIN
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
A petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 15624 dated
January 31, 1996, which affirmed in toto the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19,
Bacoor, Cavite, convicting accused-appellant, Imelda Darvin for simple illegal recruitment under
Article 38 and Article 39, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c), of the Labor Code as amended.
sometime in March, 1992, she met accused-appellant Darvin in the latter's residence at
Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite, through the introduction of their common friends, Florencio Jake
Rivera and Leonila Rivera. In said meeting, accused-appellant allegedly convinced Toledo that by
giving her P150,000.00, the latter can immediately leave for the United States without any
appearance before the U.S. embassy. Thus, on April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of
P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt stating that the "amount of P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa
and Air fare." After receiving the money, Darvin assured Toledo that she can leave within one
week. However, when after a week, there was no word from Darvin, Toledo went to her
residence to inquire about any development, but could not find Darvin.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Imelda Darvin indeed engaged in recruitment activities, as defined
under the Labor Code.
RULING:
Applying the rule laid down in the case of People v. Goce, to prove that accused-
appellant was engaged in recruitment activities as to commit the crime of illegal recruitment, it
must be shown that the accused appellant gave private respondent the distinct impression that
she had the power or ability to send the private respondent abroad for work such that the latter
was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed.
In this case, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant offered a job to
private respondent. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of
providing the private respondent work abroad. What is established, however, is that the private
respondent gave accused-appellant P150,000.00. The claim of the accused that the P150,000.00
was for payment of private respondent's air fare and US visa and other expenses cannot be
ignored because the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was presented by both parties during
the trial of the case, stated that it was "for Air Fare and Visa to USA." Had the amount been for
something else in addition to air fare and visa expenses, such as work placement abroad, the
receipt should have so stated.
By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual,
without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private
respondent, there is nothing to show that accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities.
At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far as to create a suspicion that
accused-appellant probably perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion alone is insufficient,
the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the People's
evidence fail to indubitably prove the accused' s authorship of the crime of which he stands
accused, then it is the Court's duty, and the accused's right, to proclaim his innocence. Acquittal,
therefore, is in order.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
BULU CHOWDURY
FACTS:
In November 1995, Bulu Chowdury and Josephine Ong were charged before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and they were likewise
charged with three counts of estafa committed against private complainants. The State
Prosecutor, however, later dismissed the estafa charges against Chowdury and filed an amended
information indicting only Ong for the offense. Chowdury was arraigned on April 16, 1996 while
Ong remained at large. He pleaded "not guilty" to the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale.
One of the witnesses testified that he first met Chowdury in August 1994 when he applied with
Craftrade Overseas Developers (Craftrade) for employment as factory worker in South Korea.
Chowdury, a consultant of Craftrade, conducted the interview. During the interview, Chowdury
informed him about the requirements for employment. He told him to submit his passport, NBI
clearance, passport size picture and medical certificate. He also required him to undergo a
seminar. He advised him that placement would be on a first-come-first-serve basis and urged him
to complete the requirements immediately. Sasis was also charged a processing fee
of P25,000.00. Sasis completed all the requirements in September 1994. He also paid a total
amount of P16,000.00 to Craftrade as processing fee. All payments were received by Ong for
which she issued three receipts. Chowdury then processed his papers and convinced him to
complete his payment, he then went to the office of Craftrade three times to follow up his
application but he was always told to return some other day. In one of his visits to Craftrades
office, he was informed that he would no longer be deployed for employment abroad. This
prompted him to withdraw his payment but he could no longer find Chowdury. After two
unsuccessful attempts to contact him, he decided to file with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) a case for illegal recruitment against Chowdury. Upon
verification with the POEA, he learned that Craftrade's license had already expired and has not
been renewed and that Chowdury, in his personal capacity, was not a licensed recruiter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Chowdury knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of
the illegal recruitment charged against him.
RULING:
The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are:
(1) The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any
prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) He did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement
of workers; and
(3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
As stated in the first sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who may be held
liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories. An employee of a
company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together
with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal
recruitment. It has been held that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from
prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to
commit a crime.
Citing the second sentence of the last paragraph of Section 6 of RA 8042, accused-appellant
contends that he may not be held liable for the offense as he was merely an employee of
Craftrade and he only performed the tasks assigned to him by his superiors. He argues that the
ones who should be held liable for the offense are the officers having control, management and
direction of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal
requirements for its operation.

PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and SERVICES CORPORATION

vs.
THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
FACTS:
Petitioner Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation is a domestic
corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment. Sometime in
January 1985, private respondents, who were recruited by petitioner for employment in Saudi
Arabia, were required to pay placement fees in the amount of P5,000.00 for private respondent
Rodrigo L. Mikin and P6,500.00 each for private respondents Vivencio A. de Mesa and Cedric P.
Leyson.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Secretary of Labor and Employment acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in penalizing Philsa with contract substitution,
Illegal Exactions, Illegal Deductions or withholding salary
RULING:
The Court have carefully examined the records of the case and it is clear that the ruling
of public respondent POEA that petitioner is guilty of illegal exaction is supported by substantial
evidence. Aside from the testimonial evidence offered by private respondents, they also
presented documentary evidence consisting of receipts issued by a duly authorized
representative of petitioner which show the payment of amounts in excess of those allowed by
the POEA. In contrast, petitioner did not present any evidence whatsoever to rebut the claims of
private respondents despite the many opportunities for them to do so.
Petitioner insists, however, that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA
Memorandum Circular No. II, Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which may
be collected from applicants, is void for lack of publication.
As to contract substitution in the second part, a third contract was emphatically intended by
respondent to be signed by complainants which, however, was not consummated due to the
adamant refusal of complainants to sign thereon. Mere intention of the Philsa to commit
contract substitution for a second time should not be left unpunished. It is the duty of this Office
to repress such acts by teaching agencies a lesson to avoid repetition of the same violation.
The Supreme Court itself has already absolved petitioner from this charge. Petitioner premises
its argument on the fact that the July 26, 1989 Decision of the NLRC absolving it from private
respondent de Mesas claim for salary deduction has already attained finality by reason of the
dismissal of private respondents petition for certiorari of the said NLRC decision by the Supreme
Court.

EN BANC (G.R. Nos. 152642, 152710, 167590, 182978-79 & 184298-99)

FACTS:
The consolidated cases assails the Constitutionality of certain provisions under R.A 8042,
otherwise known as Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. On June 7, 1995
Congress enacted Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
that, for among other purposes, sets the Government’s policies on overseas employment and
establishes a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers,
their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RA 8042, otherwise known as Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995 is a valid measure intended to regulate recruitment and deployment of
OFWs.
RULING:
R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by
numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor
the presumption of constitutionality. The Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of
the laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the absence of a clear and
unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, the Court must uphold its validity.