ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Essential elements of illegal recruitment

“Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of (C-E-CT-U-H)
(a) canvassing,
(b) enlisting,
(c) contracting,
(d) transporting,
(e) utilizing, or
(f) hiring procuring workers,
And also includes
(a) referrals,
(b) contract services,
(c) promising, or
(d) advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not

Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, (1) If in the Philippines: Labor Code (LC) applies
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more (2) If abroad: Migrant Worker’s Act [R.A. 8042, as amended by
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and R.A. 10022].
placement. [Labor Code, Art. 13 (b)]
(a) Any of the acts mentioned above Illegal recruitment for local workers [governed by the labor
constitutes recruitment and placement. code]
(b) The proviso provides for a presumption that a person or Simple Illegal Recruitment
entity so described engages in recruitment and placement Elements:
[See People v. Panis, G.R. Nos. L-58674-77, July 11, 1990]. (1) The person charged with the crime must have
undertaken recruitment activities defined under Art. 13(b) or
What constitutes recruitment prohibited activities defined under Art. 34; and
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential (2) The said person does not have a license or authority to do so.
ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of [Art. 38, LC]
workers. Any of the acts mentioned in Article 13(b) will
constitute recruitment and placement even if only one Profit or lack thereof is immaterial
prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays In 1996, LCL had no approved POEA license to recruit. C.F.
down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in Sharp’s accreditation as LCL’s new manning agency was still
consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or pending approval at that time. Yet it
more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing entertainedapplicants for LCL’s vessels, and conducted
with them shall be presumed to be engaged in the act of preparatory interviews. Based on Art. 13 (b), this is a
recruitment and placement. [People v. Panis, G.R. Nos. L- recruitment activity. The fact that C.F. Sharp did not
58674-77, July 11, 1990] receive any payment during the interviews is of no moment.
The act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." Notably,
Acts of referral it is the lack of the necessary license or authority, not the
The act of referral, which is included in recruitment, is "the act fact ofpayment that renders the recruitment activity of
of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for LCL unlawful. [C.F. Sharp vs. Espanol,G.R. No. 155903]
employment after an initial interview of a
selectedapplicant for employment to a selected employer, Accused must give the impression of ability to send
placement officer or bureau." Petitioner’s admission that complainant abroad
she brought private complainants to the agency whose It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must
owner she knows and her acceptance of fees including be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct
those for processing betrays her guilt. [Rodolfo vs. People, impression that she had the power or ability to send
G.R. No. 146964, 2006] complainants abroad for work such that the latter were
convinced to part with their money in order to be
Promising employment employed. [People v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, 2011]
The Court finds that accused-appellant was engaged in
unlawful recruitment and placement activities. The
prosecution established that accused-appellant promised Prohibited practices
three complainants employment as factory workers and he asked It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee,
them for money in order to process their papers and procure or holder of authority:
their passports. Relying completely upon such (a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount
representations, complainants entrusted hard-earned money greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
to accused-appellant in exchange for what they would later prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay
discover to be a vain hope of obtaining employment any amount greater than that actually received by him as a
abroad. It is not disputed that accused appellant is not loan or advance;
authorized nor licensed by the DOLE to engage in
recruitment and placement activities. Theabsence of the (b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or
necessary license or authority renders all of accused- document in relation torecruitment or employment;
appellant’srecruitment activities criminal. [People vs.
Saulo, G.R. No. 125903. November 15, 2000] (c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or
document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the
Note: To determine which law applies, the place of work is the purpose of securing a license or authority under this Code.
determining factor:

1
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
employed to quit his employment in order to offer him to committed by any person, whether a non-licensee,
another unless the transfer is designed to liberate the nonholder, licensee or holder of authority:
worker from oppressive terms and conditions of (a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount
employment; greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to
(e) To influence or to attempt to influence any person or make a worker pay or acknowledge any amount greater than
entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
employment through his agency;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in document in relation to recruitment or employment;
jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity
of the Republic of the Philippines (c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or
document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor
Secretary of Labor or by his duly authorized Code, or for the purpose of documenting hired workers
representatives; with the POEA, which include the act of reprocessing
workers through a job order that pertains to nonexistent work,
(h) To fail to file reports on the status of employment, work different from the actual overseas work, or work with
placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange a different employer whether registered or not with the POEA;
earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other
matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of (d) To include or attempt to induce a worker already
Labor. employed to quit his employment in order to offer him another
unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from
(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual
signing thereof by the parties up to and including the (e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or
periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for
Secretary of Labor; employment through his agency or who has formed, joined
or supported, or has contacted or is supported by any union
(j) To become an officer or member of the Board of any or workers' organization;
corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly
or indirectly in the management of a travel agency; and (f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in
jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from of the Republic of the Philippines;
applicant workers before departure for monetary or
financial considerations other than those authorized under (g) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment,
this Code and its implementing rules and regulations. [Art. 34, placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange
LC] earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other
matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment;
Illegal recruitment for migrant workers [governed by RA
8042, as amended by, RA 10022] (h) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker,
Simple Illegal Recruitment employment contracts approved and verified by the
1st type.— Department of Labor and Employment from the time of
(1) Person charged undertakes any recruitment activity as actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including
defined in Art.13 (b) of the Labor Code; and the period of the expiration of the same without the
(2) Said person does not have a license or authority to do so. approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;

2nd type.— (i) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement

(1) Person charged commits any of the enumerated acts
under Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042, as amended by, R.A. 10022.
(2) It is immaterial whether he is a holder or not of any
license or authority
Definition
Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers and includes referring, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for
profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or nonholder of
authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-
licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons
shall be deemed so engaged. [Sec. 6, RA 8042 as amended]
Other prohibited acts
agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any
corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged
directly or indirectly in the management of travel agency;
(j) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant
workers before departure for monetary or financial
considerations, or for any other reasons, other than those
authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules
and regulations;
(k) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without
valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and
Employment;
(l) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes
of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not
actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale

2
 shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage; private complainants clearly established that appellant promised
and them employment in Italy and that she asked money from them
for the processing of their papers. Relying upon appellant’s
(m) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a representations, complainants parted with their money. That
licensed recruitment/manning agency.In addition to the acts appellant recruited them without the requisite license from the
enumerated above, it shall also be unlawful for any person or POEA makes her liable for illegal recruitment. (PEOPLE OF THE
entity to commit the PHILIPPINES v. ANITA "KENNETH" TRINIDAD, G.R. No. 181244, 9
following prohibited acts: August 2010)

(1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino worker with
interest exceeding eight percent (8%) per annum, which will
be used for payment of legal and allowable placement fees and
make the migrant worker issue, either personally or through
a guarantor or accommodation party, postdated checks in
relation to the said loan;
(2) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby
an overseas Filipino worker is required to avail of a loan only
from specifically designated institutions, entities or persons;
(3) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by an
overseas Filipino worker after the latter's employment
contract has been prematurely terminated through no fault of
his or her own;
(4) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby
an overseas Filipino worker is required to undergo health
examinations only from specifically designated medical
clinics, institutions, entities or persons, except in the case of
a seafarer whose medical examination cost is shouldered by
the principal/shipowner;
(5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby
an overseas Filipino worker is required to undergo training,
seminar, instruction or schooling of any kind only from
specifically designated institutions, entities or persons, except
for recommendatory trainings mandated by
principals/shipowners where the latter shoulder the cost of
such trainings;
(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning agency to engage
in any kind of recruitment activity including the processing of
pending workers' applications; and
Three or more complainants must be in a single case
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. [People vs.
Reyes, G.R. No. 105204, 1995]
It is the lack of the necessary license or authority to recruit and
deploy workers, either locally or overseas, that renders the
recruitment activity unlawful or criminal. The Statute of Frauds
and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of
receipts in order to prove the existence of recruitment
agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment
cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the
testimony of witnesses.( PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDITH
RAMOS ABAT, G.R. No. 168651, 16 March 2011)
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused,
without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send
them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to
part with their money in order to be employed. It is important
that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment
from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or
abroad. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TERESITA “TESSIE”
LAOGO, G.R. No. 176264, 10 January 2011)

(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign Under Section 64 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations
principal/employer to pass on the overseas Filipino worker or Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
deduct from his or her salary the payment of the cost of 1995 (RA 8024), the liability of the principal/employer and the
insurance fees, premium or other insurance related charges, as recruitment placement agency on any and all claims under this
provided under the compulsory worker's insurance coverage. Rule shall be joint and solidary. If the recruitment/placement
[Sec. 6, RA 8042 as amended] agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors
and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and
Migrant Workers Act expands the definition of illegal solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the
recruitment aforesaid claims and damages. Hence, Petra Agency/Royal
Dream International Services/Consolacion "Marla" Nahas were
The amendments to the Labor Code introduced by Republic held jointly and severally ordered to pay complainant Olarte her
Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and unpaid salaries. (MA. CONSOLACION M. NAHAS, doing business
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of under the name and style PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT AND
illegal recruitment and provided stiffer penalties, especially TECHNICAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY vs. JUANITA L. OLARTE, G.R.
for those that constitute economic sabotage. [People v. No. 169247, June 2, 2014, J. Del Castillo)
Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, 2011]

C.F. Sharp denies committing illegal recruitment activities in

This is in accordance with the penultimate paragraph of Section
6 Republic Act No. 8042 which provides, thus: “Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.” xxx The respective testimonies of
December 1996. It posits that the interviews undertaken by
Savva and Tjiakouris do not amount to illegal recruitment under
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrants Workers Act.
Further, it contends that the interviews conducted were not for
selection and recruitment purposes, but were in connection with
the seamens past employment with Rizal, specifically, their
complaints for non-remittance of SSS premiums, withholding of

3
wages, illegal exactions from medical examinations and delayed
allotments. It claims that it was only upon approval of its
application for accreditation that the employment contracts
were entered into and actual deployment of the seamen was
made. C.F. Sharp, thus, concludes that it cannot be held liable
for illegal recruitment.
The reasoning is specious.
Undoubtedly, in December 1996, 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.
C.F. Sharps claim that the interviews were not for selection
andrecruitment purposes does not impress. As the Secretary of
Labor aptly said:
This Office cannot conceive of a good reason why
LCL/Savva/Tjiakouris should be interested at the time in
unearthing alleged violations committed by Rizal Shipping whose
representative status as manning agency was to be terminated
in just a few weeks thereafter, spending valuable time and
money in the process. They stood to gain nothing from such
taxing exercise involving several hundreds of ex-crew members,
which could be handled by government agencies like the POEA,
NLRC, SSS. The observation of the POEA Administrator that the
complaints of the crewmen were filed only after Rizal Shipping
filed its complaints with the POEA merely to bolster the defense
of CF Sharp/LCL/Savva and Tjiakouris, is telling.
Upon the other hand, it was more to LCLS gain to interview,
select and recruit the disembarking crewmen previously
recruited by Rizal Shipping, using CF Sharps facilities, as this
would result in less recruitment time and cost.
Finally, the claim of Savva and Tjiakouris that Savva talked to
the POEA representative during their visit about these
interviews and the violations which were confirmed, is just an
afterthought to support their defense; there is no entry in the
Inspection Report confirming such claim. If such claim were
true, then the able officer of CF Sharp (LCLs Attorney-in fact)
who signed his conformity on the 4th page of the report, and put
his initial on the last page of the report containing the
handwritten findings of the inspectors on the selection and
recruitment activities of Savva and Tjiakouris, would have
insisted that an entry be made thereon about what Savva told
the inspectors, or he could simply himself have written thereon
4
that the two LCL officials merely conducted interviews on the
violations committed by Rizal Shipping. However, the report is
bereft of anything to that effect. More significant is the fact
that the inspectors, in their Memorandum dated December 11,
1996 (the very same day they conducted the inspection), stated
that they approached said persons (referring to Banawis, Savva
and Tjiakouris) and told us that they were doing interview to
select applicants to complement the crew of a passenger ship
for [LOUIS] CRUISE LINES.[25]
Indeed, it was Savva and Tjiakouris that conducted the
interviews, and undertook selection and hiring. However, C.F.
Sharp cannot steer clear of liability for it conspired with LCL in
committing illegal recruitment activities. As the Secretary of
Labor had taken pains to demonstrate:
x x x [T]here is substantial evidence on record that as alleged by
Rizal Shipping, CF Sharp conspired with LCL and its officers
Savva and Tjiakouris to conduct recruitment activities in its
offices, at a time when LCL was not yet its POEA-accredited
principal, in violation of Sec. 6, R.A. 8042 in relation to Article
13(b) and (f) and Article 16 of the Labor Code as amended; Rule
II(jj) Book I, and Sec. 1 and 6, Rule I, Book III, all of the POEA
Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment.
Indeed, C.F. Sharp was aware of these violations when it alleged
in its Petition for Review that:
in any and all events, the findings relied upon by the Public
Respondent show, at best, that the parties responsible for the
alleged acts of illegal recruitment are LCL and its officers alone,
or at worst, LCL and its officers, in conspiracy with
petitioner. Yet, it is petitioner alone, who is severely punished
and penalized. (underscoring supplied)
The intention, agreement and both common design of both LCL
and CF Sharp to engage in recruitment of crewmen for LCLs
ships had already been made manifest when LCL through Savva
had instructed, in the October 14, 1996 letter to disembarking
crewmembers, for the latter to report to CF Sharp for processing
of their papers. This was followed by the execution by LCL on
October 17, 1996 of a Special Power of Attorney in favor of CF
Sharp as new manning agent and attorney-in-fact of LCL, with
authority, among others, to sign, authenticate and deliver all
documents necessary to complete any transaction related to the
recruitment and hiring of Filipino seamen including the
necessary steps to facilitate the departure of recruited seamen;
to assume, on our behalf and for our account, any liability that
may arise in connection with the recruitment of seamen and/or
implementation of the employment contract of said
seamen. And on November 8, 1996, CF Sharp applied for
accreditation as manning agent of LCL for the latters five named
vessels. The discovery by the POEA inspectors of the selection
and recruitment activities undertaken by Savva and Tjiakouris at
CF Sharps offices on December 11, 1996, followed. The
interviews by Savva and Tjiakouris at CF Sharps offices on
December 7, 1996 with around 300 crewmen, as sworn to by 98
crewmen (their affidavits were submitted in evidence by CF
Sharp); the interviews for selection and recruitment from
December 9 to 12, 1996 as found by the POEA inspectors; and
the immediate deployment of 154 crewmen for LCL right after
[the] POEA approval of accreditation of LCL as principal of CF
Sharp, could not have been undertaken without the assistance
and cooperation of CF Sharp, even before such transfer of
accreditation was granted by POEA.
The petitioner-appellant must be reminded that prior to
approval of the transfer of accreditation, no recruitment or
deployment may be made by the principal by itself or through
the would-be transferee manning agency, or by the latter, as
this would constitute illegal recruitment by a non-holder of
authority under Sec. 6, R.A. 8042 in relation to Article 13(b) and
(f) and Article 16 of the Labor Code as amended; Rule II(jj),
Book I, and Sec. 1 and 6, Rule 1, Book III, POEA Rules and
Regulations Governing Overseas Employment.
The petitioner-appellant alleges that there is no need for a
license to enable LCLs officers to conduct their alleged activities
of interviewing, selecting and hiring crewmen. Indeed, LCLs
officers could have conducted these activities without a license.
Such claim is without legal basis, as direct hiring by employers
of Filipino workers for overseas employment is banned; they can
only do so through, among others, licensed private recruitment
and shipping/mining agencies (Art. 18, Labor Code as amended;
Sec. 1, Rule 1, Book II, POEA Rules and Regulations Governing
Overseas Employment).[26]
We need not say more.
C.F. Sharp also denies violating Article 29 of the Labor Code. It
insists that Henry Desiderio was neither an employee nor an
agent of C.F. Sharp. Yet, except for its barefaced denial, no
proof was adduced to substantiate it.
Desiderios name does not appear in the list of employees and
officials submitted by C.F. Sharp to the POEA. However, his
name appeared as the contact person of the applicants for the
position of 2nd and 3rd assistant engineers and machinist/fitter
in C.F Sharps advertisement in the February 2, 1997 issue of The
Bulletin Today.[27]
Article 29 of the Labor Code is explicit, viz.:
Art. 29. NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF LICENSE OR AUTHORITY
No license or authority shall be used directly or indirectly by any
person other than the one in whose favor it was issued or at any
place other than that stated in the license or authority, nor may
such license or authority be transferred, conveyed or assigned to
any other person or entity. Any transfer of business
address, appointment or designation of any agent or
representative including the establishment of additional offices
anywhere shall be subject to the prior approval of the
Department of Labor. (Emphasis ours)
Thus, Section 2(k), Rule 1, Book VI of the POEA Rules Governing
Overseas Employment provides:
Section 2. Grounds for Suspension/Cancellation of License.
xxxx
k. Appointing or designating agents, representatives or
employees without prior approval from the Administration.
The appointment or designation of Desiderio as an employee or
agent of C.F. Sharp, without prior approval from the POEA,
warrants administrative sanction. The CA, therefore, correctly
rejected C.F. Sharps posture.
Apparently, realizing the folly of its defenses, C.F. Sharp assails
the admissibility of the Memorandum and Inspection Report of
the POEA. It contends that these are patently inadmissible
against C.F. Sharp for it was not given an opportunity to
crossexamine the POEA inspectors regarding the report.
The argument does not deserve even a short shrift. First, C.F.
Sharp did not raise it before the POEA and Secretary of
Labor. The issue was raised for the first time in its petition
for certiorari with the CA, where the jurisdiction of the
appellate court is limited to issues of jurisdiction and grave
5
abuse of discretion. On numerous occasions, we have made it
clear that to allow fresh issues at this stage of the proceedings
is violative of fair play, justice and due process.[28]
Second, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that administrative
bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and
procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law.[29] Hence,
whatever merit C.F. Sharps argument might have in the context
of ordinary civil actions, where the rules of evidence apply with
greater rigidity, disappears when adduced in connection with
labor cases.
The claim of denial of due process on the part of C.F. Sharp
must also be rejected. The essence of due process lies in the
reasonable opportunity afforded a party to be heard and to
submit any evidence in support of its defense. What is vital is
not the opportunity to cross-examine an adverse witness, but an
opportunity to be heard.[30]
In this case, C.F. Sharp was given ample opportunity to be
heard, to adduce evidence in support of its version of the
material occurrences, and to controvert Rizals allegation and
the Inspection Report. It submitted its position paper with
supporting affidavits and documents, and additionally pleaded
its causes on appeal before the Secretary of Labor. Under the
circumstances, a claim of denial of due process on C.F. Sharps
part is completely unavailing.
C.F. Sharp next impugns the probative value given by the
Administrator and the Secretary of Labor to the Inspection
Report. It alleges that the POEA Administrator, the Labor
Secretary and the CA relied only on the Inspection Report and
gave very little or no probative value to the affidavits that it
submitted in support of its claim.
C.F. Sharp would have us re-evaluate the factual veracity and
probative value of the evidence submitted in the proceedings a
quo. C.F. Sharp may well be reminded that it is not our function
to review, examine, and evaluate or weigh the evidence
adduced by the parties. Elementary is the principle that this
Court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does
not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence
upon which the labor officials' findings rest. Hence, where the
factual findings of the labor tribunals or agencies conform to,
and are affirmed by, the CA, the same are accorded respect and
finality, and are binding upon this Court. It is only when the
findings of the labor agencies and the appellate court are in
conflict that this Court will review the records to determine
which findings should be upheld as being more in conformity
with the evidentiary facts. Where the CA affirms the labor
agencies on review and there is no showing whatsoever that said
findings are patently erroneous, this Court is bound by the said
findings.[31]
Although the rule admits of several exceptions, none of them
are in point in this case. In any event, we have carefully
examined the factual findings of the CA and found the same to
be borne out of the record and sufficiently anchored on the
evidence presented.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 53747 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
I - (5 Points) a. Discuss the types of illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code. Types of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code
are: 1. Recruitment by a non-licensee. 2. Simple illegal
recruitment is committed by a licensee against one or two
persons only. (People v. Sadiosa, G.R. No. 107084, May 15,
1988). 3. Large scale or qualified recruitment which is
committed against three or more persons, individually or as a both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that
group. 4. Illegal recruitment is qualified as economic sabotage illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa is
when done by a syndicate or where it is committed in large malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is
scale. b. In initiating actions against alleged illegal recruiters, not necessary for conviction in the former, but is required in the
may the Secretary of Labor and Employment issue search and latter. WHEREFORE, Decision of the Trial Court is AFFIRMED
arrest warrants? No, the Secretary of DOLE, not being a judge, subject to MODIFICATIONS. [1] Art. 38. Illegal recruitment. x x x
cannot issue a search or arrest warrants. Under Article III, (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search. (Salazar v. sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39
Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990). hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate
if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any
SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZ, and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ, unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined
accused. ROMULO SAULO, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 125903. under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed
November 15, 2000] FACTS: Accused-appellant, together with committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more
Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were charged with persons individually or as a group. Labor Code.
violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code[1] illegal
recruitment in large scale and the accused were also charged Accused-appellant contends that he could not have committed
with three counts of estafa. During a meeting sometime in April the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale since Nancy
or May, 1990, ROMULO SAULO told BENNY MALIGAYA that she Avelino, a labor and employment officer at the POEA,
would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she testified that licenses for recruitment and placement are
gave him the fees for the processing of her documents. issued only to corporations and not to natural persons. This
Sometime in May, 1990, Maligaya also met with AMELIA DE LA argument is specious and illogical. The Labor Code states that
CRUZ and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ at their house in Baesa, any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
Quezon City and they assured her that they were authorized by for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.[16]
recruit workers for Taiwan. Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Corrolarily, a nonlicensee whitary of Labor, or whose license
Amelia de la Cruz the amount of P35,000.00, which is evidenced or authority has been suspended, revoked, or canceled by the
by a receipt signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz. POEA or the Secretary.[17] It also bears stressing that agents
Seeing that he had reneged on his promise to send her to or representatives appointed by a licensee or a holder of
Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint against accused-appellant authority but whose appointments are not previously
with the POEA. Meanwhile, ANGELES JAVIER was told by Ligaya, authorized by the POEA fall within the meaning of the term
accused-appellants wife, to apply for work abroad through nonlicensee or nonholder of authority.[18] Thus, any person,
accused-appellant. At a meeting in accused-appellants Quezon whether natural or juridical, that engages in recruitment
City residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that he activities without the necessary license or authority shall be
could get her a job in Taiwan as a factory worker and that she penalized under Art. 39 of the Labor Code.
should give him P35,000.00 for purposes of preparing Javier’s
passport. Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to
accused-appellant, but she did not ask for a receipt as she
trusted him. As the overseas employment never materialized,
Javier was prompted to bring the matter before the POEA. On
April 19, 1990, LEODIGARIO MAULLON, upon the invitation of his
neighbor Araceli Sanchez, went to accused-appellants house in
order to discuss his prospects for gaining employment abroad. As
in the case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant assured
Maullon that he could secure him a job as a factory worker in
Taiwan if he pays him for the processing of his papers. Maullon
pay to accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt.
Thereafter, Maullon paid an additional amount in the presence
of accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz, which payment is
also evidenced by a receipt. Finally, Maullon pay to a certain
Loreta Tumalig, a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a
receipt. Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on the
promised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint with the
POEA. ISSUE: Whether or not ROMULO SAULO is guilty of the act
of Illegal Recruitment and estafa. HELD: Yes. The Court finds
that the trial court was justified in holding that accused-
appellant was engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement
activities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-
appellant promised the three complainants - Benny Maligaya,
Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan as
factory workers and that he asked them for money in order to
process their papers and procure their passports. It is not
disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor licensedby
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. It is also well established in
jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for