Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Law Digest 46-50 New
Labor Law Digest 46-50 New
Labor Law Digest 46-50 New
180926
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LOURDES VALENCIANO y DACUBA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
ISSUE
Whether or not appellant guilty of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment
despite the claim that she is just a mere employee of the recruitment agency?
HELD
The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other coaccused does not relieve her of liability. 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 the employee actively and consciously participated in
illegal recruitment. The accused appellant must he held accountable for her acts.
The Court did not err in convicting her of Illegal Recruitment. Appellant cannot
escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her
employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. It
is a legal maxim that Ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, illegal
recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, thus, intent is
immaterial. It is also a well settled rule that it is immaterial whether the accused
profit or not from the illegal acts. Likewise, to allow the accused to use a defense of
good faith would be a circumvention of the law. Good faith cannot be used as a
defense since it will only warrant the illegal recruiters to use it as cloak of their
illegal acts.
were not able to leave for work abroad. Private complainants pleaded that Ochoa
return their hard-earned money, but Ochoa failed to do so.
April 7, 2009
April 7, 2009
But the Court has already held, pending adjudication of this case, that the liability of
corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily
liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing
the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal
activities.19 In the case of Becmen and White Falcon, 20 while there is evidence that
these companies were at fault in not investigating the cause of Jasmins death,
there is no mention of any evidence in the case against them that intervenors
Gumabay, et al., Becmens corporate officers and directors, were personally
involved in their companys particular actions or omissions in Jasmins case.
As a final note, 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.
FACTS
EDITH RAMOS ABAT the accused not being a licensee or holder of authority, did then
and there, wilfully , unlawfully and feloniously undertake and perform recruitment
activities in large scale by recruiting MARIA CORAZON AGAS GARCIA, JOCELYN
GEMINIANO FLORES, SONNY YABOT y ANTONIO, BALTAZAR ARGEL y VALLEDOR,
LETECIA RINONOS MARCELO, PABLITO S. GALUMAN, TARCILA M. UMAGAT, CAROLINE
U. CALIX, PERCY C. FUERTES, to a supposed job abroad, particularly in Taiwan, for a
fee, without first securing the necessary license or permit to do the same.
The accused denies having any participation in the recruitment of the nine named
complainants for employment in Taiwan, asserting that the CA erred in thus
affirming her conviction despite the totality of evidence pointing to no other
conclusion than her innocence.
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment under defined under
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 43 of the
Labor Code
HELD
Yes The acts committed by the accused constituted illegal recruitment in large
scale, whose essential elements are the following:
(a) The accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers
defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities
under Article 43 of the Labor Code;
(b) The accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary
of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of license
or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and
(c) The accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons
individually or as a group.
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.
To prove illegal recruitment, therefore, the State must show that the accused gave
the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy
the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part with their
money for that end.