PEOPLE v. CABACANG (G.R. NO.

113917, JUL 17, 1995)

PUNO, J:
FACTS: That in or about and during the period comprised from March 22, 1990 to April 27,
1990, accused Felicia Cabacang representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and
transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad to the following persons: Romeo Eguia, Ronnie Reyes,
Armando Castro and Dante Eguia, without first having secured the required license or authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment. The prosecution evidence show that appellant
who is not a recruiter licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, handled
the processing of the papers of cousins Ramon Eguia and Edgardo Santos. In June, 1988, the
two were deployed to Abu Dhabi for employment as janitors. Private complainants were
encouraged by their deployment, and decided to apply for overseas janitorial work as well.
According to private complainant Ronnie Reyes, he was approached by appellant who
represented herself as the Assistant Manager of the Lakas Agency Management Corporation in
Ermita, Manila. Appellant informed him that there would be a second batch of overseas
workers to be deployed to Abu Dhabi. Ronnie relayed the information to Wilma Gregorio, who
made further inquiries about the job opportunity. Appellant assured them that they would be
able to leave for Abu Dhabi after the processing of their papers. She instructed them to pay
their processing fees directly to her. Private complainants through Wilma paid a total of
P32,500.00. The date of departure came without private complainants leaving. Appellant told
them to stay put and wait for their prospective Middle Eastern employer. No employer arrived,
and complainants failed to be deployed. Private complainants and Wilma returned to Lakas to
look for appellant and did not find her. They found out from the agency's Manager, MR.
NARCISO DELA FUENTE, that appellant was merely renting a table in the office and was not
employed with Lakas. The NBI was able to work out a settlement between the parties.
Appellant agreed in writing to pay back the processing fees of private complainants but did not
fully fulfill her obligation under the agreement and only refunded P6,700.00 to private
complainants. Appellant admits that she received from private complainants P32,500.00. She,
however, denied that she was merely renting a table at the office of the Lakas. She insisted that
she was an employee of that recruitment office. Appellant further testified that private
complainant Ronnie Reyes later withdrew his application and demanded the refund of his
processing fees.
ISSUE: Is Cabacang guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale?
LAW: Article 13(b), Article 34 and Article 38(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines
CASE HISTORY: The RTC found Cabacang guilty of illegal recruitment and sentenced as follows:
Judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Cabacang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal recruitment and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of P100,000.00. The Decision dated January 25, 1994, of the RTC is affirmed, subject to the
modification that, in addition to the penalties imposed, appellant is likewise ordered to
indemnify private complainants in the amount of P25,800.00, costs against appellant. In
addition to these penalties, appellant must also be ordered to indemnify private complainants
the unrefunded portion of their processing fees.
RULING: Yes. It is incorrect to maintain that to be liable for illegal recruitment, one must
represent himself/herself to the victims as a duly-licensed recruiter. Illegal recruitment is
defined in Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, as "any recruitment activities, including
the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-
licenses or non-holders of authority." Article 13(b) of the same Code defines "recruitment and
placement" as referring to: "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." To prove illegal recruitment, only two
elements need to be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken
recruitment activities (or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as
amended); and (2) said person does not have a license or authority to do so. Also, appellant
cannot successfully contend she merely performed her duties as an employee of a licensed
recruitment agency. Documentary evidence showed that appellant received private
complainants' processing fees from Wilma in her own behalf. These receipts — which are not
written on Lakas stationary — show no indication that the payments were accepted by
appellant in behalf of Lakas. The prosecution demonstrated that appellant performed
recruitment activities without any license to do so by promising them employment
overseas. Private complainants and Wilma dealt with appellant. Clearly, it was appellant who
directly recruited private complainants. Since it is undisputed that appellant is not a holder of a
license or authority to recruit from DOLE through the POEA, her acts constitute illegal
recruitment. Since appellant was charged with and convicted of illegally recruiting four people,
her crime is classified as having been committed in large scale and carries with it a fine of
P100,000.00. 
OPINION: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Under Article 38(a), to prove illegal
recruitment in large scale, the following elements must concur: (1) the person charged with the
crime must have undertaken recruitment activities (or any of the activities enumerated in
Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended); (2) said person does not have a license
or authority to do so; and (3) if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as
a group. In here, Cabacang was engaged in recruitment as defined under the law. She promised
employment overseas when she assured them that they would be able to leave for Abu Dhabi
after the processing of their papers. In addition, Cabacang did not have the authority to be
engaged in recruitment and committed it against four persons. Therefore, I agree with the
Supreme Court in holding Cabacang liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.
PEOPL v. SEGUN and CLAM (G.R. NO. 119076, MAR 25, 2002)
KAPUNAN, J:
FACTS: That on or about the 3rd day of March, 1993, at Linamon, Lanao del Norte, the accused,
mutually helping each other, canvass, enlist, contract, transport and recruit for employment the
following persons, namely: 1. Mario Tambacan; 2. Mary Jane Cantil; 3. Richard Arañas;
4. Victoria Collantes; 5. Christine Collantes; 6. Rogelio Collantes; 7. Luther Caban; 8. Loreta
Caban; 9. Jonard Genemelo; 10. Jhonely Genemelo; 11. Pedro Ozarraga; 12. Pablo Ozarraga;
and 13. Pacifico Villaver, without any license and/or authority to engage in recruitment and
placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment. The prosecution
presented eight (8) witnesses, namely, Francita L. Manequis, Conchita Tambacan, Josephine
Aba, Melecio Ababa, Rogelio Collantes, Loreta Caban, Christine Collantes and Elena Arañas.
Manequis, Employment Officer III and Administrative Officer of DOLE, identified certifications
which stated that per records available in this Office, appellants were neither licensed nor
authorized by this Department to recruit workers for overseas employment. Conchita
Tambacan, testified that her son Mario was "recruited" by appellants on March 6, 1993 and
brought to Manila. Her son did not consult her regarding the recruitment. After learning of her
son's recruitment, Mrs. Tambacan went to the Mayor who, in turn, verified from DOLE whether
appellants had any authority to undertake recruitment. Subsequently, the mayor handed Mrs.
Tambacan the certification. Josephine Ozarraga Aba is the aunt of Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga.
Aba testified that her nephews told her that they wanted to go to Manila and that they were
"recruited." Mrs. Aba went to appellants' house to inquire from appellants, who were her
neighbors, if what her nephews told her was true. Appellants told her that her nephews would
be given free fare to Manila, free meals and good wages. Melecio Ababa is the grandfather of
Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo. Ababa learned that appellants had "recruited" his grandsons.
Because of the promises, he acquiesced to the recruitment. Rogelio Collantes is the husband of
Victoria Collantes and the father of Christine and Rogelio, Jr. Rogelio learned that appellants
had "recruited" Victoria, Christine and Roger. Rogelio talked to appellants who promised that
his wife and children's transportation to Manila and meals will be free and that they will receive
good wages. Victoria, Christine and Rogelio, Jr., who were then looking for jobs, were then
brought to Cabanatuan City. The prosecution also presented Rogelio's daughter Christine, who
was among those allegedly recruited by appellants. Christine said her parents were jobless.
Upon the invitation of appellants, she and her mother went to the house of appellants.
According to Christine, those "recruited" totalled thirteen. They took a boat to Manila and
Cabanatuan City. Appellants shouldered the transportation expenses. Loreta Cavan testified
that she was "recruited" by appellants. She relayed that she met appellants in the house of
Josephine Clam, where she was recruited. Appellants told her that Cabanatuan City was a "good
place" "because the salary [was] big." Loreta denied that she went to the house of appellants to
seek their help. Rather, appellants allegedly offered her a job. Appellants invited her to go to
their house. Loreta learned from her sister Luther that appellants were recruiting. Finally, Elena
Arañas, mother of Richard Arañas, relayed that appellants brought her son Cabanatuan City.
Her son, who was then looking for work, was promised that he would be given a good salary.
Elena claimed that she was present when appellants approached her son and offered him work
in Cabanatuan City. Elena agreed to the recruitment of her son because of the promise of a
good salary. Appellants' defense was predicated on denial. They presented five witnesses to
support their case. Myrna Sasil testified that she went to the appellants' residence to ask them
to find a job in Manila for her daughter Margie. According to Myrna, Margie left with the
thirteen persons listed in the information as having been recruited by appellants. Appellants
paid for Margie's fare to Manila, which she reimbursed from her salary. At the time of Myrna's
testimony, Margie was still working in Cabanatuan City and was sending Myrna money from her
salary. Losendo Servano testified that his son Ruel did not have work in Linamon. His son thus
requested appellants to take him with them to Manila. In April 1993, Ruel, appellants and
thirteen others left for Manila by boat. Appellants shouldered Ruel's expenses in going to
Manila. When Ruel was able to find work, he paid appellants by installment. Losendo claims
that his son found work through the help of appellants. Virgincita Ozarraga is the sister of
appellant Josephine Clam. She is also the aunt of the twins Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga and a
neighbor of the thirteen persons allegedly recruited by appellants. Virgincita disputed Conchita
Tambacan's testimony that appellants recruited the latter's son Mario. She said that Mario
went to appellants' house. Josephine did not promise him a job because they were not
recruiters although appellants assured him they would help him find a job. Virgincita further
testified that Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga also went to the house of Virgincita's mother to ask
appellants to help them find work. Josephine allegedly told the twins that she was not a
recruiter but she would help them find work. She purportedly said the same thing to Jhonely
and Jonard Genemelo, Victoria and Christine Collantes, and Loreta and Luther Cavan. Josephine
also told them that she was not promising them anything. To Virgincita's knowledge, no people
sought their help to find them jobs after the couple returned from Manila. According to
appellant Roger Segun, the thirteen persons went to the house of Josephine Clam to ask her to
help them find jobs in Cabanatuan City. Their neighbors knew that Josephine used to work in
Cabanatuan City, Pangasinan and Dagupan City. Josephine told them that she was not a
recruiter although she would help them find work. Appellants accompanied the thirteen to
Manila as they (appellants) were going there anyway. Roger admitted that neither he nor
Josephine Clam had a license to recruit. He said he was not a recruiter. He also revealed that
after he brought the thirteen to Manila, he tried to secure a license to recruit but his
application was disapproved. Appellant Josephine Clam used to work as a house helper. The
thirteen persons listed in the information went to her house to ask her help to find them work.
She told them she would try her best to help them but informed them that she was not a
recruiter. She and Roger helped their neighbors find jobs because she took pity on them when
they begged her to help them find jobs. Based on the foregoing evidence, the Iligan City RTC
convicted appellants for violating Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment of the
13 persons mentioned in the information, namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane Cantil, Richard
Aranas, Victoria Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta Caban,
Jonard Genemilo, Jhonely Genemilo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico Villaver in a
large scale, the accused are hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment for each
of them and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 each. The bail bond put up by the accused is hereby
ordered cancelled, in view of the penalty imposed by this Court of life imprisonment, which is a
nonbailable offense. Appellants contend that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. They maintain that it was their neighbors who approached them and solicited their
assistance. Appellants took pity on them and helped them find jobs, even defraying their
neighbors' travel expenses. The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when
three elements concur. First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he or she
undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined
under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code. Third, the offender commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a
group. There is no dispute that the first element is present in this case. The certification states
that appellants "were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and overseas
employment." The next question is whether appellants undertook any activity constituting
recruitment and placement as defined by Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, which states:
"Recruitment and Placement" refers to 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. There is no
evidence that appellant undertook the recruitment of Mary Jane Cantil and Pacifico Villaver.
Neither Cantil nor Villaver testified in court. No witness testified as to the fact of their
recruitment. As regards Mario Tambacan, his mother Conchita testified that she learned of his
recruitment only from other persons. By itself, Rogelio's testimony is far from conclusive that
appellants actually recruited his wife and children. Rogelio used the term "recruit" which is a
conclusion of law; the prosecution did not elicit from him the specific act constituting the
recruitment. Rogelio also said that appellants made certain promises but it is not clear if these
were made to Rogelio or to his wife and children. That appellants "brought" them to Manila
does not necessarily mean that they were "transported" in the context of Article 13 (b).
Christine's testimony establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants recruited
Christine's mother Victoria. Christine explicitly stated that appellants offered her mother a job
and told them that they "would be given work." Victoria thus agreed to appellants' "proposal"
that she would be given a job in Cabanatuan City. The prosecution, however, succeeded in
proving that appellants recruited Loreta Cavan. Loreta testified that appellants told her that the
salary in Cabanatuan City was good, that she agreed to their proposal for her to work there,
and that they brought her to Manila then to Cabanatuan City. Again, the term "recruit" is a
conclusion of law. The prosecution failed to elicit from Loreta how appellants "recruited"
Luther. While Loreta also said that Luther was among the thirteen brought to Manila, it does
not necessarily mean that her transportation was for purposes of employment. Moreover,
Loreta said that Luther's job, at least at the time Loreta testified, was not a result of appellant's
efforts. These circumstances give rise to doubts whether appellants indeed recruited Luther
Cavan. Neither was the prosecution able to establish that appellants recruited the twins Pedro
and Pablo Ozarraga. The witness must testify as to the facts that would prove recruitment. It
does not suffice that the witness simply state that the accused "recruited" the "victim." Hence,
the testimony of Josephine Aba that appellants "recruited" her nephews is, by itself, insufficient
to convict appellants for the recruitment of Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga. Neither did the
prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants recruited Jhonely and Jonard
Genemelo. Elena's testimony fails to state the specific act constituting the recruitment. Elena
merely declared that her son was "recruited" — a legal conclusion. Appellants also supposedly
said that "they have work in Cabanatuan City" and that "they will help [her] son to find a job."
Elena did not state the context and the circumstances under which these statements were
made. The prosecution was able to prove that appellants performed recruitment activities only
in the cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan. The third element of illegal
recruitment, i.e., that the offender commits the acts of recruitment against three or more
persons is, therefore, absent. Consequently, appellants can be convicted only of two counts of
"simple" illegal recruitment.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. Appellants are found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of illegal recruitment, as defined and punished by
Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code, in relation to Articles 13 (b) and 39 thereof. They are each
sentenced to suffer for each count imprisonment of four (4) to five (5) years.

Facts:
Appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam without any license and/or authority to engage
in recruitment and placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment,
recruited the 13persons allegedly to work in Manila namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane
Cantil, Richard Aranas, Victoria Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta
Caban, Jonard Genemelo, JhonelyGenemelo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico
Villaver. They all came from Linamon, Lanao del Norte. All of them have different stories on how they
were recruited by the appellants to work in Manila. It was also allegedly claimed that the transportation
to Manila wasfree. It was established by the prosecution that the said appellants were neither licensed
nor authorized by the DOLE to recruit workers. Secondly, it was corroboratedby the Mayor of Linamon
that appellants per records were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local oroverseas
employment. On the other hand, both Roger and Josephine admitted that they did not have
any license to recruit. They only helped their neighbors find jobs because they took pity on them
when their neighbors begged them for jobs. However, the Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for
violating Article 38 of the Labor Code.

Issue: Are the appellants guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale?

Law: Article 13(b), Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

Case History: Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for violating Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended:
Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment of the 13 persons mentioned in the
information, namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane Cantil, Richard Aranas, Victoria Collantes, Christine
Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta Caban, Jonard Genemilo, Jhonely Genemilo, Pedro
Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico Villaver in a large scale, the accused are hereby sentenced to
suffer a penalty of life imprisonment for each of them and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 each. The bail
bond put up by the accused is hereby ordered cancelled, in view of the penalty imposed by this Court of
life imprisonment, which is a non-bailable offense. However, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is
MODIFIED. Appellants are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of illegal recruitment,
as defined and punished by Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code, in relation to Articles 13 (b) and  39 thereof.
They are each sentenced to suffer for each count imprisonment of four (4) to five (5) years.

Ruling: No. The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur.
First,
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
“recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) or any prohibited acts enumerated under
Article 34 of the Labor Code. Third, offender commits said acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. In the case at hand, the first element is present when a certification
issued by DOLE states that appellants were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and
overseas employment. The appellants also conceded that they have no license to recruit. As to the
second element, the trial court was able to deduced the testimonies of different witnesses and came up
with the conclusions that most of their testimonies were hearsay and that during their direct or cross
examinations, they used the term “recruit” which according to the Supreme Court is a conclusion of law.
The prosecution failed to elicit from them the specific act constituting the recruitment. The victims must
testify as to the facts that would prove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state
that the accused “recruited” the “victim”. In sum, the prosecution failed to elicit from many witnesses
the specific acts constituting the recruitment of the alleged victims. However, the prosecution was able
to prove that appellants performed recruitment activity only in cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta
Cavan. Since the third element which is that the offender commits theacts against three or more
persons
is absent, therefore, appellants is only guilty of two counts of simple illegal recruitment.

Opinion: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group. In here, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the appellants committed illegal recruitment in large scale as the testimonies of the witnesses were
merely hearsay or does not per se constitute illegal recruitment. However the prosecution was able
to prove that appellants performed recruitment activity only in cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta
Cavan. Since the third element which is that the offender commits the acts against three or more
persons
is absent, therefore, appellants is only guilty of two counts of simple illegal recruitment.
MA. CONSOLACION NAHAS, doing business under the name and style PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT AND
TECHNICAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY vs. JUANITA L. OLARTE G.R. No. 169247; June 2, 2014

DEL CASTILLO, J:
FACTS: Olarte was deployed as a domestic helper to Hail, Saudi Arabia for a contract term of
two years. On the hands of her foreign employer, she was maltreated, deprived of her salaries,
and contracted an illness for which no medical attention was not even provided. Not able to
endure the suffering much longer, she found an opportunity to escape, sought refuge at the
Philippine Embassy, and was eventually brought home to the Philippines. She filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal, damages, attorney’s fees and refund of placement fees against Fahad and
Nahas/PETRA/Royal Dream (the recruitment agency). Olarte alleged that she went to the office
of PETRA/Royal Dream where she was met and interviewed by Nahas, the manager and owner
of said agencies, who instructed her to sign what appeared to be a contract of employment.
Nahas denies Olarte’s allegations. The Labor Arbiter ruled against PETRA/Royal Dream/Nahas.
On appeal to the NRLC, Nahas, to further avoid personal liability, made a new allegation that if
at all, her only involvement was that she interviewed Olarte when she was still connected with
Royal Dream as a mere employee. The NLRC was not persuaded and disposed of the case.
Advancing the same arguments she raised before the labor tribunals, Nahas went to the CA, but
to no avail. The CA ruled in part: “While Nahas claims that she is neither the proprietress nor
one of the officers of ROYAL at that time, her role or position with ROYAL was undeniably
significant considering that she took charge of interviewing Olarte and eventually made her sign
the Contract of Employment. xxx We xxx thus affirm Nahas’ liability in accordance with Section
64 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1995 (RA 9042), to wit: ‘Section 64. Solidary Liability - The liability of the
principal/employer and the recruitment placement agency on any and all claims under this Rule
shall be joint and solidary. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly
and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages
xxx.”

ISSUE: WON Nahas is solidarily liable with the recruitment agency for Olarte’s claims
LAW: Sec. 64 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8024)
CASE HISTORY: LABOR ARBITER: Prescinding from the foregoing considerations, respondents
Petra Agency/Royal [Dream] International Services/Consolacion "Marla" Nahas are hereby
jointly and severally ordered to pay the complainant her unpaid salaries for eight (8) months in
the amount of US$1,600.00; three (3) months salary of the unexpired portion of the contract in
the amount [of] US$600.00; moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and exemplary
damages amounting to P50,000.00 and attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the
total monetary awards. NLRC: The instant appeal should be, as it is hereby dismissed for lack of
merit. CA: The instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the NLRC dated 28
February 2003 and its Resolution of 30 June 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED. SC: The Petition
is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 29, 2005 and Resolution dated July 8, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79028 are AFFIRMED.

RULING: YES. It must be stressed, at the outset, that the Court is not a trier of facts. Factual
findings of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded not only
respect, but even finality, and are binding on this Court. In this case, the LA, the NLRC, and the
CA are one in their factual conclusion that Nahas, acting for and in bhelaf of PETRA and Royal
Dream, interviewed Olarte, caused her to sign an employment contract, and facilitated and
made possible her deployment abroad. The Court is, therefore, not duty-bound to inquire into
the accuracy of this factual finding, particularly in this case where there is no showing that it
was arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis. As a final note, it is worth stating that recruitment
agencies, as part of their bounded duty to protect the welfare of the Filipino workers sent
abroad from whom they take their profit, should in conscience not add to the misery of
maltreated and abused Filipino workers by denying them the reparation to which they are
entitled. Instead, they must “faithfully comply with their government prescribed
responsibilities” and be the first to ensure the welfare of the very people upon whose
patronage their industry thrives.
OPINION: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Under Sec. 64 of the Omnibus Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8024),
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment placement agency on any and all claims
under this Rule shall be [joint] and solidary. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical
being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be
jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and
damages. In here, Nahas and PETRA were not mindful enough for the protection of Olarte.
recruitment agencies, as part of their bounded duty to protect the welfare of the Filipino
workers sent abroad from whom they take their profit, should in conscience not add to the
misery of maltreated and abused Filipino workers by denying them the reparation to which
they are entitled. Instead, they must “faithfully comply with their government prescribed
responsibilities” and be the first to ensure the welfare of the very people upon whose
patronage their industry thrives.