CASE #4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. ANGEL MATEO Y JACINTO AND VICENTA

LAPIZ Y MEDINA
G.R. No. 198012, April 22, 2015

Doctrines:

Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of
"illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not.
Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may, for the
same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315 RPC.

Facts:
1. Sometime in 1998, the five private complainants, namely, Abel, Emilio, Victorio,
Manuel, and Virgilio met appellants on separate occasions at Plaza Ferguzon,
Malate, Manila to apply for overseas employment.

2. Mateo represented himself to have a tie-up with some Japanese firms, and promised
them employment in Japan as conversion mechanics, welders, or fitters for a fee. He
assured their departure after three weeks’ time as direct hires.

3. However, after the private complainants paid the required fees ranging from
P18,555.00 to P25,000.00, appellants failed to secure any overseas employment for
them. They likewise failed to return private complainants' money.

4. Manuel went to the POEA and was given certification stating that appellants are not
licensed to recruit applicants for overseas employment. So complainants filed a case
with the NBI then the DOJ which subsequently found probable cause against
appellants for large scale illegal recruitment and estafa.

5. RTC found Mateo guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment and estafa. CA affirmed the
lower court’s decision. Hence the appeal.

Contentions of parties

For their defense, appellants proffered denials. Mateo claimed that he is a legitimate car
importer and not a recruiter. Lapiz, on the other hand, denied knowing any of the private
complainants whom she claimed to have met for the first time at the Prosecutor's Office.

They also argue that there was no illegal recruitment because there was no proof that
they received money.

Issue: Whether appellants are guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment

Held and Ruling:

 YES. The offense of illegal recruitment is present in this case. The elements of
large scale are the following:

(1) The person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section
6 of RA 8042. The RTC found appellants to have undertaken a recruitment
activity when they promised private complainants’ employment in Japan for a fee.
(2) Accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment of workers. The Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably
reveals that appellants neither have a license nor authority to recruit workers for
overseas employment. Notably, appellants never assailed this Certification.

(3) Accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a
group. It was established that there were five complainants. Clearly, the existence of the
offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution.

Mateo's argument that there was no proof that they received money from appellants
baseless. Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that
the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law states "whether for profit or not."

As regards estafa, well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment
under the law may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article
315 RPC. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation." All these elements are likewise
present in this case.
 CASE #6

POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES, INC., v. TITO R. TAMALA, FELIPE S.

SAURIN, JR., ARTEMIO A. BO-OC AND JOEL S. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 186475, June 26, 2013

Doctrines:

Sec. 10 of RA 8042 does not apply to cases where the overseas Filipino worker was not
illegally dismissed. Said provision applied only to an illegally dismissed overseas contract
worker or a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause.

The management has the right to regulate the business and control its every aspect. Included in
this management right is the freedom to close or cease its operations for any reason, as long
as it is done in good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and
procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.

An employer who terminates his employee is required to serve written notice to the latter and to
the DOLE of the intended termination of employment at least 1 month prior to cessation of the
business under Article 283 of the Labor Code.

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is settled rule that petition for review on certiorari under this rule
is limited to the review of questions of law.

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in reviewing the legal correctness of a CA decision rendered
under this rule, we examined the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined
the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC before it, and not strictly on
the basis of whether the NLRC decision under review is intrinsically correct.

FACTS:
In 2004, respondents were hired by Poseidon International Maritime Services, Inc. (Poseidon),
in behalf of Van Doorn Fishing Pty, Ltd. (Van Doorn) to man its fishing vessels as well as that of
its partners, Dinko Tuna Farmers Pty. Ltd. (Dinko) and Snappertuna Cv. Lda (Snappertuna),
that operate at Cape Verde Islands.
They were assigned to different positions in different vessels, but with the same contract
duration of 12 months. Fishing operations started commencing in September but abruptly
stopped in November and didn’t resume.
Before the respondents disembarked from the vessel, their immediate employer, Goran Ekstrom
of Snappertuna, executed an agreement (May 25, 2005), promising to give them 100% of the
unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of their pre-terminated contract. They would receive
the following:
Artemio A. Bo-oc - US$6,047.99
Joel S. Fernandez - US$7,767.90
Felipe S. Saurin, Jr. - US$6,647.99
Tito R. Tamala - US$7,047.99
However, Poseidon and its other partners made another agreement (May 26, 2005), reducing
the previously agreed amount to 50% of the respondents’ unpaid salaries. Upon their arrival in
Manila, they received their settlement pay (unpaid salaries) under the letter of acceptance and
also signed a waiver and quitclaim.
The respondents filed a complaint before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, for illegal
termination of employment with prayer for the payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion
of their contracts; and for non-payment of salaries, overtime pay and vacation leave pay.  The
respondents also prayed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Contentions of Parties
Respondents claim that the quitclaims and waivers they signed should not be a bar to their
claim, basing it on their May 25 agreement. They said that they were coerced into signing these
because of their dire need for cash and that these were in highly technical language that’s
highly suspect.
The petitioners argued that by voluntarily signing the waivers quitclaims, they are barred from
claiming 50% of their unpaid salaries. The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring as valid
and binding their waivers and quitclaims. It dismissed their illegal dismissal complaint since the
respondents also abandoned this issue.
NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision. Upon reaching the CA, a decision was rendered in favor of
the respondents’ and ordered Poseidon and Van Doorn to pay them the amounts representing
the difference between the amounts they were entitled to receive under the May 25 agreement
and the amounts that they received as settlement pay.
The CA moreover considered the amounts stated in the May 25 agreement with Goran to be
more reasonable and in keeping with Section 10 of RA No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari after the CA denied its motion for reconsideration.
Poseidon contends that the CA’s application of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 to justify the
amounts it awarded to the respondents is misplaced, as the respondents never raised the issue
of illegal dismissal before the NLRC and the CA and that they mainly questioned the validity of
the waivers and quitclaims they signed and their binding effect on them.  While the respondents
raised the issue of illegal dismissal before the LA, they eventually abandoned it in their
pleadings.
Finally, Poseidon maintains that it did not illegally dismiss the respondents.  Highlighting the
CA’s observation and the respondents’ own admission in their various pleadings, Poseidon
reiterates that it simply ceased its fishing operations as a business decision in the exercise of its
management prerogative.

Issues
I. Whether respondents are illegally dismissed and thus entitled to their unpaid salaries
under Sec. 10 RA 8042.
II. Whether the quitclaims and waivers were valid and binding.
Ruling/Decision
I. NO

 Respondents are NOT illegally dismissed.

First, the respondents’ references to illegal dismissal in their several pleadings were mere
cursory declarations rather than a definitive demand for redress. 
Second, the respondents positively argued that the fishing operations for which they were hired
ceased as a result of the business decision of Van Doorn and of its partners; thus, negating by
omission any claim for illegal dismissal.
Third, the manner of dismissal was not a contested issue; the records clearly showed that the
respondents’ employment was terminated because Van Doorn and its partners simply decided
to stop their fishing operations in the exercise of their management prerogative, which
prerogative even our labor laws recognize.
The management has the right to regulate the business and control its every aspect. Included in
this management right is the freedom to close or cease its operations for any reason, as long as
it is done in good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and procedural
requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.1

 The respondents are NOT entitled to the unpaid portion of their salaries under Section
10 of R.A. No. 8042

A plain reading of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 readily shows that it applies only to cases of
illegal dismissal or dismissal without any just, authorized or valid cause and finds no application
in cases where the overseas Filipino worker was not illegally dismissed.2 This rule was applied
in International Management Services v. Logarta,where where it was held that Section 10 of
R.A. No. 8042 applies only to an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker or a worker
dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause.
While Van Doorn has a just and valid cause to terminate the respondents’ employment, it failed
to meet the requisite procedural safeguards provided under Article 283 of the Labor Code. 
Under this provision, Van Doorn, as the employer, is required to serve a written notice to the
respondents and to the DOLE of the intended termination of employment at least one month
prior to the cessation of its fishing operations. 3  Poseidon could have easily filed this notice, in
the way it represented Van Doorn in its dealings in the Philippines. While this omission does not
affect the validity of the termination of employment, it subjects the employer to the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal damages.
II. YES

1
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Domingo, G.R. No. 186209, September 21, 2011 and Espina v. Court of Appeals,
2
International Management Services v. Logarta, G.R. No. 163657, April 18, 2012
3
Art. 283 Labor Code
Yes. Generally, this Court looks with disfavor at quitclaims executed by employees for being
contrary to public policy. Where the person making the waiver, however, has done so
voluntarily, with a full understanding of its terms and with and with the payment of credible and
reasonable consideration, we have no option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and
binding.4 The settlement pay is reasonable under the circumstances, especially when
contrasted with the amounts to which they were respectively entitled to receive as termination
pay. In addition, the contents of the documents were clear and they cannot claim to be naive
and unlettered because they are mature and intelligent individuals. Their fellow seafarers also
witness their signing, discounting their allegation that it was coerced.

4
Ison v. Crewserve, Inc., G.R. No. 173951, April 16, 2012