Chavez v.

Bonto-Perez

G.R. No. 109808

March 1, 1995

Page 39 – Standard Employment Contract

Facts:

Petitioner, an entertainment dancer, entered into a standard employment contract for overseas Filipino
artists and entertainers with Planning Japan Co., LTD., through its Philippine representative, private
respondent Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation. The contract had a duration of two (2) to six
(6) months, and petitioner was to be paid a monthly compensation of One Thousand Five Hundred U.S.
Dollars (US$1,500.00). On December 5, 1988, the POEA approved the contract. Subsequently, petitioner
executed the side agreement with her Japanese employer through her local manager, Jaz Talents
Promotion consenting to a monthly salary of US$750.00 which the petitioner affirmed.

When petitioner came back to the Philippines, she instituted the case for underpayment of wages
before POEA. She prayed for the payment of Six Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$6,000.00), representing the
unpaid portion of her basic salary for six months.

Issue:

Whether or not the side agreement executed between petitioner and her Japanese employer through
her local manager, Jaz Talent Promotion, is valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled that the side agreement executed by petitioner to authorize her Japanese
employer to deduct $250.00 from her monthly basic salary is void because it is against our existing laws,
morals, and public policy. It cannot supersede the standard employment contract that was approved by
the POEA.

Clearly, the basic salary of One Thousand five Hundred U.S. Dollars (US$1,500.00) guaranteed to
petitioner under the parties’ standard employment contract is in accordance with the minimum
employment standards with respect to wages set by the POEA. Thus, the side agreement which reduced
petitioner’s basic wage to Seven Hundred Fifty U.S. Dollars (US$750.00) is null and void for violating the
POEA’s minimum employment standards, and for not having been approved by the POEA. Indeed, this
side agreement is a scheme all too frequently resorted to by unscrupulous employers against our
helpless oversees workers who are compelled to agree to satisfy their basic economic needs.
Darvin v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 125044

July 13, 1998

Pages 51-52 : Travel Agencies Prohibited From Engaging in Business of Recruitment and Placement of
Workers for Overseas Employment.

Facts:

Accused was used to be connected with Dale Travel Agency. In 1992, she was introduced to Marcaria
Toledo by a friend. Toledo sought her help to secure a passport, U.S. Visa, and airline tickets to States.
Accused did not promise any employment in the U.S. to Toledo. She, however, admitted having received
the amount of P150,000.00 from Toledo. The claim of the accused that the P150,000.00 was for
payment of private respondent’s airfare and US visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because the
receipt, which was presented by both parties during the trial of he case, stated that it was “for Air Fare
and Visa to USA”. Had the amount been for something else in addition to airfare and visa expenses, such
as work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated. Hence, accused was not engaged in illegal
recruitment but merely acted as travel agent in assisting individual to secure passports and visa.

Issue:

W/N Darvin was engaged in recruitment activities.

Held:

No.

In 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 offered a job to private respondent. It
is not clear that accused gave the impression that she could provide the private respondent work
abroad. By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual,
without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. 
People v. Gasacao

G.R. No. 168445

November 11, 2005

Page 55 : License v. Authority

Facts:

Florencio Gasacao was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a licensed local
manning agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao, was the President. As the crewing
manager, the duties of Florencio Gasacio were included receiving job applications, interviewing the
applicants and informing them of the agency’s requirement of payment of performance or cash bond
prior to deployment.

Florencio and Jose Gasacao were charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment.

Issue:

WON Florencio Gasacao was guilty of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment.

Held:

Yes.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate 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.

A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a
person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by
the DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a
private recruitment entity. However, it appears that even licensees or holders of authority can be held
liable for illegal recruitment should they commit any of enumerated acts constituting Illegal
Recruitment.

The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In
case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be
liable.

Florencio Gasacao is not a mere employee of the manning agency but the crewing manager. As such, he
receives job applications, interviews applicants and informs them of the agency’s requirement of
payment of performance or cash bond prior to the applicant’s deployment. As the crewing manager, he
was at the forefront of the company’s recruitment activities.

It is well settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. Florencio Gasacao’s act of
promising the private complainants that they will be deployed abroad within three months after they
have paid the cash bond clearly shows that he is engaged in illegal recruitment.
People v. Navarra

G.R. No. 119361

February 19, 2001

Page 55 – 56 : Non-licensee or Non-holder of authority

Facts:

Job and Rodolfo, along with Rodolfo's wife Corazon, operated an agency which purported to have the
authority to recruit and place workers for employment in Taiwan. The agency was named Rodolfo
Navarra's Travel Consultant and General Services ("RNTCGS"),  which in the course of its operation was
able to victimize several hapless victims who never left Philippine soil, and in due time, filed complaints
with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (hereafter "POEA") against accused for illegal
recruitment.

Issue:

Whether or not Rodolfo and Job were committed the crime of Illegal Recruitment.

Held:

Yes. A "nonlicensee or nonholder of authority" means any person, corporation or entity without a valid
license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement from the Secretary of Labor, or whose license
or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration or the Secretary of Labor. Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and
placement" refer 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."

From the evidence adduced, accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement, such as
promises to the complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees.
Accused-appellants gave the impression that they had the power to send the complainants to Taiwan
for employment.

With the certification from the Department of Labor and Employment stating that RNTCGS was not
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, and promises by the accused of employment
abroad for complainants on payment of placements fees, the conclusion is inescapable that accused are
liable for illegal recruitment.
Salazar v. Achacoso

G.R. No. 81510

March 14, 1990

Pages 70 to 71 – The power of Secretary of DOLE to cause the arrest and detention of non-licensee or
non-holder of authority declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Facts:

Rosalie Tesoro filed with POEA a complaint for Illegal recruitment against petitioner Hortencia Salazar.
Upon having verified that petitioner Salazar has no valid license or authority from DOLE to recruit and
deploy workers for overseas employment, Sec. Achacoso issued a CLOSURE and SEIZURE ORDER NO.
1205 ordering the closure of petitioner’s recruitment agency, and the seizure of the documents and
paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment.

Petitioner filed a petition before SC assailing the Constitutionality of Article 38, paragraph c of the Labor
Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the provision in Article 38, paragraph c of the Labor Code which gives the POEA or
Secretary of Labor the power to issue warrants of search and seizure or warrants of arrest against non-
licensee or non-holder, is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled that Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, has no power to issue search or
arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through judicial process. To that extent, Article 38,
paragraph c, of the Labor code, declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Let it be guided that the power to issue search warrant or warrant of arrest is vested upon the judge.
Under 1987 Constitution, no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized. 

The exception is in cases of deportation of Illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the
Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for purposes of
deportation.
People v. Goce

G.R. No. 113161

August 29, 1995

Page 71: Illegal Recruitment

Facts:

Lorenzo Alvarez introduced Rogelio Salado to Nelly Agustin, manager of the Clover Placement Agency.
Agustin showed him a job order as a proof that he could readily deployed for overseas employment.
Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee.

Salado went to the office of Clover Placement Agency. He saw Agustin and met the Sps. Goce, owners of
the agency. Salado submitted his bio-data and learned from Goce that he had to give P12,000.00,
instead of P5,000.00 for placement fee. Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover
Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of
the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the
promised overseas employment. Hence, he decided to go to the POEA to verify the real status of the
agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants.

Issue:

Whether or not Agustin and Sps. Goce were guilty of illegal recruitment.

Held:

Yes.

It should be made clear that Agustin and Sps. Goce were not authorized to engage in any recruitment
agency as evidence by a certification issued by POEA. The Supreme Court ignored the defense of Agustin
that by mere introducing or referring to Sps. Goce does not fall within the meaning of Illegal
Recruitment.

Under the Labor Code, 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.  On the other hand, referral is the act of passing along
or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. 

The Supreme Court ruled that Agustin is an employee of the Goces. As correctly held by the trial court,
being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said
spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the
agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.

Lastly, it is well-settled that There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the
ability to send a worker abroad."  It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were
convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so employed. 

Gutierrez v. People

G.R. No. 124439

February 5, 2004

Page 72 : Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale

Facts:

Rosemarie Tugade went to the house of Celia Bautista, a “recruiter-agent” of the accused Gutierrez.
Celia told Rosemarie that she had to submit the following requirements for her application to work in
Dubai as a domestic helper: P4,000.00 as placement fee, P1,200.00 for passport, P850.00 for "medical,"
six (6) 2x2 pictures and her original birth certificate.

Upon completion of all the requirements, Rosemarie filled her bio-data forms, and underwent a medical
examination. Two weeks later, Celia told Rosemarie that her application for Dubai was already approved
and that she will be receiving $150.00 per month. For the first three (3) months, however, there will be
salary deductions.

They went to the accused’s office at Sarifudin Manpower and General Services, where accused told
Rosemarie that she needed to pay P2,000.00 more. The accused said she had received all of Rosemarie's
documents and the money paid to Celia. 10 Trusting in Celia, Rosemarie did not demand a receipt from
the accused. Also, accused asked Rosemarie to give P500.00 as terminal fee for her departure in a
week's time. Rosemarie paid the amount, as evidenced by a receipt. However, the departure of
Rosemarie to Dubai did not materialize.

Another complainants, Rosalyn Sumayo and Evelyn Ramos also applied for overseas job replacement as
a domestic helper in Dubai. Upon submission of all the necessary requirements and payments of
processing fees, terminal fees, and service charge, Accused told them that they would be leaving
anytime, but after 3 months, their departure did not materialize.

With the promises of jobs abroad unfulfilled, complainants decided to verify if the accused was a
licensed recruiter. Upon learning from the POEA that she was not so licensed, they proceeded to the
Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) to execute their respective affidavits.

Issue:

Whether the accused was guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.

Held:

Yes. The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the two elements concur, with the
addition of a third element: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. The accused engaged in recruitment and placement is beyond disputed. The 3
complainants categorically testified that accused Gutierrez promised them on several occasions that
they would be leaving for work abroad.
People v. Dolores Deleon

G.R. No. 110391

February 7, 1997

Pages 72-73: Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale

Facts:

There were three victims recruited by Accused Dolores De Leon.

1. CHARLENE TATLONG HARI. Accused Dolores De Leon went to the house of Mr. Tatlong Hari and
offered him and his daughter-in-law Charlene Tatlonghari, placement in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Although Charlene already had a pending application in another agency, she still submitted her
biodata to appellant. Accused told Charlene that she would be hired as clerk with monthly
salary of $450.00. Charlene withdrew her passport from the other agency and gave it to
accused together with P1,000.00, which was P400.00 short of the amount required by accused
allegedly for travel tax. No receipt was issued.
2. RODANTE SUNICO. Accused Dolores De Leon introduced herself to Sunico as a recruiter who
had already sent five workers to the Middle East. Sunico gave accused his biodata and other
documents after she promised him that he would be included as a nurse in the second batch of
workers for Saudi Arabia. Sunico went to the house of Mr. Tatlonghari where he gave appellant
the amount of P5,400.00 allegedly for processing his passport and payment of travel tax. No
receipt was issued.
3. GUILLERMO LAMPA. Lampa was offered by Accused Dolores a janitorial job in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia with a monthly salary of US$300.00. Lampa and his wife gave accused P11,000.00 for
medical expenses and another 11,000.00 for a joint account with his wife. No receipt was issued
but she promised him that he would leave in two weeks' time and that All Seasons Manpower
would pay for his plane ticket. Lampa never left as promised.
4. MANUEL CABUSAO. Accused offered him a janitorial job in a hospital in Saudi Arabia with a
monthly salary of U$S300.00. He gave Accused P2,700.00 for the processing of the travel
documents. No receipt was issued allegedly because the amount involved was small and
because the amount he should have paid was P5,000.00. SHE scheduled his departure on
September 11, 1992 but postponed the same.
5. JOSEPH CHAVEZ. Accused represented herself as a recruiter of All Seasons Manpower in Makati
and offered him a janitorial job in Bahrain because two applicants were rejected. He gave
accused P6,500.00 supposedly for medical, processing and placement fees. Accused did not
issue a receipt because she was in a hurry. His departure was scheduled on September 22,
1992, but nothing happened.
6. ROBERTO PORIO. Again recruited and nothing happened.

The prosecution presented POEA records, duly identified by Visitacion Carreon, POEA Senior Officer,
showing that All Seasons Manpower International Services is a licensed placement agency. However,
accused’s name was not among the list of personnel submitted by said agency to the POEA.

Issued:
Whether or not Accused Dolores De Leon was guilty of Illegal Recruitment in large scale.

Held:

Yes. To prove illegal recruitment, only two elements need be shown: (1) the person charged with the
crime must have undertaken recruitment activities; and (2) the said person does not have a license or
authority to do so.

A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a
person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by
the DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a
private recruitment agency. 

Large scale illegal recruitment is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 under Article
39(a) of the Labor Code. 

In the instant case, appellant clearly committed large scale illegal recruitment as she recruited at least
three persons, giving them the impression that she had the capability of sending them abroad for
assured jobs in Saudi Arabia, and collecting various amounts allegedly for processing and placement fees
without license or authority to do so.