PEOPLE V.

CHOWDURY

Facts:

Bulu Chowduly and Josephine Ong were charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale  after they
recruited herein complainants: Calleja, Miranda and Sasis, for employment in Korea without first obtaining the
required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

On three separate occasions the complainants they applied with Craftrade Overseas Developers (Craftrade) for
employment as factory worker in South Korea, where Chowdury worked as a consultant and conducted the
interview. During the interview, Chowdury informed then about the requirements for employment. He told
them to submit his certain documents and required then to undergo a seminar. He also urged then to complete
the requirements immediately and charged a processing fee of P25,000.00. Partial payments were then made by
the complainants. All payments were received by Ong for which she issued three receipts. Chowdury then
proessed his papers. Craftrade however failed to deploy them. It was later found out that Crsftman’s license has
expired, and that Chowdury was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade. neither was he, in his
personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers.

For his part, Chowdury contended that he may not be held liable for the offense because he was merely an
employee of Craftrade and he only performed the tasks assigned to him by his superiors. He argues that the ones
who should be held liable for the offense are the officers having control, management and direction of the
agency.

Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices
and accessories. 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 he actively and consciously participated in illegal
recruitment.

Issue:

W/N the accused knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Ruling:

Upon examination of the records, however, we find that the prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant
was aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and that he actively engaged in recruitment
despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the
agency.32 A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation.
The evidence at hand shows that accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing
that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal with
the applicants in its behalf. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. He merely
interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money
from them. Their payments were received by the agency's cashier, Josephine Ong. Furthermore, he performed
his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. Hence, we hold that the prosecution
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's conscious and active participation in the
commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. His conviction, therefore, is without basis.
PEOPLE V. TOLENTINO

Facts:

ALELIE TOLENTINO was charged with the crime of Large-scale Illegal Recruitment jointly with NARCISA SANTOS
after she engaged in recruitment activities despite having no license or authority to do so.

Tolentino allegedly told, on separate occasions, herein complainants, LEDERLE PANESA, ORLANDO LAYOSO,
JIMMY LEJOS, MARCELINO LEJOS and DONNA MAGBOO, that she could secure work for them at Korea and she is
capable of processing the travel visa and other documents for their travel and employment. She also demanded from them
to pay a certain amount as placement fee and accused once in possession of the said amount, misappropriated and
converted the same to her own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of the said complainants.

For her defense, Tolentino alleged that the private complainants were the ones who sought her help regarding possible
work in Korea and that she merely explained the procedure for overseas employment to them. She was hesitant to help
them because she does not recruit workers as she herself was also applying for work as factory worker through Narcisa
Santos. She admitted having received money from private complainants and issuing receipts for the payments, upon
instructions from Narcisa Santos. She confirmed her signature on the petty cash vouchers she issued to private
complainants, evidencing their payments. She testified that she gave the payments to Narcisa Santos. However, she
admitted that she does not have proof that she indeed turned over the money to Narcisa Santos.

Issue:

W/N Tolentino is guilty of illegal recruitment in large-scale.

Ruling:

Under the Labor Code, to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur:

1. The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 (b) or any prohibited practice
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.

2. He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.

3. He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 11

In this case, the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant engaged in large-scale illegal recruitment.

First, appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Part of the evidence submitted by the prosecution is a POEA
Certification15 dated 10 March 2003, stating that appellant is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment. Appellant admitted that she has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers.

Second, despite the absence of a license or authority to undertake recruitment activities, appellant gave the impression that
she has the power or ability to secure work for private complainants in Korea. Private complainants Orlando Layoso,
Donna Magboo, and Jimmy Lejos all testified that appellant promised them work as factory workers in Korea and induced
them to pay placement fees, which included the expenses for medical examination and the processing of their documents
for work in Korea. Appellant even showed pictures of previous applicants, whom she allegedly helped find work abroad.
Appellant also explained to them the procedure for overseas employment and promised them that she would secure their
visas and employment contracts within three months. The testimonies of Orlando Layoso, Donna Magboo, and Jimmy
Lejos were corroborated by private respondents Marcelino Lejos and Lederle Panesa, whose Affidavits of Complaint were
adopted as their direct testimonies.

This Court has held in several cases that an accused who represents to others that he could send workers abroad for
employment, even without the authority or license to do so, commits illegal recruitment. 16

Third, there are at least three victims in this case which makes appellant liable for large-scale illegal recruitment.

The Court is not swayed by appellant’s contentions. As found by the trial court and the appellate court, it was clearly
established that appellant dealt directly with the private complainants: she explained to them the procedure for overseas
employment; she charged them placement fees to cover their medical examination and the processing of their travel
documents; she issued petty cash vouchers with her signature, acknowledging receipts of their payments; she promised the
eventual release of their visas and employment contracts; and she made them sign Trainee Agreements, purportedly their
contract with their Korean employer. Clearly, appellant, despite being a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, engaged
in recruitment activities, making her liable for illegal recruitment.
PEOPLE V. DELOS REYES

Merceditas Matheus Delos Reyes was charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042, based on
the affidavit-complaints made by Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., Duldulao, and Gloria. The identical
information alleged that the accused have undertaken recruitment activity when she promised the private
complainants overseas employment for a fee. That after payments have been made by the private complainant
Delos Reyes failed to deploy them. It was later found as per Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration that the accused neither had a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas
employment.

Issue:

W/N Delos Reyes is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.

Ruling:

The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: 15 (l} the person charged undertook
any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; 16 (2) accused did not have the license or the
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the same against three or
more persons individually or as a group.

These elements are obtaining in this case.

First, the RTC found accused-appellant to have undertaken recruitment activity when she promised the private
complainants overseas employment for a fee.1avvphi1 

Second, the March 1, 2004 Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
unmistakably reveals that the accused-appellant neither had a license nor authority to recruit workers for
overseas employment.22 Notably, instead of assailing the certification, she admitted during the pre-trial that she
did not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.23

Third,  it was established that there were five complainants, i.e., Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and
Duldulao.

Thus, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved.

Millares & Lagda vs NLRC

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and ESSO INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING CO., LTD., respondents.

G.R. No. 110524

March 14, 2000

Facts:

Petitioners Douglas Millares and Rogelio Lagda seek the nullification of the decision, dated June 1, 1993, of the public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing for lack of merit petitioners' appeal and motion for new trial and affirming the
decision, dated July 17, 1991, rendered by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Petitioner Douglas Millares and Lagda were employed by private respondent ESSO International Shipping Company Ltd. (Esso
International, for brevity) through its local manning agency, private respondent Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc.

Petitioner Millares applied for a leave of absence and Michael J. Estaniel, President of private respondent Trans-Global, approved the
request for leave of absence. Subsequently,informing him of his intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive
Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that he had already rendered more than twenty (20) years of continuous service but
denied petitioner Millares' request for optional retirement on the following grounds, to wit: (1) he was employed on a contractual basis;
(2) his contract of enlistment (COE) did not provide for retirement before the age of sixty (60) years; and (3) he did not comply with the
requirement for claiming benefits under the CEIP, i.e., to submit a written advice to the company of his intention to terminate his
employment within thirty (30) days from his last disembarkation date.

Petitioner Millares requested for an extension of his leave of absence and C. Palomar, Crewing Manager, Ship Group A, Trans-Global,
wrote petitioner Millares advising him that respondent Esso International "has corrected the deficiency in its manpower requirements
specifically in the Chief Engineer rank by promoting a First Assistant Engineer to this position as a result of (his) previous leave of
absence which expired last August 8, 1989. The adjustment in said rank was required in order to meet manpower schedules as a result
of (his) inability." Personnel Administrator, advised petitioner Millares that in view of his absence without leave, which is equivalent to
abandonment of his position, he had been dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989.

On October 5, 1989, petitioners Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit, docketed as POEA (M) 89-10-9671, for illegal dismissal
and non-payment of employee benefits against private respondents Esso International and Trans-Global, before the POEA.

On July 17, 1991, the POEA rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. 12Petitioners appealed the decision to the
NLRC dismissing petitioners' appeal and denying their motion for new trial for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioners were not regular employees, the termination
of the petitioners were valid and failing to rule that even in the absence of an optional early retirement policy, petitioners were still
entitled to receive 100% of their total credited contributions to the CEIP as expressly provided in paragraph 2 (g) and (h) of the letter
memorandum.

Held:

The definition of regular and casual employment in Art 280 of the labor code provides that the primary standard to determine a regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or
trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioners were employees of private respondents until their services were terminated. They
served in their capacity as Chief Engineers, performing activities which were necessary and desirable in the business of private
respondents Esso International, a shipping company; and Trans-Global, its local manning agency which supplies the manpower and
crew requirements of Esso International's vessels.Verily, as petitioners had rendered 20 years of service, performing activities which,
were necessary and desirable in the business or trade of private respondents, they are, by express provision of Article 280 of the Labor
Code, considered regular employees. Petitioners may not be dismissed except for a valid or just cause under Article 282 of the Labor
Code. In the instant case, clearly, there was no valid cause for the termination of petitioners.

It will be recalled, that petitioner Millares was dismissed for allegedly having "abandoned" his post; and petitioner Lagda, for his alleged
"unavailability for contractual sea service." However, that petitioners did not abandon their jobs such as to justify the unlawful
termination of their employment is borne out by the records.

Furthermore, the absence of petitioners was justified by the fact that they secured the approval of private respondents to take a leave of
absence after the termination of their last contracts of enlistment. Subsequently, petitioners sought for extensions of their respective
leaves of absence. Granting arguendo that their subsequent requests for extensions were not approved, it cannot be said that
petitioners were unavailable or had abandoned their work when they failed to report back for assignment as they were still questioning
the denial of private respondents of their desire to avail of the optional early retirement policy, which they believed in good faith to exist.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision, dated June 1, 1993, of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered ordering the private respondents to:

(1) Reinstate petitioners Millares and Lagda to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, and to pay full backwages
computed from the time of illegal dismissal to the time of actual reinstatement;

(2) Alternatively, if reinstatement is not possible, pay petitioners Millares and Lagda separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for
every year of service; and,

(3) Jointly and severally pay petitioners One Hundred Percent (100%) of their total credited contributions as provided under the
Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan.

SO ORDERED.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. NLRC, GR No. 180045, 2010-11-17

Facts:
The respondents, security guards, were employed as security guards by DNL Security Agency (DNL
Security).
By virtue of the service contract entered into by DNL Security and... petitioner... respondents were
assigned to petitioner's Tacloban City office, ea... receiving a monthly income of P1,400.00
Sometime
1989, petitioner voluntarily increased respondents' monthly salary to
P3,000.00.
In
DNL Security informed respondents that its service contract with petitioner was terminated. This
notwithstanding, DNL Security instructed respondents to continue reporting for work to petitioner.
Respondents worked as instructed... but... without receiving their wages; after which, they were
terminated from employment.
respondents filed with NLRC a complaint against DNL Security and petitioner for illegal dismissal,
separation pay, salary differential, 13th... month pay, and payment of unpaid salary.
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision against DNL Security and petitioner
LA awarded respondents with separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service,
to be paid by DNL Security.
The LA further granted respondents' claim of salary differential, as they were paid wages below the
minimum wage, as well as 13th month pay. For these... monetary awards, petitioner was made solidarily
liable with DNL Security, as the indirect employer of respondents.
dismissed petitioner's appeal
, having been filed beyond the reglementary... period.
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
CA.
CA... affirming the NLRC ruling.
Hence, the present petition
Issues:
Court of Appeals misapplied the law and mistakenly affirmed the public respondent NLRC's decision that
the petitioner GSIS is jointly and severally liable with DNL Security Agency for payment of the
unsubstantiated amounts of Salary Differentials and the
13th Month Pay to the private respondent security guards.
Ruling:
The fact that there is no actual and direct employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondents does not absolve the former from liability for the latter's monetary claims. When petitioner
contracted DNL Security's services, petitioner became an indirect employer... of respondents, pursuant to
Article 107 of the Labor Code, which reads:
ART. 107. Indirect employer. - The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to
any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an
independent contractor for the performance of... any work, task, job or project.
After DNL Security failed to pay respondents the correct wages and other monetary benefits, petitioner, as
principal, became jointly and severally liable
Petitioner's liability covers the payment of respondents' salary differential and 13th month pay during the
time they worked for petitioner. In addition, petitioner is solidarily liable with DNL Security for respondents'
unpaid wages from February 1993... until April 20, 1993. While it is true that respondents continued
working for petitioner after the expiration of their contract, based on the instruction of DNL Security,
petitioner did not object to such assignment and allowed respondents to render service. Thus, petitioner...
impliedly approved the extension of respondents' services.  Accordingly, petitioner is bound by the
provisions of the Labor Code on indirect employment. Petitioner cannot be allowed to deny its obligation
to respondents after it had benefited from their services.
Petitioner's liability, however, cannot extend to the payment of separation pay.
An order to pay separation pay is invested with a punitive character, such that an indirect employer should
not be made liable without a finding that it had conspired in the illegal dismissal of the... employees.
Principles: