NAME: NICO ARNOLD D.

PICASO_____ YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: 2A LAW___

CASE NO. 50

I. Jose Abaca, petitioner

v.
Hon. Court of Appeals, and People of the Philippines, respondents
G.R. No. 127162 June 05, 1998
Ponente: MARTINEZ, J.:

II. Issue:
Is Jose Abaca guilty of illegal recruitment when he presented himself to private
respondents Roselia Jiz Janeo, Zenaida J. Subang, Renita J. Janeo and Melrose S. Palomo
that he had the authority to recruit workers for employment in Taipei, Taiwan with such
employment being able to pay $300 to $500 a month and that he can facilitate their
necessary papers in connection with their employment there and that he received as a
payment the sum of Php 14,000.00 plus Php 1,500.00 from each of the private
respondents for their passports and when he also referred the private respondents to a Mr.
Reynaldo Tan?

III. Complainant’s (Abaca) Argument:

Abaca answered to the RTC that he did not recruit private respondents and that he only
happened to be at the establishment of them in Calapan. He only informed them that they
were recruiting workers for the Middle East and he also discouraged female workers
because of the horrible experiences there. He also claimed that he referred the private
respondents to Reynaldo Tan.

IV. Respondent’s (Janeo, et. al.) Argument:

The respondents submitted before the RTC that accused-appellant Abaca recruited them
for work and made them believe that he (Abaca) could process their papers if they would
him a sum of money. Abaca represented himself to be a licensed recruiter and convinced
the four of them that, for a consideration, they could work abroad at Taipei as domestic
helpers or factory workers with a salary ranging from $300 to $500 a month.

V. Decision of the Court:

YES. Jose Abaca is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment. Petition is dismissed and
the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

VI. Ratio:
The Court said:
“The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1)
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he 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.
 Under the first element, a nonlicensee or nonholder of authority is any person,
corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in
recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has
been suspended, revoked or canceled by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) or the Secretary.5 Agents or representatives appointed by a
licensee or a holder of authority but whose appointments are not previously authorized
by POEA are within the meaning of the term nonlicensee or nonholder of authority.

The record shows that petitioner is not a licensed recruiter as evidenced by the
Certification7 issued by Mr. Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing Branch,
POEA.

The second element of the crime charged, that is, the offender undertakes either any
activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement, Article 13(b) of the Labor
Code defines "recruitment and placement," as follows:

"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."(Underscoring Supplied)

Petitioner's acts of (1) representing to the private complainants that he can help them
work in Taipei with a monthly salary of $300 to $500; (2) requiring them to submit their
ID pictures, birth certificates and bio-data for their employment abroad; (3) demanding
from them P12,000.00 as processing fee; and (4) receiving from them certain amounts
for the processing of their passports and other papers, are all recruitment activities
within the contemplation of the law.”

VII. Instruction Learned:

In the case, Abaca’s contention that he has the authority to recruit because of his position
as manager and Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar Trainor (PDOS) of a licensed private
recruitment agency also has no merit because the position for which he was employed did
not grant the authority to recruit and even if it did, it must also be submitted to approved
by the POEA. As even Abaca admits, he was not approved by POEA. As the evidence
further shows, he never even acted on behalf of his company when he recruited the
private respondents.