CHAPTER II : Regulation of Recruitment and Placement Activities

1. Jacob vs. First Step Manpower Int’l. Services, Inc., 942 SCRA 226, G.R.
No. 229984 July 8, 2020
It is discernable from petitioner’s declaration that the controversy emanated from
the lewd actuations of her male foreign employer on January 31, 2015. To avert a
commotion, she reported the matter to her female employer but unfortunately,
she was merely discredited and even blamed for the incident. From then on,
petitioner’s female foreign employer treated her differently. Jacob was subjected
to physical and verbal harm that she was left with no other choice but to
relinquish her employment. Certainly, the treatment petitioner experienced in the
hands of her foreign employers fostered a hostile and unbearable work setting
which impelled her not only to leave her employers but also, as in petitioner’s
words, to escape (tumakas). The conclusion is all too clear that there exists a
well-grounded fear on her part prompting her to run away despite having been
employed overseas for barely two (2) months. The cessation of petitioner’s
employment was not of her own doing but was brought about by unfavorable
circumstances created by her foreign employers. To put in simply, if petitioner
failed to continue her job, it was because she refused to be further
subjected to the ordeal caused by her employers’ conduct. All of these
evidently constitute a case of constructive dismissal. Unfortunately,
petitioner’s anguish did not end when she was able to escape on February 16,
2015. To seek refuge, she went to respondent First Step’s counterpart agency in
Riyadh. Upon discovering the unfortunate situation of female overseas workers
there, she tried to escape through the agency’s window where she fell and
injured her spine. Petitioner’s narration is not at all self-serving and baseless, as
claimed by respondents. The material points of her story were duly supported by
the Discharge Summary from King Saudi Medical City.

Besides, it would be irrational for petitioner to resign and thereafter file a case for
illegal dismissal since “[r]esignation is inconsistent with the filing of the said
complaint.” Given that resignation “is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment
of an office[,]” it must be concurrent with the intent and the act.

Petitioner, for having been illegally dismissed from employment, is also entitled to
her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her employment contract in
accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 which, in part, reads:
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the
migrant worker’s salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of
his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%)
 per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract
or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.”
2. Finman General Assurance Corp. vs. Inocencio, 179 SCRA 480, G.R. Nos.
90273-75 November 15, 1989
Jurisdiction; POEA; Department of Labor; POEA and DOLE have the power to
compel surety to make good on its solidary undertaking in the same proceedings
where the liability of principal obligor is determined.—The fundamental argument
of Finman is that its liability under its own bond must be determined and
enforced, not by the POEA or the Secretary of Labor, but rather by the Insurance
Commission or by the regular courts. Once more, we are not moved by
petitioner’s argument. There appears nothing so special or unique about the
determination of a surety’s liability under its bond as to restrict that
determination to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner and to the regular
courts of justice exclusively. x x x Cash and surety bonds are required by
the POEA and its predecessor agencies from recruitment and
employment companies precisely as a means of ensuring prompt and
effective recourse against such companies when held liable for
applicants’ or workers’ claims. Clearly that public policy will be effectively
negated if POEA and the Department of Labor and Employment were held
powerless to compel a surety company to make good on its solidary undertaking
in the same quasijudicial proceeding where the liability of the principal obligor,
the recruitment or employment agency, is determined and fixed and where the
surety is given reasonable opportunity to present any defenses it or the principal
obligor may be entitled to set up. Petitioner surety whose liability to private
respondents and the POEA is neither more nor less than that of Pan Pacific, is
not entitled to another or different procedure for determination or fixing of that
liability than that which Pan Pacific is entitled and subject to.
3. JMM Promotions & Management, Inc. vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 129, G.R. No.
109835 November 22, 1993

Appeal bond is required to perfect an appeal from a decision of the

POEA.—The POEA Rules are clear. A reading thereof readily shows that in
addition to the cash and surety bonds and the escrow money, an appeal bond in
an amount equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an appeal
from a decision of the POEA. Obviously, the appeal bond is intended to further
insure the payment of the monetary award in favor of the employee if it is
eventually affirmed on appeal to the NLRC.
E.O. 247; Bonds are supposed to guarantee payments of valid and legal claims
against employer. POEA can also go against these bonds for violations by the
recruiter of the conditions of its license.—It is true that the cash and surety
bonds and the money placed in escrow are supposed to guarantee the payment
of all valid and legal claims against the employer, but these claims are not limited
to monetary awards to employees whose contracts of employment have been
violated. The POEA can go against these bonds also for violations by the
recruiter of the conditions of its license, the provisions of the Labor Code and its
implementing rules, E.O. 247 (reorganizing the POEA) and the POEA Rules, as
well as the settlement of other liabilities the recruiter may incur.
Overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with foreign employer. The bonds
and escrow money are intended to insure more care on the part of local agent in
its choice of foreign principal to whom overseas workers are to be sent.—It is
true that these standby guarantees are not imposed on local employers, as the
petitioner observes, but there is a simple explanation for this distinction.
Overseas recruiters are subject to more stringent requirements because of the
special risks to which our workers abroad are subjected by their foreign
employers, against whom there is usually no direct or effective recourse. The
overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with the foreign employer. The bonds and
the escrow money are intended to insure more care on the part of the local
agent in its choice of the foreign principal to whom our overseas workers are to
be sent.
In interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part be given effect.
Construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided and
inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of
harmonious whole.—It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in
interpreting a statute (or a set of rules as in this case), care should be taken that
every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an
integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. Ut res
magis valeat quam pereat. Under the petitioner’s interpretation, the appeal
bond required by Section 6 of the aforementioned POEA Rule should be
disregarded because of the earlier bonds and escrow money it has posted. The
petitioner would in effect nullify Section 6 as a superfluity but we do not see any
such redundancy; on the contrary, we find that Section 6 complements Section 4
and Section 17. The rule is that a construction that would render a provision
inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should
be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious
whole.
 In addition to monetary obligations of the overseas recruiter appeal bond is
required to perfect an appeal from a decision of the POEA.—Accordingly, we hold
that in addition to the monetary obligations of the overseas recruiter prescribed
in Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules and the escrow agreement under
Section 17 of the same Rule, it is necessary to post the appeal bond required
under Section 6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules, as a condition for
perfecting an appeal from a decision of the POEA.
Every intendment of the law must be interpreted in favor of the
working class.—Every intendment of the law must be interpreted in favor of
the working class, conformably to the mandate of the Constitution. By sustaining
rather than annulling the appeal bond as a further protection to the claimant
employee, this Court affirms once again its commitment to the interests of labor.
4. Capricorn Int'l. Travel and Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA
123, G.R. No. 91096 April 3, 1990

The cash bond posted by a labor recruiter with POEA is not exempt from
execution even if employment-related claims are not mentioned in Sec.
12, Rule 39, Rules of Court.—Considering the rationale for requiring the
posting of a cash bond and its nature, it cannot, therefore, be argued that the
cash bond is not exempt from execution by a judgment creditor simply because it
is not one of those enumerated in Rule 39, sec. 12 of the Rules of Court. To
accede to such an argument would be tantamount to turning a blind eye to the
clear intent of the law to reserve the cash bond for the employment-related
claims of overseas workers and for violations of labor laws.

From a different angle, neither may it be argued that Capricorn's judgment credit,
pertaining as it does to the value of airline tickets ostensibly used by Sameer to
transport overseas workers abroad, this one of those for which the cash bond
should answer. Sameer's liability to Capricorn relates to a purely
contractual obligation arising from the purchase and sale of airline
tickets. While the liability may have been incurred in connection with the
business of recruiting or placing overseas workers, it is definitely not one arising
from violations of the conditions for the grant and use of the license or authority
and contracts of employment. Nor is it one arising from the violation of labor
laws.

5. Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. vs. Secretary of Labor, 181 SCRA 110,
G.R. Nos. 79436-50 January 17, 1990

Secretary of Labor has the power and authority not only to restrict and
 regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies but
also to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and
implement the provisions governing said activities.—The penalties of
suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed for violations of
the above quoted provisions, among others. And the Secretary of Labor has the
power under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions, as well as the
authority, conferred by Section 36, not only to “restrict and regulate the
recruitment and placement activities of all agencies,” but also to “promulgate
rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions,”
governing said activities. Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted, the
Secretary of Labor gave the POEA, “on its own initiative or upon filing of a
complaint or report or upon request for investigation by any aggrieved person, x x
(authority to) conduct the necessary proceedings for the suspension or
cancellation of the license or authority of any agency or entity” for certain
enumerated offenses.

Implicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims

of the offenses committed by the respondent agency or contractor.—
Implicit in these powers is the award of appropriate relief to the victims of the
offenses committed by the respondent agency or contractor, specially the refund
or reimbursement of such fees as may have been fraudulently or otherwise
illegally collected, or such money, goods or services imposed and accepted in
excess of what is licitly prescribed. It would be illogical and absurd to limit the
sanction on an offending recruitment agency or contractor to suspension or
cancellation of its license, without the concomitant obligation to repair the injury
caused to its victims. It would result either in rewarding unlawful acts, as it would
leave the victims without recourse, or in compelling the latter to litigate in another
forum, giving rise to that multiplicity of actions or proceedings which the law
abhors.

6. Soriano vs. Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation, 177 SCRA 513,
G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989

Laws should be given a reasonable interpretation.—It is axiomatic that laws

should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one which defeats the very
purpose for which they were passed. This Court has in many cases involving the
construction of statutes always cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute
as to defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed that it is of the essence of
judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such a deplorable result (of
injustice or absurdity) and that therefore “a literal interpretation is to be
 rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results.”

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly analyzed the questioned
annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original employment
contract; Reason; Case at bar.—In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and
the National Labor Relations Commission correctly analyzed the questioned
annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original employment contract
but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the imagination can be
considered a violation of the above-quoted law. Under similar circumstances, this
Court ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the coverage of a
statute are strictly construed. But such construction nevertheless must be at all
times reasonable, sensible and fair. Hence, to rule out from the exemption
amendments set forth, although they did not materially change the terms and
conditions of the original letter of credit, was held to be unreasonable and unjust,
and not in accord with the declared purpose of the Margin Law.

Rights of the working class; To disregard the employer’s own rights and
interests on the basis of concern and solicitude of labor is unjust and
unacceptable.—As recently laid down by this Court, the rule that there should
be concern, sympathy and solicitude for the rights and welfare of the working
class, is meet and proper. That in controversies between a laborer and his
master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence or in the interpretation of
agreements and writings should be resolved in the former’s favor, is not an
unreasonable or unfair rule. But to disregard the employer’s own rights and
interests solely on the basis of that concern and solicitude for labor is unjust and
unacceptable.

7. Seagull Maritime Corp. vs. Balatongan, 170 SCRA 813, G.R. No. 82252
February 28, 1989

A supplementary employment contract which affords greater benefits to

the employee than the previous one, may be considered valid and
enforceable even if the same was not submitted to the POEA for
approval.—The supplementary contract of employment was entered into
between petitioner and private respondent to modify the original contract of
employment. The reason why the law requires that the POEA should approve and
verify a contract under Article 34(i) of the Labor Code is to insure that the
employee shall not thereby be placed in a disadvantageous position and that the
same are within the minimum standards of the terms and conditions of such
 employment contract set by the POEA. This is why a standard format for
employment contracts has been adopted by the Department of Labor. However,
there is no prohibition against stipulating in a contract more benefits to the
employee than those required by law. Thus, in this case wherein a
“supplementary contract” was entered into affording greater benefits to the
employee than the previous one, and although the same was not submitted for
the approval of the POEA, the public respondents properly considered said
contract to be valid and enforceable. Indeed, said pronouncements of public
respondents have the effect of an approval of said contract.
A contract voluntarily entered into by the parties is valid and binding
upon them, unless the same is contrary to morals, good customs,
public policy or public order.—Moreover, as said contract was voluntarily
entered into by the parties the same is binding between them. Not being
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order, its validity
must be sustained. By the same token, the court sustains the ruling of public
respondents that the provision in the supplementary contract whereby private
respondent waives any claim against petitioners for damages arising from death
or permanent disability is against public policy, oppressive and inimical to the
rights of private respondent. The said provision defeats and is inconsistent with
the duty of petitioners to insure private respondent against said contingencies as
clearly stipulated in the said contract.
8. Catan vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 160 SCRA 691, No. L-
77279 April 15, 1988

The employee’s injury was sustained during the lifetime of the

employment contract as no notice of termination of the contract was
given by either or both of the parties at least a month before its
expiration.—Private respondents contract of employment can not be said to
have expired on May 14, 1983 as it was automatically renewed since no notice of
its termina-tion was given by either or both of the parties at least a month before
its expiration, as so provided in the contract itself. Therefore, private respondent’s
injury was sustained during the lifetime of the contract.
A private employment agency may be sued jointly and solidarily with
its foreign principal for violations of the recruitment agreement and
the contracts of employment.—A private employment agency may be sued
jointly and solidarily with its foreign principal for violations of the recruitment
agreement and the contracts of employment.
 Even if petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their
agency agreement at the time private respondent was injured,
petitioner may still be sued for violation of the employment contract.—
Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their
agency agreement at the time private respondent was injured, petitioner may
still be sued for a violation of the employment contract because no notice of the
agency agreement’s termination was given to the private respondent.
Worker entitled to award of medical expenses absent proof that he was
not medically fit to work when he returned to Saudi Arabia.
9. Royal Crown Internationale vs. NLRC, 178 SCRA 569, G.R. No. 78085
October 16, 1989

Petitioner’s conclusion that it cannot be held jointly and severally liable

with ZAMEL for violation of private respondent’s service agreement is
erroneous.—Petitioner’s conclusion is erroneous. Petitioner conveniently
overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability under the
various contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment
Services. In applying for its license to operate a private employment agency for
overseas recruitment and placement, petitioner was required to submit, among
others, a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed all responsibilities
for the proper use of its license and the implementation of the contracts of
employment with the workers it recruited and deployed for overseas employment
[Section 2(e), Rule V, Book I, Rules to Implement the Labor Code (1976)]. It was
also required to file with the Bureau a formal appointment or agency contract
executed by the foreign-based employer in its favor to recruit and hire personnel
for the former, which contained a provision empowering it to sue and be sued
jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the
recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment [Section 10 (a) (2), Rule
V, Book I of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code (1976)]. Petitioner was
required as well to post such cash and surety bonds as determined by the
Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment
procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of employment as
appropriate.
The various contractual undertakings constitute the legal basis for
holding petitioner liable jointly and severally with its principal, the
foreign-based employer, for all claims filed by recruited workers.—
Rule that service upon an agent of a foreign corporation whether or not
engaged in business in the Philippines constitutes personal service
upon that corporation well-settled.
 NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioner jointly and severally liable
with ZAMEL.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to
show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause.
Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that private
respondent was terminated for just and valid cause.
NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in upholding the POEA’s
finding of insufficiency of evidence to prove termination for just and
valid cause.
10. Facilities Management Corporation vs. De la Osa, 89 SCRA 131, No. L-
38649 March 26, 1979

Corporations; A foreign corporation not doing business in the

Philippines may be sued here for acts done against persons in the
Philippine.—Indeed, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the
Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines, a
fortiori that same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in
Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines.

Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court: “If the defendant is a foreign
corporation, or a non-resident joint stock company or association, doing business
in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines."
CHAPTER II:
1. People vs. Hernandez, 378 SCRA 593, G.R. Nos. 141221-36 March 7,
2002

“Illegal Recruitment” and “Recruitment and Placement,” Defined.—

Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as “any recruitment
activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
(the Labor Code), to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority.” The term “recruitment and placement” refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, including 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. The law imposes a higher penalty when the illegal
recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale as they are
considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment is
deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying
out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.
There is illegal recruitment when one who does not possess the
necessary authority or license gives the impression of having the
ability to send a worker abroad.—In the case at bar, the prosecution was
able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants engaged in
activities that fall within the definition of recruitment and placement under
the Labor Code. The evidence on record shows that they promised overseas
employment to private complainants and required them to prepare the
necessary documents and to pay the placement fee, although they did not
have any license to do so. There is illegal recruitment when one who does not
possess the necessary authority or license gives the impression of having the
ability to send a worker abroad.
2. People vs. Tan Tiong Meng, 271 SCRA 125, G.R. Nos. 120835-40
April 10, 1997

Testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were

straightforward, credible and convincing.—There is no showing that any
of the complainants had ill-motives against Tan other than to bring him to the
bar of justice. The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were
straightforward, credible and convincing. The constitutional presumption of
innocence in Tan’s favor has been overcome by proof beyond reasonable
doubt and we affirm his convictions.
Definition of Recruitment and Placement.—The Labor Code defines
recruitment and placement thus: “(A)ny 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.”
 Accused-appellant’s acts of accepting placement fees from job
applicants and representing to them that he could get them jobs in
Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement.—It is clear that
accused-appellant’s acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and
representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan
constitute recruitment and placement under the above provision of the Labor
Code.
The offense committed against the six (6) complainants is illegal recruitment
in large scale.—The POEA having certified that accused-appellant is not
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, it is clear that the
offense committed against the six (6) complainants in this case is illegal
recruitment in large scale punishable under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code
with life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00).
3. People vs. Segun, 379 SCRA 673, G.R. No. 119076 March 25, 2002

Illegal Recruitment; Elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in

large scale.—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.
4. People vs. Laogo, 639 SCRA 28, G.R. No. 176264 January 10, 2011

Criminal Law; Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Words and Phrases;

“Recruitment and Placement,” Defined; To prove illegal recruitment, it must
be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send
them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed—it is important that there must at least be a
promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter,
whether locally or abroad.—Recruitment and placement refers to the 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. When a person or
 entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or
more persons, that person or entity shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement. Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that
recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority
are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is
committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is
deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the
same is deemed a form of economic sabotage. But to prove illegal
recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly
authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the
power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were
convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is important
that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the
person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.
5. People vs. Panis, 142 SCRA 664, Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1986

Labor; Recruitment and placement; Interpretation; Article 13(b) of P.D. 442,

interpreted; Presumption that the individual or entity is engaged in
recruitment and placement whenever two or more persons are involved;
Number of persons, not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and
placement of workers.—As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to
impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but
merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or
entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing
with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or
promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.” The
number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of
recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic
rule in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one
prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of
evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer
of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity
dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment
and placement. The words “shall be deemed” create that presumption.
6. People vs. Sagaydo, 341 SCRA 329, G.R. Nos. 124671-75 September
29, 2000

Denials; As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the

complainants, mere denial of the accused cannot prevail.—All the
 aforementioned requisites were present in this case. The accused-appellant
made representations to each of the private complainants that she could send
them to Korea to work as factory workers, constituting a promise of
employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13 (b)
of the Labor Code. From the testimonies of the private complainants that the
trial court found to be credible and untainted with improper motives, there is
no denying that accused-appellant gave the complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work
such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the
complainants, mere denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail.
7. People vs. Ong, 322 SCRA 38, G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000

Qualifying circumstances to consider illegal recruitment an offense

involving economic sabotage; Essential elements of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale; License defined; It is the lack of
the necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment
unlawful or criminal.—On the other hand, illegal recruitment is considered
an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying
circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or, (b) when illegal
recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group. The essential elements of the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of
recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art. 13(b) or in any
prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not
complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an
authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the
accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. As defined, a “license” is that which is issued by
the Department of Labor and Employment authorizing a person or entity to
operate a private employment agency, while an “authority” is that issued by
the DOLE entitling a person or association to so engage in recruitment and
placement activities as a private recruitment agency. It is the lack of the
necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment unlawful or
criminal.
 To prove illegal recruitment it, must be shown that the accused-
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.—
8. Sto. Tomas vs. Salac, 685 SCRA 245, G.R. Nos. 184298-99 November
13, 2012

Labor Law; Recruitment; Overseas Filipino Workers; On April 10, 2007 former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. 9422 which expressly
repealed Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 and adopted the policy of close
government regulation of the recruitment and deployment of Overseas
Filipino Workers (OFWs).―On April 10, 2007 former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. 9422 which expressly repealed
Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 and adopted the policy of close government
regulation of the recruitment and deployment of OFWs. R.A. 9422 pertinently
provides: x x x x SEC. 1. Section 23, paragraph (b.1) of Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995” is hereby amended to read as follows: (b.1) Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration―The Administration shall regulate private sector
participation in the recruitment and overseas placement of workers by setting
up a licensing and registration system. It shall also formulate and implement,
in coordination with appropriate entities concerned, when necessary, a
system for promoting and monitoring the overseas employment of Filipino
workers taking into consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower
requirements. In addition to its powers and functions, the administration shall
inform migrant workers not only of their rights as workers but also of their
rights as human beings, instruct and guide the workers how to assert their
rights and provide the available mechanism to redress violation of their rights.
In the recruitment and placement of workers to service the requirements for
trained and competent Filipino workers of foreign governments and their
instrumentalities, and such other employers as public interests may require,
the administration shall deploy only to countries where the Philippines has
concluded bilateral labor agreements or arrangements: Provided, That such
countries shall guarantee to protect the rights of Filipino migrant workers;
and: Provided, further, That such countries shall observe and/or comply with
the international laws and standards for migrant workers.
9. People vs. Cabais, 354 SCRA 553, G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001

Criminal Law; Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; Elements.—The

 essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that
the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as
defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of
the Labor Code; (2) that the accused had not complied with the guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to
the requirement to secure a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) that the accused committed the
unlawful acts against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
“Recruitment,” Defined; 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.—Accused-appellant contends that she was not involved in
recruitment but was merely an employee of a recruitment agency. 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. Recruitment is
“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.” In this case, evidence showed that accused-
appellant was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea
and the requirements for deployment. She also received money from them as
placement fees. All of the complainants testified that they personally met
accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job
placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by
receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused-
appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.
10.People vs Verano GR88-61017
11.People vs. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93, G.R. Nos. 124443-46 June 6, 2002

Criminal Law; Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; Elements.

—I
Denial; The defense of denial is intrinsically weak, a self-serving
negative evidence that cannot prevail over the testimony of credible
witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.—In the face of
evidence pointing to her wrongdoing, appellant only offers denials, while
pointing to an alleged ill motive on the part of private complainants that
 prompted them to testify against her. According to appellant, private
complainants failed to find the responsible parties, namely Steven Mah and
his companion Lani Platon, and so are now going after her. Appellant’s
arguments fail to persuade us of her innocence. The defense of denial is
intrinsically weak, a self-serving negative evidence that cannot prevail over
the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.

The natural tendency of one who has been wronged is to seek

redress from the person who caused the harm or injury, not from
anyone else.—Indeed, it would have been easy for private complainants to
pin down Platon if she were the one who received the money and issued the
corresponding receipts. Private complainants would have had the receipts to
prove their claim. But why would private complainants not go after Platon if
they had evidence to prove that she took their money? If appellant’s
assertions were true, there would have been no rhyme nor reason for private
complainants to file a case against appellant and go through the rigors and
expenses of a court trial if somebody else caused them harm. We note that
the natural tendency of one who has been wronged is to seek redress from
the person who caused the harm or injury, not from anyone else.
12.People vs. Angeles, 380 SCRA 519, G.R. No. 132376 April 11, 2002

Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Essential elements of the crime of illegal

Recruitment.—Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) elements
concur: 1) that 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) that the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34.
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-
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.—To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-
appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or
ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter
13.People vs. David, 940 SCRA 203, G.R. No. 233089 June 29, 2020

Illegal recruitment is deemed done in large scale and is considered as an

offense involving economic sabotage if it is committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group.—Illegal recruitment may be
undertaken by either non-license or license holders. Non-license holders are
liable by the simple act of engaging in recruitment and placement activities,
while license holders may also be held liable for committing the acts
prohibited under Section 6 of RA 8042. Thus, the defense of accused-
appellant that she still had a license when her transaction, with private
complainants happened is unavailing. Further, illegal recruitment is
deemed done in large scale and is considered as an offense
involving economic sabotage if it is committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group. The Court finds that the
prosecution, through its witnesses, was able to prove accused-appellant’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale under Section 6(1) of RA 8042 as to Jovy and Cherry.
Estafa; The fact that accused-appellant had a license does not negate
the fact that accused-appellant employed deceit against private
respondents.—