PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FLORENCIO GASACAO

GR No. 168445 | November 11, 2005

Facts:

Gasacao (appellant) was the crewing manager of the Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a
licensed local manning agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao, was the
resident. On August 4, 2000, the appellant and co-accused were charged with Large Scale
Illegal Recruitment defined under Sec 6 paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of RA No. 8042 or the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 and penalized under Sec 7 (b) of the
same law before the RTC of Quezon City.

The appellant and the co-accused unlawfully recruited Villamor, Cabangahan, Alaba,
Caderao, Patolen, Demetria and Arca as seamen/seafarers, collecting cash bonds or
performance bonds amounting from P10,000-P20,000 despite the fact that it was prohibited
by the POEA Rules and Regulations. The said accused failed to deploy the complainant
without valid reasons and failed to reimburse the amount which was intended for their
documentation and processing of their supposed deployment.

Gasacao appealed to the court claiming he is just an employee of the said agency and was
unaware of the laws violated.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the appellant was guilty of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment

Ruling:
Yes. The appellant contended that he is a mere employee of the firm, however it was clearly
stated that he is the crewing manager. He also took part in recruiting the said above and
participated in collecting the cash bond. It is stated in Sec 6 of RA No. 8042 that illegal
recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment abroad, whether profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-
holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of PD No. 442 or the Labor Code. Sec 60
of RA No. 8042 prohibits collection of bonds and deposits from the worker to guarantee
performance under the contract of his/her repatriation. He also failed to deploy the said
above and did not provide any valid reason. Despite the appellants' claim that he is unaware
of his violations, ignorance of the law excuses no one.