People vs Dujua 442 scra 169

Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle, Guillermo Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. Only Ramon was arrested. Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All of them were promised work abroad upon payment of fees but they were not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations that he was a recruiter.

Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was committed by Raon Dujua, et al. 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 Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 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.

All three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt.

First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved that Dujua promised them employment and assured them of placement overseas. All of them identified Dujua as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujuas mere denials cannot prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough credible testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal recruitment , a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.

Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority.

Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the recruitment of more than three persons.

People vs domingo 584 scra 669, 2009

Appellant Larry Domingo (Domingo) was charged with Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and two(2) counts of Estafa before Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. Domingo, denied all the accusations against him and claimed that he was a driver hired by the real recruiter, Gimeno, whom hemet inside the Victory Liner Bus bound for Manila in September, 2000 Domingo likewise presented as witnesses private complainants Enrico Espiritu and Roberto Castillo who corroborated his claim that it was Gimeno who actually recruited them, and that the filing of the complaint against appellant was a desperate attempt on their part to get even because Gimeno could not be located. Prosecution witness Simeon Cabigao (Cabigao) testified that he was among those who were recruited by Domingo, but he ater on recanted his testimony. By Joint Decision, the trial court found Domingo guilty beyondreasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and of 2 counts of Estafa.On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Domingo maintained that the trial court erred for failing togive weight to Cabigaos retraction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court on all accounts. Hence, the present petition.

Whether or not the retraction of Cabigao should be given weight That one of the original complaining witnesses, Cabigao, later recanted,via an affidavit and his testimony in open court, does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any other testimony, the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with caution. For a testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly, least of all by a mere affidavit executed after the lapse of considerable time. In the case at bar, the Affidavit of Recantation was executed three years after the complaint was filed. It is thus not unreasonable to consider his retraction an afterthought to deny its probative value. At all events, and even with Cabigaos recantation, the Supreme Court finds that the prosecution evidence consisting of the testimonies of the four other complainants, whose credibility has not been impaired, has not been overcome.

People vs gallo gr 185277, 2010

(Articless 13 (b) and 34 of the Labor Code.) Accused-appellant made false misrepresentations and promises in assuring Dela Caza and the other victims that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in Korea as factory workers were waiting for them and that they would be deployed soon. In fact, Dela Caza personally talked to accused-appellant and gave him the money and saw him sign and issue an official receipt as proof of his payment.

Whether Gallo and others are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa. In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agencys purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. [ In this case, it cannot be denied that the accused-appellent together with Mardeolyn and the rest of the officers and employees of MPM Agency participated in a network of deception. Verily, the active involvement of each in the recruitment scam was directed at one single purpose to divest complainants with their money on the pretext of guaranteed employment abroad. The prosecution evidence shows that complainants were briefed by Mardeolyn about the processing of their papers for a possible job opportunity in Korea, as well as their possible salary. Likewise, Yeo Sin Ung, a Korean national, gave a briefing about the business and what to expect from the company. Then, here comes accused-appellant who introduced himself as Mardeolyns relative and specifically told Dela Caza of the fact that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Dela Caza was even showed several workers visas who were already allegedly deployed abroad. Later on, accused-appellant signed and issued an official receipt acknowledging the down payment of Dela Caza. Without a doubt, the nature and extent of the actions of accused-appellant, as well as with the other persons in MPM Agency clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking. Hence, conspiracy is evidently present.

Salazar vs achocoso & marquez gr 81510

Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA, charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner. It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner has (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. A team was then tasked to implement the said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitioners residence. They served the order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The said Order violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation.

Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code

Held: Under the new 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. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial

process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts. Furthermore, the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be seized.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. 1205.

Florish maritime shipping vs almanzor 568 scra 718

The choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more.

Facts: Respondent Almanzor entered into a two-year employment contract with petitioner Flourish Maritime Shipping as fisherman and was deployed to Taipei, Taiwan. While on board, he was given an instruction which he did not understand and therefore was unable to obey. The master of the vessel struck him and refused his requested medical assistance. Respondent was repatriated to the Philippines but was not redeployed as promised, thus the complaint for illegal dismissal, payment for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, earned wages, moral and exemplary damages plus attorneys fees.

Petitioners Flourish Maritime Shipping and Uy contended that respondent voluntarily resigned and that the same did not comply with the grievance machinery and arbitration clause embodied in the employment contract.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favour of respondent, awarding him six months of his monthly pay (3mo for every year of the unexpired term). On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiters findings. The Court of Appeals, on petition for certiorari, modified the NLRC decision by increasing the monetary award due respondent. The Court of Appeals awarded respondent the unexpired portion of the first year (11 months and 4 days) and 3 months for the unexpired second year, for a total of 14 months and 4 days.

WON respondent was illegally dismissed from employment. YES. Petitioners, as concluded by the Labor Arbiter, failed to adduce any convincing evidence to establish its claim that respondent voluntarily residned from employment. Likewise, the NLRC held that petitioners failed to show that respondent was not physically fit to perform work due to his old age. Neither was it proved that the employment contract indeed provided a grievance machinery. Both labor tribunals correctly concluded, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that respondent was not redeployed for work, in violation of their employment contract. Perforce, the termination of respondents services is without just or valid cause.

WON the award made by the Court of Appeals was contrary to law. YES.Section 10 of R.A. 8042 provides:

Money Claims. x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee 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. x x x x.

The correct interpretation of this provision was settled in Marsaman Manning Agency Inc. v. NLRC where this Court held that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the

employment contract concerned has a term of at least one year or more.

The employment contract involved in the instant case covers a two-year period but the overseas contract worker actually worked for only 26 days prior to his illegal dismissal. Thus, the three months salary rule applies. Respondent, therefore, is entitled to six (6) months salary as correctly held by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC.

Serrano vs gallant maritime 582 scra 254

Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a POEA-approved contract of employment for 12 months, as Chief Officer, with the basic monthly salary of US$1,400, plus $700/month overtime pay, and 7 days paid vacation leave per month. On the date of his departure, Serrano was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make Serrano Chief Officer. Hence, Serrano refused to stay on as second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines, serving only two months and 7 days, leaving an unexpired portion of nine months and twenty-three days.

Upon complaint filed by Serrano before the Labor Arbiter (LA), the dismissal was declared illegal. On appeal, the NLRC modified the LA decision based on the provision of RA 8042. Serrano filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this time he questioned the constitutionality of the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042.

1. Whether or not the subject clause violates Section 10, Article III of the Constitution on non-impairment of contracts The answer is in the negative. Petitioners claim that the subject clause unduly interferes with the stipulations in his contract on the term of his employment and the fixed salary package he will receive is not tenable.

The subject clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs, with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be employed.

2. Whether or not the subject clause violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, and Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector. The answer is in the affirmative.

To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity.

Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, OFWs at two levels:

First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis--vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more;

Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year; and

Third, OFWs vis--vis local workers with fixed-period employment;

The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

Thus, the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is violative of the right of petitioner and other OFWs to equal protection.

The subject clause or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.