You are on page 1of 38

Mariveles Shipyard Corp vs CA

Facts:

petitioner Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the services of Longest Force Investigation and
Security Agency, Inc. (hereinafter, Longest Force) to render security services at its premises

Longest Force deployed its security guards, the private respondents herein, at the petitioners shipyard in
Mariveles, Bataan.
Petitioner found the services being rendered by the assigned guards unsatisfactory and inadequate, causing
it to terminate its contract with Longest Force on April 1995.
private respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages
The petitioner denied any liability on account of the alleged illegal dismissal, stressing that no employeremployee relationship existed between it and the security guards. It further pointed out that it would be the
height of injustice to make it liable again for monetary claims which it had already paid.
LA decided in favor of the guards
NLRC affirmed
Petition denied outright in CA
Issue:
(3) Did the appellate court grievously err in finding petitioner jointly and severally liable with Longest Force for the
payment of wage differentials and overtime pay owing to the private respondents?\
Held:

petitioner argues that it should not be held jointly and severally liable with Longest Force for underpayment
of wages and overtime pay because it had been religiously and promptly paying the bills for the security
services sent by Longest Force and that these are in accordance with the statutory minimum wage
petitioner contends that it should not be held liable for overtime pay as private respondents failed to present
proof that overtime work was actually performed.
petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals failed to render a decision that finally disposed of the case
because it did not specifically rule on the immediate recourse of private respondents, that is, the matter of
reimbursement between petitioner and Longest Force
Petitioners liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force, pursuant to Articles 106, 107 and 109 of
the Labor Code
In this case, when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security agency that
hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation, petitioner became an indirect
employer of private respondents pursuant to Article 107 abovecited.
when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards, the corporation as principal becomes jointly and
severally liable for the guards wages
The security agency is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer, while the corporation is
deemed the indirect employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of
the agency to pay them.
Labor standards are enacted by the legislature to alleviate the plight of workers whose wages barely
meet the spiraling costs of their basic needs
Labor laws are considered written in every contract. Stipulations in violation thereof are considered null.
legislated wage increases are deemed amendments to the contract. Thus, employers cannot hide behind
their contracts in order to evade their (or their contractors or subcontractors) liability for noncompliance
with the statutory minimum wage.

People vs Panis
Facts:

Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo
City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the
Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and
expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in
violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was
accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations.
Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or
more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee."
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation
to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable.
However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper
authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruitment and
placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable.
The view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned
in this article should involve dealings with two or mre persons as an indispensable requirement.
On the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more persons is imposed only where
the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in
consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article may involve even only one
person and are not necessarily for profit.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code.
Held:

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) win 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.
Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, states that,
o "(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting,
transporting, 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."

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."
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal
recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign
land, and investing hard-earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be
awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.

People vs Saulo
Facts
Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were charged with violation
of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code[1] illegal recruitment in large scale and the accused were also charged
with three counts of estafa.

During a meeting sometime in April or May, 1990, ROMULO SAULO told BENNY MALIGAYA that she
would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she gave him the fees for the processing of her
documents.
Sometime in May, 1990, Maligaya also met with AMELIA DE LA CRUZ and CLODUALDO DE LA
CRUZ at their house in Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her that they were authorized by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for Taiwan.
Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz the amount of P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a
receipt signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz.

Seeing that he had reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint against
accused-appellant with the POEA.
Meanwhile, ANGELES JAVIER was told by Ligaya, accused-appellants wife, to apply for work abroad
through accused-appellant.
At a meeting in accused-appellants Quezon City residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that he
could get her a job in Taiwan as a factory worker and that she should give him P35,000.00 for purposes of
preparing Javiers passport.
Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-appellant, but she did not ask for a receipt as she
trusted him. As the overseas employment never materialized, Javier was prompted to bring the matter
before the POEA.
On April 19, 1990, LEODIGARIO MAULLON, upon the invitation of his neighbor Araceli Sanchez, went
to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for gaining employment abroad. As in the case
of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant assured Maullon that he could secure him a job as a factory
worker in Taiwan if he pays him for the processing of his papers.

Maullon pay to accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt. Thereafter, Maullon paid an additional
amount in the presence of accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz, which payment is also evidenced by a
receipt.
Finally, Maullon pay to a certain Loreta Tumalig, a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt.
Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on the promised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint
with the POEA.
Issue: Whether or not Saulo is guilty

Held:
YES

The Court finds that the trial court was justified in holding that accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful
recruitment and placement activities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant promised
the three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan
as factory workers and that he asked them for money in order to process their papers and procure their
passports.
It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized nor licensedby the Department of Labor and
Employment to engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or
authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.
It is also well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal
recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa
is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction in the former,
but is required in the latter.
WHEREFORE, Decision of the Trial Court is AFFIRMED subject to MODIFICATIONS.

People vs De Leon
Facts:

The accused ( Husband and Wife) representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and
transport Filipino workers [for] employment abroad conspiring and confederating together and mutually

helping and aiding with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee
recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad
Only Baltazar de Leon was arrested. Marietta de Leon remains at large up to the present. The former
entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment on 2 April 1991
Trial Court Found them guilty
o Clearly accused Baltazar de Leon is neither authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for overseas
jobs and yet he and his wife recruited workers, talked to the applicants and collected fees for
requirements that each applicant had to comply with in order that their applications may be
processed.
o played out their roles resulting in the applicants' reposing their trust and belief in them. It is of
little surprise that the complaining witnesses conclusively identified accused Baltazar as the man
who recruited them or their relatives
Noeta Perez then asked her sister and brother to apply, and she gave P1,380.00 to appellant's wife
For helping Daniel and Lourdes get jobs abroad, appellant demanded P6,380.00 from each of the applicants
allegedly for the processing of the papers, medical examination, pictures and passport
Noeta Perez received a letter from the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") saying that the applications
for overseas jobs sent to Micronesia were sent to the NBI because there were no such job orders from
Micronesia.
Upon getting this information, Noeta, together with her sister Lourdes and brother Daniel could not have
gone to Micronesia since the alleged jobs offered to them by appellant never existed
Also, Gutierrez, however, was unable to leave for Guam because it turned out that there was no such job
order in Guam
the appellant does not have any license or authority from the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment

Issue: Whether or not De Leon is guilty


Held: Yes

"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 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 appellant and his wife were co-conspirators in the illegal recruitment business conducted in their
residence with each contributing coordinative and cooperative acts to insure the success of an enterprise
that provided them with income for their mutual benefit and advantage.
All these acts of the appellant and his wife conclusively established a common criminal design mutually
deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves.
Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers for or promising them overseas
employment, which are among the acts of recruitment embraced in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code,
the appellant was positively identified by the complainants. It is axiomatic that alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the accused

People vs Ballesteros
Facts:

Santiago Ricamonte, Arnel Viloria and Nenita Sorita all dreamt of seeking greener pastures in foreign
shores. It was most unfortunate for them to have fallen into the deceptive acts and machinations of the
appellant who lured them into a false sense of security with promises of foreign employment in Japan.

Santiago Ricamonte was a driver at the Monte Merchandizing when he thought of applying as a
construction worker in Japan.
Ricky de la Torre (hereinafter dela Torre), who was a cousin of Ricamontes friend, introduced him to
Engineer Jose Mendoza, a recruiter of workers to Japan.
He found out that the office belonged to a former fiscal named Crisanto Cornejo, who was on vacation at
that time, and who allowed the appellant to hold office there while he was away.
The appellant told Ricamonte that there was a job offer in Japan and that Zabala knew everything about the
recruitment. The appellant also impressed upon Ricamonte that the recruitment of persons for employment
in Japan was a transaction of people with money so that if he did not have any money, he might as well
forget setting foot in Japan.
When Ricamonte returned to the office of the appellant on the specified date, Zabala was nowhere to be
found. He asked the appellant, who was in the office at that time, where Zabala was, but the appellant told
him that he had nothing to do with Zabala and that it was up to him to look for her. When Ricamonte
returned to the office of the appellant sometime in December 1992, he found the office already padlocked.
The same thing happened to Vilora and Soritas
Trial Court held accused guilty of illegal recruitment at large

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty


Held: Yes

We have held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large-scale, three elements must concur:
o The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 (b) or any prohibited
practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code
The Accused represented to and assured Santiago Ricamonte that, indeed, there was a job
offer for a construction worker in Japan and even told the latter to prepare and pay the
amount of P80,000.00, payable in installments for the processing of his papers for his
employment in Japan and his plane ticket to Japan. The Accused even impressed on
Santiago Ricamonte that the matter of employment of workers in Japan was a transaction
only of people with money and unless the applicant has the amount demanded of him
The Court cannot then begrudge Santiago Ricamonte into trusting the Accused and his
cohorts and in believing that they would not deceive and defraud him.[13]
o He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement
of workers.
The prosecution established that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) did not authorize or license appellant and his cohorts to engage in recruitment
Activities
It is sufficient that appellant gave the impression that he could find jobs for complainants
in Japan, inducing complainants to agree to pay him recruitment fees.
o He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group

since there are at least three victims in this case, appellant thus committed large-scale
illegal recruitment.
appellant denies having received money from private complainants. However, as against the positive
assertion of complainants, the appellants denial is worthless and at most self-serving. Private complainants
testified that Cecilia Legarbes Zabala signed and issued receipts for the cash amount and other personal
properties complainants turned over as payment for processing their employment applications abroad.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best position to appreciate
complainants truthfulness, honesty and candor.[26] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the
complainants, appellants mere denial cannot prevail

In light of these established facts, appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of illegal
recruitment in large-scale

C.F Sharp Crew vs Epanol


Facts:

Louis Cruise Lines (LCL), a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Cyprus,
entered into a Crewing Agreement[3] with Papadopolous Shipping, Ltd. (PAPASHIP).
PAPASHIP in turn appointed private respondent Rizal International Shipping Services (Rizal) as manning
agency in thePhilippines, recruiting Filipino seamen for LCLs vessel.

LCL terminated the Crewing Agreement with PAPASHIP to take effect on December 31, 1996. It then
appointed C.F. Sharp as crewing agent in the Philippines
C.F. Sharp requested for accreditation as the new manning agency of LCL with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), but Rizal objected on the ground that its accreditation still existed
and would only expire on December 31, 1996.
Despite not getting acrredited, C.F. Sharp still recruited people
Rizal Filed a complaint for illegal recruitment
POEA found Sharp liable for such
DOLE also affirmed ( Espanol was undersecrtery here)

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for illegal recruitment
Held: YES

LCL had no approved POEA license to recruit. C.F. Sharps accreditation as LCLs new manning agency
was still pending approval at that time. Yet Savva and Tjiakouris, along with C.F. Sharp, entertained
applicants for LCLs vessels, and conducted preparatory interviews.
the conduct of preparatory interviews is a recruitment activity based on the definition stated in the law
Indeed, it was Savva and Tjiakouris that conducted the interviews, and undertook selection and
hiring. However, C.F. Sharp cannot steer clear of liability for it conspired with LCL in committing illegal
recruitment activities.
The intention, agreement and both common design of both LCL and CF Sharp to engage in recruitment of
crewmen for LCLs ships had already been made manifest when LCL through Savva had instructed, in
the October 14, 1996 letter to disembarking crewmembers, for the latter to report to CF Sharp for
processing of their papers.
This was followed by the execution by LCL on October 17, 1996 of a Special Power of Attorney in favor
of CF Sharp as new manning agent and attorney-in-fact of LCL
on November 8, 1996, CF Sharp applied for accreditation as manning agent of LCL for the latters five
named vessels.
The appointment or designation of Desiderio as an employee or agent of C.F. Sharp, without prior approval
from the POEA, warrants administrative sanction.
The claim of denial of due process on the part of C.F. Sharp must also be rejected. The essence of due
process lies in the reasonable opportunity afforded a party to be heard and to submit any evidence in
support of its defense. What is vital is not the opportunity to cross-examine an adverse witness, but an
opportunity to be heard.
In this case, C.F. Sharp was given ample opportunity to be heard,

People vs Sagayaga
Facts:

Sometime in the last week of October 1997, Elmer Janer went to the office of Alvis Placement Service
Corporation located at AP Building 1563 F. Agoncillo St., corner Pedro Gil St., Ermita, Manila, to apply for
overseas employment as factory worker in Taiwan.

Appellant Leticia Sagayaga, after personally receiving Elmers application, required him to submit the
necessary documents
Appellant further asked Elmer to pay seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as placement fee (Id.)
All the payments were made inside Alvis Placement Agency
As required, Elmer also had his medical examination at the Angeles Medical Clinic, the result of which
confirmed that he was fit to work (p. 9, Ibid.).
Thereafter, he was told to wait for the arrival of the employer. After seven (7) months, no employer
arrived. Tired of waiting, Elmer demanded that he be refunded of his money (Id.). Despite appellants
promises to pay, Elmer was not refunded of his money.
Exasperated, Elmer asked appellant for a promissory note, which appellant executed, promising to pay
Elmer seventy-five thousand (P75,000.00) on May 6, 1998 (pp. 10 and 11, TSN, September 7, 1999).
In said promissory note, appellant designated herself as the assistant general manager of the placement
agency (Id.). When appellant failed to refund the amount to Elmer on the date stated in the promissory note,
the latter went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and filed a sworn complaint
against appellant
Trial Court convicted the accused
Accused stated that she was merely performing routinary office work as a mere employee. Her participation
as an employee of APSC with respect to the employment application of Elmer Ramos for Taiwan was to
receive his placement fee of P20,000.00.
o The appellant avers that she is not criminally liable for the crime charged because the prosecution
failed to prove that she had a direct or actual control, management or direction of the business and
recruitment activities of the Alvis Placement Services Corporation (APSC).

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty


Held: Yes

Under Section 6 (m) of Rep. Act No. 8042, [7] illegal recruitment may be committed by any person, whether
a non-licensee, non-holder of authority, licensee or holder of authority, thus
o (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation
and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take
place without the workers fault.
Under the last paragraph of the said section, those criminally liable are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of a juridical person, the officers having control, management or direction of the
business shall be criminally liable.
In this case, the appellant, as shown by the records of the POEA, was both the APSC Vice-PresidentTreasurer and the Assistant General Manager. She was a high corporate officer who had direct participation
in the management, administration, direction and control of the business of the corporation. As the trial
court aptly declared in its decision:
The terms control, management or direction used in the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No.
8042 broadly cover all phases of business operation. They include the aspects of administration, marketing
and finances, among others.
At any rate, the accused has expressly admitted in the course of her testimony that she was at the time the
Treasurer of their recruitment agency. As such she was in charge of the management and control of the
financial affairs and resources of the corporation. She was in charge of collecting all its receivables, safely
keeping them, and disbursing them. She testified that it was part of her duties to receive and collect the
monies paid by applicants

The reimbursement contemplated by paragraph (m) of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 is full
reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the worker in connection with the documentation and
processing of his deployment.
The checks drawn and issued by the accused to these two complainants, however, did not produce the
effect of payment, for they were both dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground of closed account.

People vs LO
Facts:

Sometime in 1998, Lo persuaded private complainants to apply for a job in Italy through the services of
accused-appellants.[13] Lo introduced them to accused-appellant Calimon who represented herself as a subagent of Axil International Services and Consultancy (AISC), a legitimate recruitment agency.
Calimon showed a job order of factory workers purportedly issued by an Italian firm. Devanadera called up
AISC to verify Calimons representation. The person who answered the phone readily confirmed accusedappellant Calimons claim
P10,000.00 from each of the private complainants to cover expenses for medical examination and
processing fees for travel documents, both Devanadera and Agramon readily parted with their money, as
evidenced by receipts
Private complainant Agramons follow ups with Calimon were just met by repeated assurance that she will
be deployed immediately once her papers are completely processed.[25] The other complainants received
similar treatment.
Finally, in January 1999, Calimon gave private complainants their supposed individual employment
contracts as factory workers in Italy. However, the contracts did not indicate an employer
They found out the accused are not part of AISC
Trial Court found them guilty as well as the CA

Issue:
Whether or not they are guilty
Held: YES

In their brief[34], accused-appellants contend that the prosecution witnesses established that only Lo
recruited private complainants and promised to deploy them abroad.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that accused-appellant Calimon committed the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale while accused-appellant Comila committed the crime of simple illegal
recruitment.
By her conduct, Calimon successfully gave private complainants the impression that she had the ability to
send workers abroad although she did not in fact have the authority to do so. She was also able to induce
private complainants to tender payment for fees.
Since there were three (3) workers involved in the transaction, she committed the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale.
For Comila she is only a conspirator since it was not alleged in the information
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale three (3) elements must concur:
o (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in recruitment and placement of workers;
Substantiated by the POEA, Licensing Branch which issued a Certification [37] to this
effect and the testimony of an employee of the POEA, Corazon Cristobal
o
(b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the same Code (now Sec. 6, RA 8042); and,
supported by the testimonies of the private complainants, particularly Devanadera [39] who
categorically testified that accused-appellants promised private complainants
employment and assured them of placement overseas.
that accused-appellants promised them employment in Italy as factory workers and they
(accused-appellants) asked money from them (private complainants) to allegedly process
their papers and visas.
o (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
Three complainants in this case

Here, we are convinced that the three elements were sufficiently proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

People vs HU
Facts:

That on or about the 9th day of October 2001, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit, promise
employment/job placement abroad for an overseas employment and collect fees from the following persons
( Complainants)
Accused stated He was the President of Brighturn International Services, Inc. (Brighturn), a land-based
recruitment agency duly licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to engage in the
business of recruitment and placement of workers abroad,
Private complainants Orillano, Panguelo, Abril and Garcia sought employment at Brighturn for the
positions of factory worker and electronic operator inTaiwan.
Notwithstanding private complainants compliance with all of the pre-employment requirements, including
the payment of placement fees, they were not able to leave the country to work abroad.
When Panguelo went to Brighturn, he was promised employment abroad by Hu for P50,000.00. Upon Hus
instruction, Panguelo paid in full the placement fee in the amount of P50,000.00 to Genoves.
For his part, Orillano came to know of Brighturn thru Genoves. Orillano was interviewed at Brighturn by a
Taiwanese principal in October 2001. After the interview, Hu informed Orillano to submit a medical
certificate,
For her defense, Hu claimed that she was the President of Brighturn, a duly authorized land-based
recruitment agency. Brighturn had foreign principals inTaiwan who were looking for skilled individuals
willing to work in a foreign country.
Hu alleged that Brighturn had an established recruitment procedure wherein applicants were only required
to pay the corresponding placement fees after the POEA had already approved their employment
contracts. According to Hu, announcements were posted all over Brighturns premises warning job
applicants to pay placement fees only to the cashier
Trial Court held HU guilty
CA affirmed

Issue: Whether or not Hu Is guilty


Held:

We cannot sustain the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale.


Illegal recruitment cannot successfully attach to the allegations of Panguelo, Abril and Orillano,
since they testified that they accomplished their pre-employment requirements through Brighturn
from June 2001 up to October of the same year,[24] a period wherein Brighturns license to engage in
recruitment and placement was still in full force and effect.
Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely:
o (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
o (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.
the prosecution, nonetheless, failed to establish that Hu engaged in illegal recruitment acts against at least
three of these complainants.
Basically nagkulang sa evidence un prosecution
Failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Hu beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve her of her
civil obligation to return the money she collected from private complaints Panguelo, Abril and Orillano,
plus legal interest in accordance with our ruling in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals.[
Thus, civil liability is not extinguished where the acquittal is based on lack of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, since only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. There appears to be no sound reason

to require that a separate action be still filed considering that the facts to be proved in the civil case have
already been established in the criminal proceedings
The act of referral, which means the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant after an initial
interview to a selected employer, placement or bureau, is included in recruitment.
Undoubtedly, the act of Hu in referring Garcia to another recruitment agency squarely fell within the
purview of recruitment that was undertaken by Hu after her authority to recruit and place workers already
expired on 17 December 2001.
The absence of receipts in the case of illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the appellant and
is not fatal to the prosecutions case.
As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible and testimonial evidence, as in the case at
bar, that the appellant had engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can be very well
justified.
Hu successfully enticed her to part with a considerable amount of money in exchange for an employment
abroad which was never realized.
Hu is only liable for Simple illegal recruitment because of what she did to Garcia

People vs Goce
Facts:

The accused are spouses as well as Agustin

That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, the accused
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, representing themselves to have the
capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando
Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y
Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and
(8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or authority from the
Department of Labor.
Agustin Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency showed him a job order as
proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment.
Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or
May of the same year
He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the
original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher sum, they
subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad
Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment.
He decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real status
of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job
applicants.
Agustin could only pay 500 pesos upon demand by the complainant
It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being
a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and
facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses.
Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues,
does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal
recruitment.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is liable for illegal recruitment


Held:

The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal
recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached
regarding their plans of working overseas.
It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to
submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement
agency.
appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging
in recruitment activity.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad."
It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability
to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in
order to be so employed.
The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in
their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted,
nonetheless there is sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above.

People vs Meris
Facts:

That on or about and during the period comprised between January 12, 1991 and February 17, 1991, both
dates inclusive, prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring
and confederating with three others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still
unknown, helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
NAPOLEON RAMOS y ESPEJO in the following manner, to wit:
o the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which they made
to said NAPOLEON E. RAMOS to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and
employ him as Factory Worker in Hongkong and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent
papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and
o
by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said NAPOLEON E.
RAMOS to give and deliver, as in fact (he) gave and delivered to said accused the amount of
P30,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing
that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact did obtain the
amount of P30,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud he (sic) willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use
and benefit, to the damage
Ramos was told by the accused in his house that they knew someone who could make them work abroad in
Hong Kong and should be prepared to make an initial payment of P15,000.00 each, for their placement
fees.
They met someone named Julie Micua
The complainants were assured by Micua that she could get them overseas employment and upon payment
of their placement fees of P35,000.00 each, they would leave for Hongkong within one month hence they
paid
After Ramos failed to leave for Hongkong or secure overseas employment for more than two months since
January 1991, he became suspicious and later realized that he and the other complainants had been
hoodwinked.
Other complaints were also tricked by the accused in the same manner

Testifying in her own defense, accused-appellant denied the charges of engaging in recruitment activities
and of receiving money from complainants. She described herself as a public school teacher living in
Pangasinan with her four children and unemployed husband.
Trial Court found them guilty of illegal recruitment at large

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty
Held:
Yes

The accused stated She acted as a "good samaritan" by facilitating their quest for a better economic status.
She denies receiving the fees paid by complainants and asserts that it was Julie Micua who recruited
complainants and collected the placement fees for overseas employment.
An examination of the records, however, reveals that accused-appellant is as culpable as Julie Micua.
Well settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court that had observed the
deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified. The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at
only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of
witnesses certainly deserve respect by an appellate court
. It was through her that they met Julia Micua. This is clearly an act of referral. Worse, accused-appellant
declared that she was capable of placing them in jobs overseas. Suffice it to say that complainants
recruitment would not have been consummated were it not for the direct participation of accused-appellant
in the recruitment process.
Illegal recruitment is conducted in a large scale if perpetrated against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.
This crime requires proof that the accused:
o (1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the
prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
o (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and
o (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
All these three essential elements are present in the case at bar. As earlier discussed, accused-appellant
recruited the six complainant
They were not licensed
the evidence shows that accused-appellant conspired and actively participated in the deceitful plan adopted
by her co-accused Julie Micua, Rico Cordova and her own husband, Renato Meris, to hire without license
or authority, gullible and nave applicants for non-existent overseas jobs.

People vs Fortuna
Facts:

Three complainants
In Cabanatuan city, Fortuna took the occasion to converse with private complainants, along with some of
the attendees, offering job placements in Taiwan.

They got convinced and gave 5400


The promise did not materialize
They found out that Fortuna did not have a license to transact such recruitment
Trial Court held Fortuna guilty

Issue: Whether or not Fortuna is guilty


Held: Yes

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who, without being duly
authorized according to law, represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the
ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom the
impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment.
The rule has been said that a person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of
the testimony of the complainants, if found to be credible and convincing, and that the absence of receipts
to evidence payment to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being fatal to the
prosecution's cause
RA. 8042 states:
o illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract of services, promising or advertising
for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder
of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that any such non-licensee or
non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The evidence is sufficient to warrant the charges
It is not the specific designation of the offense in the information that controls but it is the allegations
therein contained directly apprising the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him that
matter.
First, appellant, undeniably, has not been duly licensed to engage in recruitment activities;
second, she has engaged in illegal recruitment activities, offering private complainants employment abroad
for a fee; and
third, she has committed the questioned illegal recruitment activities against three or more persons.

Rodolfo vs People
Facts:

That in or about and during the period from August to September 1984, in Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused representing herself to
have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to

VILLAMOR ALCANTARA, NARCISO CORPUZ, 1NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN


and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor
and Employment.
Accused approached complainants invited them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai
This office which bore the business name "Bayside Manpower Export Specialist" was in a building situated
at Bautista St. Buendia, Makati
Complainants gave money to the accused for the corresponding fees
Appellant then told private complainants that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai on September 8,
1984. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the said date as
their employer allegedly did not arrive.
Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, private complainants demanded of appellant to return their
money. Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to Ferre, appellant was not able to return private complainants
money.
private complainants filed the present case for illegal recruitment against the accused-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty


Held:
Yes

That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas
Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the records of
the POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment, 18 is "the
act ofpassing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected
applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
Petitioners admission that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her
acceptance of fees including those for processing betrays her guilt.
It is sufficient that the accused "promises or offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.
it is "the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case
for illegal recruitment.

Lapasaran vs People
Facts:

private complainant Menardo Villarin (Menardo) and his sister Vilma Villarin (Vilma) met petitioner Arlene
N. Lapasaran, who worked at Silver Jet Travel Tours Agency (Silver Jet) at SIMCAS Building, Makati.
For a fee of P85,000.00, petitioner undertook the processing of the papers necessary for the deployment
(under a tourist visa) and employment of Menardo in South Korea.

Petitioner informed Menardo that he would be employed as "factory worker," which was, subsequently,
changed to "bakery worker."
After two postponements in his flight schedule, Menardo finally left for South Korea on November 25,
2001.
Unfortunately, he was incarcerated by South Korean immigration authorities and was immediately deported
to the Philippines because the travel documents issued to him by the petitioner were fake
Thereupon, petitioner promised to send him back to South Korea, but the promise was never fulfilled.
Consequently, Menardo and his sister Vilma demanded the return of the money they paid, but petitioner
refused and even said, "Magkorte na lang tayo."
RTC found petitioner guilty
CA affirmed

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty


Held:

Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that the latter
was convinced to part with his money in order to be employed.
To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a
promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.
Petitioners misrepresentations concerning her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas
employment, and the collection from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of
illegal recruitment.
Petitioners claim that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she merely tried to help
the complainants secure a tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment, it being enough
that she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.

People vs Gallardo ( At Large) and Malapit


Facts:

Marie Purificacion Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano met accused-appellant at her beauty parlor in Lopez
Building,
Marie claims that accused-appellant enticed her to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada. Accusedappellant showed her a piece of paper containing a job order saying that Canada was in need of ten (10)
caregivers and some messengers.

On June 6, 1997, accused-appellant introduced Marie to co-accused Nenita Maria Olivia-Gallardo in


Tandang Sora, Quezon City. On the same day, Marie submitted herself to a physical examination and
personally handed to Gallardo a partial payment of P18,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt.
Marie made another payment in the amount of P52,000.00, for which accused-appellant issued a
provisional receipt.
Three months lapsed without any news on Maries deployment to Canada. Her sister, Araceli, had already
left for work abroad through the efforts of their other town-mate.
The weekly follow-ups made by Marie to accused-appellant pertaining to her application and that of
Aracelis were to no avail. Accused-appellant just promised Marie that she will return her money. Realizing
that she had been hoodwinked, Marie decided to file a complaint against the accused-appellant and
Gallardo with the National Bureau of Investigatio
Similar case happened to both complainants
RTC found accused guilty

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty


Held: Yes

Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) essential elements concur:


o (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and

(2) that the offender undertakes 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.[

In the case at bar, the first element is present. Nonette Legaspi-Villanueva, the Overall Supervisor
of the Regional Office of the POEA in Baguio City, testified that per records, neither accusedappellant nor Gallardo were licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in
the City of Baguio or in any part of the Cordillera Region.

The second essential element is likewise present. Accused-appellant purported to have the ability
to send Marie Purificacion Abenoja, Araceli Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano for employment abroad
through the help of her co-accused Gallardo, although without any authority or license to do so.
Accused-appellant was the one who persuaded them to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada by
making representations that there was a job market therefor.
She was also the one who helped them meet Gallardo in order to process their working papers and
personally assisted Marie, Araceli and Marilyn in the completion of the alleged requirements.
Accused-appellant even provided her house in Baguio City as venue for a meeting

All told, the evidence against accused-appellant has established beyond a shadow of doubt that she actively
collaborated with co-accused Gallardo in illegally recruiting the complainants in this case. As correctly
pointed out by the trial court, the private complainants in this case would not have been induced to apply
for a job in Canada were it not for accused-appellants information, recruitment, and introduction of the
private complainants to her co-accused Gallardo.
It is enough that she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment
abroad. In fact, even without consideration for accused-appellants services, she will still be deemed as
having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas
employment to private complainants.
Undoubtedly, the acts of accused-appellant showed unity of purpose with those of co-accused
Gallardo. All these acts establish a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished
through coordinated moves. There being conspiracy, accused-appellant shall be equally liable for the acts
of her co-accused even if she herself did not personally reap the fruits of their execution.

The circumstantial evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other
conclusion than that accused-appellant and co-accused Gallardo conspired in recruiting and promising a
job overseas to Araceli Abenoja.
Moreover, Marie Purificacion Abenoja had personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the charges filed by her sister, Araceli, for simple illegal recruitment and estafa.
Marie was privy to the recruitment of Araceli as she was with her when both accused-appellant and
Gallardo required Araceli to undergo physical examination to find out whether the latter was fit for the job
abroad

People vs Jamilosa
Facts:

Imelda D. Bamba testified that on January 17, 1996, she met the appellant in Cubao, Quezon City on board
an aircon bus.

he appellant was seated beside her and introduced himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad.
The appellant told her that his sister is a head nurse in a nursing home in Los Angeles, California, USA and
he could help her get employed as a nurse at a monthly salary of Two Thousand US Dollars ($2,000.00)
and that she could leave in two (2) weeks time
she has to pay the amount of US$300.00 intended for the US consul. The appellant gave his pager number
and instructed her to contact him if she is interested to apply for a nursing job abroad.
She paid
The appellant promised to see her and some of his other recruits before their scheduled departure to hand to
them their visas and passports; however, the appellant who was supposed to be with them in the flight
failed to show up.
They went to the supposed residence of the appellant to verify, but nobody knew him or his whereabouts.
They tried to contact him at the hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no avail.
RTC stated he was guilty

Issue: Whether or not Jamilosa is guilty


Held: YES

As gleaned from the collective testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the
appellate court found to be credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.
Indeed, the findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent
evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance.
The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where he
acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability
Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the "services" of appellant, the
latter is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.
It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be
for profit or not.
It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.
The complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the
false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants
were neither able to leave for work abroad nor get their money back.
The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to produce receipts as proof of
their payment to accused-appellant does not free the latter from liability. The absence of receipts cannot
defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.
We find it unbelievable that the appellant, a college graduate, would not divulge the said certifications
which would prove that, indeed, he is not an illegal recruiter.
When a party has it in his possession or power to produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature
is susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some sinister
motive and that its production would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose.

People vs Valenciano
Facts:

In May 1996, Lourdes Valenciano, claiming to be an employee of Middle East International Manpower
Resources, Inc., went with one Susie Caraeg to the house of Agapito De Luna, and told him he could apply
for a job in Taiwan.

A week later, De Luna went to Valencianos house, there to be told to undergo a medical examination, with
the assurance that if there were a job order abroad, he would be able to leave.
He was also told that the placement fee for his employment as a factory worker in Taiwan was PhP 70,000.
The first and last payments were turned over by Valenciano to Teresita Imperial, who issued the
corresponding receipts, and the second payment was turned over by Valenciano to Rodante Imperial, who
also issued a receipt.
After the payments were made, Valenciano brought the prospective workers to the office of Middle East
International Manpower Resources, Inc. in Pasay City, where they were made to fill out application forms
for their employment as factory workers in Taiwan. The complainants were introduced to Romeo Marquez,
alias Rodante Imperial, Teresita Marquez, alias Teresita Imperial, and Rommel Marquez, alias Rommel
Imperial, whom Valenciano made to appear as the owners of the employment agency. She assured the
prospective workers that they could leave for Taiwan within one month from the filing of their
applications. During the period material, they have not yet found employment as factory workers
in Taiwan.
Valenciano, Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel were charged with the offense of illegal recruitment in large
scale ( note that the other people stated yun mga sumama kay Valenciano sa pagkukuha ng pera)
RTC found him guilty
CA affirmed

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty
Held: Yes

The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other co-accused does not relieve her
of liability.
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 the employee actively and consciously participated in illegal
recruitment
As testified to by the complainants, accused-appellant was among those who met and transacted with them
regarding the job placement offers.
In some instances, she made the effort to go to their houses to recruit them.
She even gave assurances that they would be able to find employment abroad and leave for Taiwan after
the filing of their applications.
Accused-appellant was clearly engaged in recruitment activities, notwithstanding her gratuitous
protestation that her actions were merely done in the course of her employment as a clerk.
Accused-appellant cannot claim to be merely following the dictates of her employers and use good faith as
a shield against criminal liability.
o Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense
The claim of accused-appellant that she received no payment and that the payments were handed directly
over to her co-accused fails in the face of the testimony of the complainants that accused-appellant was the
one who received the money.
In spite of the receipts having been issued by her co-accused, the trial court found that payments were
directly made to accused-appellant, and this finding was upheld by the CA.
And even if it were true that no money changed hands, money is not material to a prosecution for illegal
recruitment, as the definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code includes the phrase, whether
for profit or not.
o We held in People v. Jamilosa that it was sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee
employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. Accused-appellant made representations

that complainants would receive employment abroad, and this suffices for her conviction, even if
her name does not appear on the receipts issued to complainants as evidence that payment was
made.
Another certification dated July 9, 1997 stated that accused-appellant in her personal capacity was not
licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment and that any recruitment activities
undertaken by her are illegal.
Accused-appellant could thus point to no authority allowing her to recruit complainants, as she was not an
employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc. nor was she allowed to do so in her
personal capacity.
she undertook recruitment activities outside the premises of the office of a licensed recruitment agency,
which can only be done with the prior approval of the POEA, and neither she nor her co-accused had
permission to do so, as testified by Aquino of the POEA
In the present case, there are four complainants: De Luna, De Villa, Dela Cuesta, and Candelaria
The three essential elements for illegal recruitment in large scale are present. Thus, there can be no other
conclusion in this case but to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant and apply the penalty as imposed
by law.

People vs Gasacao
Facts:

Appellant was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a licensed local manning
agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao, was the President.
As the crewing manager, appellants duties included receiving job applications, interviewing the applicants
and informing them of the agencys requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior to
deployment.
Private complainant Lindy Villamor testified that it was appellant who informed him that if he will give a
cash bond of P20,000.00, he will be included in the first batch of applicants to be deployed.

Notwithstanding the payment of the cash bond as evidenced by a receipt dated December 15, 1999 and
issued by the appellant, Villamor was not deployed overseas.
He further testified that when he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern
Shipping Agency Inc., he confronted Jose Gasacao and showed to him a photocopy of the receipt. Jose
Gasacao gave him the address of the appellant but he failed to recover the amount from the latter.
Victoriano Cadirao[9] also testified that on August 1, 1999, he applied with the manning agency for the
position of mess man. He submitted his application to appellant who told him to come back when he has
the money to cover the cash bond of P20,000.00.
Appellant told him that the payment of the cash bond is optional, but that his deployment will be fasttracked if he pays the cash bond.
On August 10, 1999, he gave P20,000.00 to appellant who issued a receipt. When the promised
employment failed to materialize, the appellant told Cadirao to wait for another dredging vessel.
In December 1999, he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping
Agency Inc. so he went to his residence and demanded the return of his money.
Appellant however refused to return the amount of the cash bond.
On August 4, 2000, appellant and Jose Gasacao were charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment defined
under Section 6, paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and penalized under Section 7 (b) of the same law, before the RTC of
Quezon City.
Trial Court found accused guilty

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty


Held: Yes

A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person
or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE
authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private
recruitment entity.
However, it appears that even licensees or holders of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment
should they commit any of the above-enumerated acts.
Thus, it is inconsequential that appellant committed large scale illegal recruitment while Great Eastern
Shipping Agency, Inc. was holding a valid authority. We thus find that the court below committed no
reversible error in not appreciating that the manning agency was a holder of a valid authority when
appellant recruited the private complainants.
Contrary to appellants claim, he is not a mere employee of the manning agency but the crewing manager.
As such, he receives job applications, interviews applicants and informs them of the agencys requirement
of payment of performance or cash bond prior to the applicants deployment.
As the crewing manager, he was at the forefront of the companys recruitment activities.
The foregoing testimonies of the private complainants clearly established that appellant is not a mere
employee of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. As the crewing manager, it was appellant who made
representations with the private complainants that he can secure overseas employment for them upon
payment of the cash bond.
It is well settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that 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
Appellants act of promising the private complainants that they will be deployed abroad within three months
after they have paid the cash bond clearly shows that he is engaged in illegal recruitment.

Clearly, the acts of appellant vis--vis the private complainants, either as the crewing manager of Great
Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. or as a mere employee of the same, constitute acts of large scale illegal
recruitment which should not be countenanced.
we have held that 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
the recruitment process.

People vs Calonzo
Facts:

Sometime in February 1992 Danilo de los Reyes and his brother-in-law Belarmino Torregrosa met
Reydante Calonzo
In that meeting Calonzo lost no time in informing them that he could provide them employment abroad,
particularly Italy, for a fee.Calonzo was so glib and persuasive that De los Reyes and Torregrosa were
quickly convinced to cast their lot with him.
They paid Calonzo

The latter then informed De los Reyes of his "scheduled" departure for Italy on 29 April 1992. However,
despite the lapse of the period, De los Reyes and Torregrosa remained in the Philippines although their
recruiter reiterated his promise to send them to Italy.
They instead landed in Bangkok to "fix the visa"
While in Bangkok the accused again collected money from them purportedly to defray the expenses for
their visas. They also incurred expenses for food and accommodation, and for overstaying, De los Reyes
had to pay 2800 bahts to the immigration authorities only to discover to their utter dismay that Calonzo had
already returned to the Philippines.
They verified from the POEA whether Calonzo or his R. A. C. Business Agency was duly authorized and
licensed to recruit people for employment abroad. The POEA certified that R. A. C. Business Agency was
not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.
This happened similarily in some aspects to the other complainants.
Trial Court found Calonzo guilty

Issue: Whether or not Calonzo is guilty


Held:
Yes

Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person


o "(a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by distinctly
impressing upon them that he had the facility to send them for work abroad. He even
showed them his passport to lend credence to his claim.

To
top
it
all,
he
brought
them
to
Bangkok
and
not
to
Italy. Neither did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the transfer of his recruits to
Italy.
o
(b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and
POEA likewise certified that neither Calonzo nor R. A. C. Business Agency was licensed
to recruit workers for employment abroad
o (c) commits the same againstthree or more persons, individually or as a group.
appellant recruited five (5) workers thus making the crime illegal recruitment in large
scale constituting economic sabotage.

Executive Secretary vs CA
Facts:

Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, took
effect on July 15, 1995.
However, even before the law took effect, the Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. (ARCOPhil.) filed, on July 17, 1995, a petition for declaratory relief to declare as unconstitutional Section 2,
paragraph (g), Section 6, paragraphs (a) to (j), (l) and (m), Section 7, paragraphs (a) and (b), and Sections 9

and 10 of the law, with a plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction enjoining the respondents therein from enforcing the assailed provisions of the law.
ARCO-Phil. alleged that Rep. Act No. 8042 was self-executory and that no implementing rules were
needed. It prayed that the court issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of Section 6,
paragraphs (a) to (m) on illegal recruitment, Section 7 on penalties for illegal recruitment, and Section 9 on
venue of criminal actions for illegal recruitments,
the trial court issued a temporary restraining order effective for a period of only twenty (20) days
therefrom.
The respondent averred that the aforequoted provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042 violate Section 1, Article III
of the Constitution
o discriminated against unskilled workers and their families and, as such, violated the equal
protection clause, as well as Article II, Section 12
The respondent stressed that unskilled workers also have the right to seek employment abroad. According
to the respondent, the right of unskilled workers to due process is violated because they are prevented from
finding employment and earning a living abroad.
According to the respondent, the grant of incentives to service contractors and manning agencies to the
exclusion of all other licensed and authorized recruiters is an invalid classification. Licensed and authorized
recruiters are thus deprived of their right to property and due process and to the "equality of the person.
It is understandable for the law to prohibit illegal recruiters, but to discriminate against licensed and
registered recruiters is unconstitutional.
he respondent further argued that the 90-day period in Section 10, paragraph (1) within which a labor
arbiter should decide a money claim is relatively short,
the provisions presume that a licensed and registered recruitment agency is guilty of illegal recruitment
involving economic sabotage, upon a finding that it committed any of the prohibited acts under the law.
Furthermore, officials, employees and their relatives are presumed guilty of illegal recruitment involving
economic sabotage upon such finding that they committed any of the said prohibited acts.
Trial Court issued an order granting the petitioners plea for a writ of preliminary injunction upon a bond
of P50,000
CA affirmed the Trial Court

Issue: Whether or not the preliminary injunction issued stands


Held: NO. SC reversed CA

Respondent has locus standi


o An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its
members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its
constituents.
o However, the respondent has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of unskilled
workers. We note that it even failed to implead any unskilled workers in its petition.
The assailed order and writ is mooted by case law
o In People v. Diaz,24 we held that Rep. Act No. 8042 is but an amendment of the Labor Code of the
Philippines and is not an ex-post facto law because it is not applied retroactively
o The validity of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 which provides that employees of recruitment agencies
may be criminally liable for illegal recruitment has been upheld in People v. Chowdury:
o Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or
trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the
state particularly when their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate governmental
functions, the preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public morals.

The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class
privilege. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which it is
directed or by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but
merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities imposed.
By its rulings, the Court thereby affirmed the validity of the assailed penal and procedural
provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042, including the imposable penalties therefor. Until the Court, by
final judgment, declares that the said provisions are unconstitutional, the enforcement of the said
provisions cannot be enjoined.

Sto Thomas vs Salac


In G.R. No. 152642, in 2002, Rey Salac et al, who are recruiters deploying workers abroad, sought to enjoin the
Secretary of Labor, Patricia Sto. Tomas, the POEA, and TESDA, from regulating the activities of private recruiters.
Salac et al invoked Sections 29 and 30 of the Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers Act which provides that
recruitment agency in the Philippines shall be deregulated one year from the passage of the said law; that 5 years
thereafter, recruitment should be fully deregulated. RA 8042 was passed in 1995, hence, Salac et al insisted that as
early as 2000, the aforementioned government agencies should have stopped issuing memorandums and circulars
regulating the recruitment of workers abroad.

Sto. Tomas then questioned the validity of Sections 29 and 30.


ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 29 and 30 are valid.
HELD: The issue became moot and academic. It appears that during the pendency of this case in 2007, RA 9422
(An Act to Strengthen the Regulatory Functions of the POEA) was passed which repealed Sections 29 and 30 of RA
8042.
G.R. 167590
In this case, the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) questioned the validity of the following
provisions of RA 8042:
a. Section 6, which defines the term illegal recruitment. PASEI claims that the definition by the law is vague as it
fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters;
b. Section 7, which penalizes violations against RA 8042. PASEI argues that the penalties for simple violations
against RA 8042, i.e., mere failure to render report or obstructing inspection are already punishable for at least 6
years and 1 day imprisonment an a fine of at least P200k. PASEI argues that such is unreasonable;
c. Section 9, which allows the victims of illegal recruitment to have the option to either file the criminal case where
he or she resides or at the place where the crime was committed. PASEI argues that this provision is void for being
contrary to the Rules of Court which provides that criminal cases must be prosecuted in the place where the crime or
any of its essential elements were committed;
d. Section 10, which provides that corporate officers and directors of a company found to be in violation of RA 8042
shall be themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and
damages. PASEI claims that this automatic liability imposed upon corporate officers and directors is void for being
violative of due process.
RTC Judge Jose Paneda of Quezon City agreed with PASEI and he declared the said provisions of RA 8042 as void.
Secretary Sto. Tomas petitioned for the annulment of the RTC judgment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 6, 7, 9, and 10 of RA 8042 are void.
HELD: No, they are valid provisions.
a. Section 6: The law clearly and unambiguously distinguished between licensed and non-licensed recruiters. By its
terms, persons who engage in canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers without the appropriate government license or authority are guilty of illegal recruitment whether or not
they commit the wrongful acts enumerated in that section. On the other hand, recruiters who engage in the
canvassing, enlisting, etc. of OFWs, although with the appropriate government license or authority, are guilty of
illegal recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in Section 6.
b. Section 7: The penalties are valid. Congress is well within its right to prescribed the said penalties. Besides, it is
not the duty of the courts to inquire into the wisdom behind the law.
c. Section 9: The Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 15(a) of Rule 110, itself, provides that the rule
on venue when it comes to criminal cases is subject to existing laws. Therefore, there is nothing arbitrary when
Congress provided an alternative venue for violations of a special penal law like RA 8042.

d. Section 10: The liability of corporate officers and directors is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily
liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company, such
as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities.
G.R. 182978-79, and G.R. 184298-99
In this case, Jasmin Cuaresma, a nurse working in Saudi Arabia was found dead. Her parents received insurance
benefits from the OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare Administration). But when they found out based on an
autopsy conducted in the Philippines that Jasmin was raped and thereafter killed, her parents (Simplicio and Mila
Cuaresma) filed for death and insurance benefits with damages from the recruitment and placement agency which
handled Jasmin (Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc.).
The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court ruled that since Becmen was negligent in
investigating the true cause of death of Jasmin ( a violation of RA 8042), it shall be liable for damages. The Supreme
Court also ruled that pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042, the directors and officers of Becmen are themselves jointly
and solidarily liable with Becmen.
Eufrocina Gumabay and the other officers of Becmen filed a motion for leave to intervene. They aver that Section
10 is invalid.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section is invalid.
HELD: No. As earlier discussed, Section 10 is valid. The liability of Gumabay et al is not automatic. However, the
SC reconsidered its earlier ruling that Gumabay et al are solidarily and jointly liable with Becmen there being no
evidence on record which shows that they were personally involved in their companys particular actions or
omissions in Jasmins case.

But the Court has already held, pending adjudication of this case, that the liability of corporate directors and
officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding that
they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal
activities.
THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE CASE

Gagui vs Permejo
Facts:

On 14 December 1993, respondents Simeon Dejero and Teodoro Permejo filed separate Complaints for
illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries and overtime pay, refund of transportation expenses, damages, and
attorneys fees against PRO Agency Manila and Abdul Rahman Al Mahwes.
LA rendered decision making PRO Agency Manila and Abdul Rahman jointly and severally liable

respondents filed a Motion to Implead Respondent Pro Agency Manila, Inc.s Corporate Officers and
Directors as Judgment Debtors.10 It included petitioner as the Vice-President/Stockholder/Director of PRO
Agency, Manila, Inc.
NLRC affirmed
CA affirmed
o The CA stated that there was no need for petitioner to be impleaded x x x because by express
provision of the law, she is made solidarily liable with PRO Agency Manila, Inc

Issue: Whether or not petitioner may be held jointly and severally liable with PRO agency Manila
Held: NO. CA reversed

Petitioner may not be held jointly and severally liable, absent a finding that she was remiss in directing the
affairs of the agency.
As to the merits of the case, petitioner argues that while it is true that R.A. 8042 and the Corporation Code
provide for solidary liability, this liability must be so stated in the decision sought to be implemented.
Absent this express statement, a corporate officer may not be impleaded and made to personally answer for
the liability of the corporation.
Moreover, the 1997 Decision had already been final and executory for five years and, as such, can no
longer be modified.37 If at all, respondents are clearly guilty of laches for waiting for five years before
taking action against petitioner
At the outset, we have declared that R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the
recruitment and deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered
by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad.
Hence, for petitioner to be found jointly and solidarily liable, there must be a separate finding that she was
remiss in directing the affairs of the agency, resulting in the illegal dismissal of respondents.
Examination of the records would reveal that there was no finding of neglect on the part of the petitioner in
directing the affairs of the agency. In fact, respondents made no mention of any instance when petitioner
allegedly failed to manage the agency in accordance with law, thereby contributing to their illegal
dismissal.
Moreover, petitioner is correct in saying that impleading her for the purpose of execution is tantamount to
modifying a decision that had long become final and executory.
While labor laws should be construed liberally in favor of labor, we must be able to balance this with the
equally important right of petitioner to due process.

Almodiel vs NLRC
Facts:

Petitioner Farle P. Almodiel is a certified public accountant who was hired in October, 1987 as Cost
Accounting Manager of respondent Raytheon Philippines, Inc. through a reputable placement firm, John
Clements Consultants, Inc.
He started as a probationary or temporary employee

In the meantime, the standard cost accounting system was installed and used at the Raytheon plants and
subsidiaries worldwide. It was likewise adopted and installed in the Philippine operations
On January 27, 1989, petitioner was summoned by his immediate boss and in the presence of IRD
Manager, Mr. Rolando Estrada, he was told of the abolition of his position on the ground of redundancy.
Thus, he was constrained to file the complaint for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the
National Capital Region, NLRC, Department of Labor and Employment.
LA ruled in favor of the petitioner
NLRC reversed LA and just said that Raytheon pay the petitioner

Issue: Whether or not NLRC is in error in holding that the dismissal is valid
Held:
NO. The termination is valid

There is no dispute that petitioner was duly advised, one (1) month before, of the termination of his
employment on the ground of redundancy in a written notice by his immediate superior, Mrs. Magdalena
B.D. Lopez sometime in the afternoon of January 27, 1989. He was issued a check for P54,863.00
representing separation pay but in view of his refusal to acknowledge the notice and the check, they were
sent to him thru registered mail on January 30, 1989.
Whether petitioner's functions as Cost Accounting Manager have been dispensed with or merely absorbed
by another is however immaterial.
For even conceding that the functions of petitioner's position were merely transferred, no malice or bad
faith can be imputed from said act.
this Court said that redundancy, for purposes of our Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee
are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.
The characterization of an employee's services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore,
properly terminable, was an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer.
Indeed, an employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the operation of
its business. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that a cost accounting system was installed and used at
Raytheon subsidiaries and plants worldwide; and that the functions of his position involve the submission
of periodic reports utilizing computerized forms designed and prescribed by the head office with the
installation of said accounting system.
Besides, the fact that the functions of a position were simply added to the duties of another does not affect
the legitimacy of the employer's right to abolish a position when done in the normal exercise of its
prerogative to adopt sound business practices in the management of its affairs.
An employer has a much wider discretion in terminating employment relationship of managerial personnel
compared to rank and file employees.
o The reason obviously is that officers in such key positions perform not only functions which by
nature require the employer's full trust and confidence but also functions that spell the success or
failure of an enterprise.-- Basically business judgment rule

General Milling Corporation vs Torres


Facts:

On 27 December 1989, petitioners GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment whereby the
latter undertook to coach GMC's basketball team.
the Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation approved petitioner
Cone's application for a change of admission status from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee.

petitioner GMC requested renewal of petitioner Cone's alien employment permit. GMC also requested that
it be allowed to employ Cone as full-fledged coach which was GRANTED
Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of
said alien employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor who, on 23 April 1990, issued a
decision ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone's employment permit
o on the ground that there was no showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of petitioner Cone
would redound to the national interest.

Issue: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor abused is power


Held: NO.

Petitioner GMC's claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative has no legal basis at all.
Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an employer seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an
employment permit from the Department of Labor. Petitioner GMC's right to choose whom to employ is, of
course, limited by the statutory requirement of an alien employment permit.
Petitioners will not find solace in the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As pointed out by the
Solicitor-General, no comparison can be made between petitioner Cone and Mr. Norman Black as the latter
is "a long time resident of the country," and thus, not subject to the provisions of Article 40 of the Labor
Code which apply only to "non-resident aliens."
. The Labor Code itself specifically empowers respondent Secretary to make a determination as to the
availability of the services of a "person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of
application to perform the services for which an alien is desired."
In short, the Department of Labor is the agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the question of
availability of local workers. The constitutional validity of legal provisions granting such jurisdiction and
authority and requiring proof of non-availability of local nationals able to carry out the duties of the
position involved, cannot be seriously questioned.

Chuan vs CIR
Facts:

Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. assails the validity of an order of the Court of Industrial Relations. The order
made upon petitioner's request for authority to hire" about twelve(12) more laborers from time to time and
on a temporary basis," contains the proviso that "the majority of the laborers to be employed should be
native."

The petition was filed pending settlement by the court of a labor dispute (strike) between the petitioner and
Kaisahan
Ng
Mga
Manggagawa
sa
Kahoy
sa
Pilipinas.

It is next said that "The Court of Industrial Relations cannot intervene in questions of selection of
employees and workers so as to impose unconstitutional restrictions," and that "The restrictions of the
number of aliens that may be employed in any business, occupation, trade or profession of any kind, is a
denial of the equal protection of the laws." '
Although the brief does not name the persons who are supposed to be denied the equal protection of the
laws, it is clearly to be inferred that aliens in general are in petitioner's mind.
Certainly, the order does not, directly or indirectly, immediately or remotely, discriminate against the
petitioner on account of race or citizenship.
The order could have been issued in a case in which the employer was a Filipino.
As a matter of fact the petitioner insists that 75 % of its shares of stock are held by Philippine citizens, a
statement which is here assumed to be correct.

Issue: Whether or not the CIR order is valid


Held:
YES

An alien may question the constitutionality of a statute (or court order) only when and so far as it is being,
or is about to be, applied to his disadvantage.
The prospective employees whom the petitioner may contemplate employing have not come forward to
seek redress; their identity has not even been revealed.
Clearly the petitioner has no case in so far as it strives to protect the rights of others, much less others who
are
unknown
and
undetermined.
We are of the opinion that the order under consideration meets the test of reasonableness and public
interest. The passage of Commonwealth Act No. 103 was "in conformity with the constitutional objective
and . . . the historical fact that industrial and agricultural disputes have given rise to disquietude, bloodshed
and revolution in our country.
Commonwealth Act No. 103 has precisely vested the Court of Industrial Relations with authority to
intervene in all disputes between employees or strikes arising from the difference as regards wages,
compensation, and other labor conditions which it may take cognizance of
Thus it has jurisdiction to determine the number of men to be laid off during off-seasons.
By the same token, the court may specify that a certain proportion of the additional laborers to be
employed should be Filipinos, if such condition, in the court's opinion, "is necessary or expedient for the
purpose
of
settling
disputes
or
doing
justice
to
the
parties."
We can not agree with the petitioner that the order constitutes an unlawful intrusion into the sphere of
legislation, by attempting to lay down a public policy of the state or to settle a political question.
o In the first place, we believe, as we have already explained, that the court's action falls within the
legitimate scope of its jurisdiction.
o In the second place, the order does not formulate a policy and is not political in character. It is not
a permanent, all-embracing regulation. It is a compromise and emergency measure applicable only
in this case and calculated to bridge a temporary gap and to adjust conflicting interests in an
existing and menacing controversy.

The hiring of Chinese laborers by the petitioner was rightly considered by the court likely to lead the
parties away from the reconciliation which it was the function of the court to effectuate.

We should not close without adverting to the fact that the petitioner does not so much as pretend that the
hiring of additional laborers is its prerogative as a matter of right.
It seems to be conceded that during the pendency of the dispute the petitioner could employ temporary
laborers only with the permission of the Court of Industrial Relations.
The granting of the application thus lies within the sound judgment of the court, and if the court could turn
it down entirely, as we think it could, its authority to quality the permission should be undeniable, provided
only that the qualification is not arbitrary, against law, morals, or established public policy, which it is not;
it is an expedient and emergency step designed to relieve petitioner's own difficulties.
Also important to remember is that it is not compulsory on petitioner's part to take advantage of the order.
Being a permute petitioner is the sole judge of whether it should take the order as it is, or leave it if it does
not suit its interest to hire new laborers other than Chinese.

You might also like