Labor Full Text Aug 16

8/6/2019 Labor Full Text Aug 16

1/121

Art. 13. Definitions.

a. "Worker" means any member of the labor force, whether employed or unemployed.

b. "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee,employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment andplacement.

c. "Private fee-charging employment agency" means any person or entity engaged inrecruitment and placement of workers for a fee which is charged, directly or indirectly, fromthe workers or employers or both.

d. "License" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency.

e. "Private recruitment entity" means any person or association engaged in the recruitment andplacement of workers, locally or overseas, without charging, directly or indirectly, any feefrom the workers or employers.

f. "Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.

g. "Seaman" means any person employed in a vessel engaged in maritime navigation.

h. "Overseas employment" means employment of a worker outside the Philippines.

i. "Emigrant" means any person, worker or otherwise, who emigrates to a foreign country byvirtue of an immigrant visa or resident permit or its equivalent in the country of destination.

Art. 14. Employment promotion. The Secretary of Labor shall have the power and authority:

a. To organize and establish new employment offices in addition to the existing employmentoffices under the Department of Labor as the need arises;

b. To organize and establish a nationwide job clearance and information system to informapplicants registering with a particular employment office of job opportunities in other parts of the country as well as job opportunities abroad;

c. To develop and organize a program that will facilitate occupational, industrial andgeographical mobility of labor and provide assistance in the relocation of workers from onearea to another; and

d. To require any person, establishment, organization or institution to submit such employmentinformation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

Art. 15. Bureau of Employment Services.

a. The Bureau of Employment Services shall be primarily responsible for developing andmonitoring a comprehensive employment program. It shall have the power and duty:


2/121

1. To formulate and develop plans and programs to implement the employmentpromotion objectives of this Title;

2. To establish and maintain a registration and/or licensing system to regulate privatesector participation in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally andoverseas, and to secure the best possible terms and conditions of employment for

Filipino contract workers and compliance therewith under such rules and regulationsas may be issued by the Minister of Labor;

3. To formulate and develop employment programs designed to benefit disadvantagedgroups and communities;

4. To establish and maintain a registration and/or work permit system to regulate theemployment of aliens;

5. To develop a labor market information system in aid of proper manpower anddevelopment planning;

6. To develop a responsive vocational guidance and testing system in aid of proper human resources allocation; and

7. To maintain a central registry of skills, except seamen.

b. The regional offices of the Ministry of Labor shall have the original and exclusive jurisdictionover all matters or cases involving employer-employee relations including money claims,arising out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino workers for overseasemployment except seamen: Provided, That the Bureau of Employment Services may, in thecase of the National Capital Region, exercise such power, whenever the Minister of Labor deems it appropriate. The decisions of the regional offices of the Bureau of EmploymentServices, if so authorized by the Minister of Labor as provided in this Article, shall beappealable to the National Labor Relations Commission upon the same grounds provided in

Article 223 hereof. The decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission shall be finaland inappealable. (Superseded by Exec. Order 797, May 1, 1982).

c. The Minister of Labor shall have the power to impose and collect fees based on ratesrecommended by the Bureau of Employment Services. Such fees shall be deposited in theNational Treasury as a special account of the General Fund, for the promotion of theobjectives of the Bureau of Employment Services, subject to the provisions of Section 40 of Presidential Decree No. 1177.

Art. 16. Private recruitment. Except as provided in Chapter II of this Title, no person or entity other than the public employment offices, shall engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.

Art. 17. Overseas Employment Development Board. An Overseas Employment DevelopmentBoard is hereby created to undertake, in cooperation with relevant entities and agencies, asystematic program for overseas employment of Filipino workers in excess of domestic needs and toprotect their rights to fair and equitable employment practices. It shall have the power and duty:

1. To promote the overseas employment of Filipino workers through a comprehensive marketpromotion and development program;


3/121

2. To secure the best possible terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workerson a government-to-government basis and to ensure compliance therewith;

3. To recruit and place workers for overseas employment on a government-to-governmentarrangement and in such other sectors as policy may dictate; and

4. To act as secretariat for the Board of Trustees of the Welfare and Training Fund for OverseasWorkers.

Art. 18. Ban on direct-hiring. No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employmentexcept through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring bymembers of the diplomatic corps, international organizations and such other employers as may beallowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.

Art. 19. Office of Emigrant Affairs.

a. Pursuant to the national policy to maintain close ties with Filipino migrant communities andpromote their welfare as well as establish a data bank in aid of national manpower policy

formulation, an Office of Emigrant Affairs is hereby created in the Department of Labor. TheOffice shall be a unit at the Office of the Secretary and shall initially be manned and operatedby such personnel and through such funding as are available within the Department and itsattached agencies. Thereafter, its appropriation shall be made part of the regular GeneralAppropriations Decree.

b. The office shall, among others, promote the well-being of emigrants and maintain their closelink to the homeland by:

1. serving as a liaison with migrant communities;

2. provision of welfare and cultural services;

3. promote and facilitate re-integration of migrants into the national mainstream;

4. promote economic; political and cultural ties with the communities; and

5. generally to undertake such activities as may be appropriate to enhance suchcooperative links.

Art. 20. National Seamen Board.

a. A National Seamen Board is hereby created which shall develop and maintain acomprehensive program for Filipino seamen employed overseas. It shall have the power andduty:

1. To provide free placement services for seamen;

2. To regulate and supervise the activities of agents or representatives of shippingcompanies in the hiring of seamen for overseas employment and secure the bestpossible terms of employment for contract seamen workers and secure compliancetherewith;

3. To maintain a complete registry of all Filipino seamen.


4/121

b. The Board shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or cases includingmoney claims, involving employer-employee relations, arising out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas employment. The decisions of the Boardshall be appealable to the National Labor Relations Commission upon the same groundsprovided in Article 223 hereof. The decisions of the National Labor Relations Commissionshall be final and inappealable.

Art. 21. Foreign service role and participation. To provide ample protection to Filipino workersabroad, the labor attaches, the labor reporting officers duly designated by the Secretary of Labor andthe Philippine diplomatic or consular officials concerned shall, even without prior instruction or advicefrom the home office, exercise the power and duty:

a. To provide all Filipino workers within their jurisdiction assistance on all matters arising out of employment;

b. To insure that Filipino workers are not exploited or discriminated against;

c. To verify and certify as requisite to authentication that the terms and conditions of

employment in contracts involving Filipino workers are in accordance with the Labor Codeand rules and regulations of the Overseas Employment Development Board and NationalSeamen Board;

d. To make continuing studies or researches and recommendations on the various aspects of the employment market within their jurisdiction;

e. To gather and analyze information on the employment situation and its probable trends, andto make such information available; and

f. To perform such other duties as may be required of them from time to time.

Art. 22. Mandatory remittance of foreign exchange earnings. It shall be mandatory for all Filipinoworkers abroad to remit a portion of their foreign exchange earnings to their families, dependents,and/or beneficiaries in the country in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by theSecretary of Labor.

Art. 23. Composition of the Boards.

a. The OEDB shall be composed of the Secretary of Labor and Employment as Chairman, theUndersecretary of Labor as Vice-Chairman, and a representative each of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defense, the Central Bank, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the National Manpower and Youth Council, the Bureau of Employment Services, a workers organization and an employers organization and theExecutive Director of the OEDB as members.

b. The National Seamen Board shall be composed of the Secretary of Labor and Employmentas Chairman, the Undersecretary of Labor as Vice-Chairman, the Commandant of thePhilippine Coast Guard, and a representative each of the Department of Foreign Affairs, theDepartment of Education, Culture and Sports, the Central Bank, the Maritime IndustryAuthority, the Bureau of Employment Services, a national shipping association and theExecutive Director of the NSB as members. The members of the Boards shall receive allowances to be determined by the Board which


5/121

shall not be more than P2,000.00 per month.

c. The Boards shall be attached to the Department of Labor for policy and programcoordination. They shall each be assisted by a Secretariat headed by an Executive Director who shall be a Filipino citizen with sufficient experience in manpower administration,including overseas employment activities. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the

President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Labor and shallreceive an annual salary as fixed by law. The Secretary of Labor shall appoint the other members of the Secretariat.

d. The Auditor General shall appoint his representative to the Boards to audit their respectiveaccounts in accordance with auditing laws and pertinent rules and regulations.

Art. 24. Boards to issue rules and collect fees. The Boards shall issue appropriate rules andregulations to carry out their functions. They shall have the power to impose and collect fees fromemployers concerned, which shall be deposited in the respective accounts of said Boards and beused by them exclusively to promote their objectives.

Chapter IIREGULATION OF RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES

Art. 25. Private sector participation in the recruitment and placement of workers. Pursuant tonational development objectives and in order to harness and maximize the use of private sector resources and initiative in the development and implementation of a comprehensive employmentprogram, the private employment sector shall participate in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally and overseas, under such guidelines, rules and regulations as may be issued by theSecretary of Labor.

Art. 26. Travel agencies prohibited to recruit. Travel agencies and sales agencies of airlinecompanies are prohibited from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment whether for profit or not.

Art. 27. Citizenship requirement. Only Filipino citizens or corporations, partnerships or entities atleast seventy-five percent (75%) of the authorized and voting capital stock of which is owned andcontrolled by Filipino citizens shall be permitted to participate in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally or overseas.

Art. 28. Capitalization. All applicants for authority to hire or renewal of license to recruit are requiredto have such substantial capitalization as determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Art. 29. Non-transferability of license or authority. No license or authority shall be used directly or indirectly by any person other than the one in whose favor it was issued or at any place other thanthat stated in the license or authority be transferred, conveyed or assigned to any other person or entity. Any transfer of business address, appointment or designation of any agent or representativeincluding the establishment of additional offices anywhere shall be subject to the prior approval of the Department of Labor.


6/121

RA 8759

Section 2. Declaration of Policy . - It is a declared policy of the State to promote full employment andequality of employment opportunities for all, and for this purpose, to strengthen and expand the

existing employment facilitation service machinery of the government particularly at the local levels.Section 3. Establishment of the Public Employment Service Office . - To carry out the above-declared policy, there shall be established in all capital towns of provinces, key cities and other strategic areas a Public Employment Service Office, hereinafter referred to as "PESO," which shallbe community-based and maintained largely by local government units (LGUs) and a number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or community-based organizations (CBOs) and stateuniversities and colleges (SUCs). The PESOs shall be linked to the regional offices of theDepartment of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for coordination and technical supervision, and to theDOLE central office, to constitute the national employment service network.

THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. 157010. June 21, 2005]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs . FLORENCE O. CABANSAG, respondent.D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J .:The Court reiterates the basic policy that all Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas,

enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislations. Our labor statutes may not berendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or stipulations agreed upon, in a foreign country.

The CaseBefore us is a Petition for Review on Certiorar i [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to

reverse and set aside the July 16, 2002 Decision [2] and the January 29, 2003 Resolution [3] of the Courtof Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 68403. The assailed Decision dismissed the CA Petition (filed byherein petitioner), which had sought to reverse the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)s June29, 2001 Resolution, [4] affirming Labor Arbiter Joel S. Lustrias January 18, 2000 Decision. [5]

The assailed CA Resolution denied herein petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.The Facts

The facts are narrated by the Court of Appeals as follows:In late 1998, [herein Respondent Florence Cabansag] arrived in Singapore as a tourist. She applied for employment,with the Singapore Branch of the Philippine National Bank, a private banking corporation organized and existingunder the laws of the Philippines, with principal offices at the PNB Financial Center, Roxas Boulevard, Manila. Atthe time, the Singapore PNB Branch was under the helm of Ruben C. Tobias, a lawyer, as General Manager, with therank of Vice-President of the Bank. At the time, too, the Branch Office had two (2) types of employees: (a)expatriates or the regular employees, hired in Manila and assigned abroad including Singapore, and (b) locally(direct) hired. She applied for employment as Branch Credit Officer, at a total monthly package of $SG4,500.00,

effective upon assumption of duties after approval. Ruben C. Tobias found her eminently qualified and wrote onOctober 26, 1998, a letter to the President of the Bank in Manila, recommending the appointment of Florence O.Cabansag, for the position.

x x x x x x x x xThe President of the Bank was impressed with the credentials of Florence O. Cabansag that he approved therecommendation of Ruben C. Tobias. She then filed an Application, with the Ministry of Manpower of theGovernment of Singapore, for the issuance of an Employment Pass as an employee of the Singapore PNB Branch.Her application was approved for a period of two (2) years.


7/121

On December 7, 1998, Ruben C. Tobias wrote a letter to Florence O. Cabansag offering her a temporaryappointment, as Credit Officer, at a basic salary of Singapore Dollars 4,500.00, a month and, upon her successfulcompletion of her probation to be determined solely, by the Bank, she may be extended at the discretion of the Bank,a permanent appointment and that her temporary appointment was subject to the following terms and conditions:1. You will be on probation for a period of three (3) consecutive months from the date of your assumption of duty.

2. You will observe the Banks rules and regulations and those that may be adopted from time to time.3. You will keep in strictest confidence all matters related to transactions between the Bank and its clients.4. You will devote your full time during business hours in promoting the business and interest of the Bank.5. You will not, without prior written consent of the Bank, be employed in anyway for any purposewhatsoever outside business hours by any person, firm or company.6. Termination of your employment with the Bank may be made by either party after notice of one (1) day inwriting during probation, one month notice upon confirmation or the equivalent of one (1) days or months salary inlieu of notice.Florence O. Cabansag accepted the position and assumed office. In the meantime, the Philippine Embassy inSingapore processed the employment contract of Florence O. Cabansag and, on March 8, 1999, she was issued bythe Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, an Overseas Employment Certificate , certifying that she wasa bona fide contract worker for Singapore.

x x x x x x x x xBarely three (3) months in office, Florence O. Cabansag submitted to Ruben C. Tobias, on March 9, 1999, her initial Performance Report. Ruben C. Tobias was so impressed with the Report that he made a notation and, onsaid Report: GOOD WORK. However, in the evening of April 14, 1999, while Florence O. Cabansag was in theflat, which she and Cecilia Aquino, the Assistant Vice-President and Deputy General Manager of the Branch andRosanna Sarmiento, the Chief Dealer of the said Branch, rented, she was told by the two (2) that Ruben C. Tobiashas asked them to tell Florence O. Cabansag to resign from her job. Florence O. Cabansag was perplexed at thesudden turn of events and the runabout way Ruben C. Tobias procured her resignation from the Bank. The next day,Florence O. Cabansag talked to Ruben C. Tobias and inquired if what Cecilia Aquino and Rosanna Sarmiento hadtold her was true. Ruben C. Tobias confirmed the veracity of the information, with the explanation that her resignation was imperative as a cost-cutting measure of the Bank. Ruben C. Tobias, likewise, told Florence O.Cabansag that the PNB Singapore Branch will be sold or transformed into a remittance office and that, in either way,Florence O. Cabansag had to resign from her employment. The more Florence O. Cabansag was perplexed. Shethen asked Ruben C. Tobias that she be furnished with a Formal Advice from the PNB Head Office in Manila.However, Ruben C. Tobias flatly refused. Florence O. Cabansag did not submit any letter of resignation.On April 16, 1999, Ruben C. Tobias again summoned Florence O. Cabansag to his office and demanded that shesubmit her letter of resignation, with the pretext that he needed a Chinese-speaking Credit Officer to penetrate thelocal market, with the information that a Chinese-speaking Credit Officer had already been hired and will bereporting for work soon. She was warned that, unless she submitted her letter of resignation, her employment recordwill be blemished with the notation DISMISSED spread thereon. Without giving any definitive answer, FlorenceO. Cabansag asked Ruben C. Tobias that she be given sufficient time to look for another job. Ruben C. Tobias toldher that she should be out of her employment by May 15, 1999.However, on April 19, 1999, Ruben C. Tobias again summoned Florence O. Cabansag and adamantly ordered her to submit her letter of resignation. She refused. On April 20, 1999, she received a letter from Ruben C. Tobiasterminating her employment with the Bank.

x x x x x x x x x

On January 18, 2000, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the Complainant and against theRespondents, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondents guilty of Illegal dismissal and devoid of due process, and are hereby ordered:

1. To reinstate complainant to her former or substantially equivalent position without loss of seniorityrights, benefits and privileges;

2. Solidarily liable to pay complainant as follows:


8/121

a) To pay complainant her backwages from 16 April 1999 up to her actual reinstatement. Her backwages as of the date of the promulgation of this decision amounted to SGD 40,500.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of payment;

b) Mid-year bonus in the amount of SGD 2,250.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at thetime of payment;

c) Allowance for Sunday banking in the amount of SGD 120.00 or its equivalent in Philippine

Currency at the time of payment;d) Monetary equivalent of leave credits earned on Sunday banking in the amount of SGD 1,557.67

or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of payment;e) Monetary equivalent of unused sick leave benefits in the amount of SGD 1,150.60 or its

equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of payment.f) Monetary equivalent of unused vacation leave benefits in the amount of SGD 319.85 or its

equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of payment.g) 13 th month pay in the amount of SGD 4,500.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the

time of payment;3. Solidarily to pay complainant actual damages in the amount of SGD 1,978.00 or its equivalent in

Philippine Currency at the time of payment, and moral damages in the amount of PhP 200,000.00,exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 100,000.00;

4. To pay complainant the amount of SGD 5,039.81 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the timeof payment, representing attorneys fees.

SO ORDERED. [6] [Emphasis in the original.]PNB appealed the labor arbiters Decision to the NLRC. In a Resolution dated June 29, 2001, the

Commission affirmed that Decision, but reduced the moral damages to P 100,000 and the exemplarydamages to P 50,000. In a subsequent Resolution, the NLRC denied PNBs Motion for Reconsideration.

Ruling of the Court of AppealsIn disposing of the Petition for Certiorari , the CA noted that petitioner bank had failed to adduce in

evidence the Singaporean law supposedly governing the latters employment Contract with respondent.The appellate court found that the Contract had actually been processed by the Philippine Embassy inSingapore and approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which thenused that Contract as a basis for issuing an Overseas Employment Certificate in favor of respondent.

According to the CA, even though respondent secured an employment pass from the SingaporeMinistry of Employment, she did not thereby waive Philippine labor laws, or the jurisdiction of thelabor arbiter or the NLRC over her Complaint for illegal dismissal. In so doing, neither did shesubmit herself solely to the Ministry of Manpower of Singapores jurisdiction over disputes arising from her employment. The appellate court further noted that a cursory reading of the Ministrys letter will readilyshow that no such waiver or submission is stated or implied.

Finally, the CA held that petitioner had failed to establish a just cause for the dismissal of respondent. The bank had also failed to give her sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard and todefend herself. The CA ruled that she was consequently entitled to reinstatement and back wages,computed from the time of her dismissal up to the time of her reinstatement.

Hence, this Petition .[7]Issues

Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:

1. Whether or not the arbitration branch of the NLRC in the National Capital Region has jurisdiction over the instant controversy;2. Whether or not the arbitration of the NLRC in the National Capital Region is the most convenient venue

or forum to hear and decide the instant controversy; and3. Whether or not the respondent was illegally dismissed, and therefore, entitled to recover moral and

exemplary damages and attorneys fees. [8]In addition, respondent assails, in her Comment, [9] the propriety of Rule 45 as the procedural mode

for seeking a review of the CA Decision affirming the NLRC Resolution. Such issue deserves scantconsideration. Respondent miscomprehends the Courts discourse in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,


9/121

[10] which has indeed affirmed that the proper mode of review of NLRC decisions, resolutions or ordersis by a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court and theCourt of Appeals have concurrent original jurisdiction over such petitions for certiorari . Thus, inobservance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts, these petitions should be initially filed with the CA.[11]

Rightly, the bank elevated the NLRC Resolution to the CA by way of a Petition for Certiorari . Inseeking a review by this Court of the CA Decision -- on questions of jurisdiction, venue and validity of employment termination -- petitioner is likewise correct in invoking Rule 45. [12]

It is true, however, that in a petition for review on certiorari , the scope of the Supreme Courts judicialreview of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law. It does not extendto questions of fact. This doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Factual questions are for thelabor tribunals to resolve. [13] In the present case, the labor arbiter and the NLRC have alreadydetermined the factual issues. Their findings, which are supported by substantial evidence, were affirmedby the CA. Thus, they are entitled to great respect and are rendered conclusive upon this Court, absent aclear showing of palpable error or arbitrary disregard of evidence. [14]

The Courts RulingThe Petition has no merit.

First Issue:

JurisdictionThe jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC is specified in Article 217 of the Labor Code as

follows:ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Codethe Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar daysafter the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographicnotes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;2. Termination disputes;3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wage,

rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-

employee relations;5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the

legality of strikes and lockouts; and6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all

other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount of exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

(b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.x x x x x x x x x.

More specifically, Section 10 of RA 8042 reads in part:SECTION 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee

relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment includingclaims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.

x x x x x x x x xBased on the foregoing provisions, labor arbiters clearly have original and exclusive jurisdiction

over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including terminationdisputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers (OFW). [15]

We are not unmindful of the fact that respondent was directly hired, while on a tourist status inSingapore, by the PNB branch in that city state. Prior to employing respondent, petitioner had to obtain


10/121

an employment pass for her from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower. Securing the pass was aregulatory requirement pursuant to the immigration regulations of that country. [16]

Similarly, the Philippine government requires non-Filipinos working in the country to first obtain alocal work permit in order to be legally employed here. That permit, however, does not automaticallymean that the non-citizen is thereby bound by local laws only, as averred by petitioner. It does not at allimply a waiver of ones national laws on labor. Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,

such permit simply means that its holder has a legal status as a worker in the issuing country.Noteworthy is the fact that respondent likewise applied for and secured an Overseas EmploymentCertificate from the POEA through the Philippine Embassy in Singapore. The Certificate, issued onMarch 8, 1999, declared her a bona fide contract worker for Singapore. Under Philippine law, thisdocument authorized her working status in a foreign country and entitled her to all benefits and processesunder our statutes. Thus, even assuming arguendo that she was considered at the start of her employment as a direct hire governed by and subject to the laws, common practices andcustoms prevailing in Singapore [17] she subsequently became a contract worker or an OFW whowas covered by Philippine labor laws and policies upon certification by the POEA. At the time her employment was illegally terminated, she already possessed the POEA employment Certificate.

Moreover, petitioner admits that it is a Philippine corporation doing business through a branch officein Singapore. [18] Significantly, respondents employment by the Singapore branch office had to beapproved by Benjamin P. Palma Gil, [19] the president of the bank whose principal offices were inManila. This circumstance militates against petitioners contention that respondent was locally hired;and totally governed by and subject to the laws, common practices and customs of Singapore, not of thePhilippines. Instead, with more reason does this fact reinforce the presumption that respondent fallsunder the legal definition of migrant worker , in this case one deployed in Singapore. Hence, petitioner cannot escape the application of Philippine laws or the jurisdiction of the NLRC and the labor arbiter.

In any event, we recall the following policy pronouncement of the Court in Royal CrownInternationale v. NLRC: [20]x x x. Wh ether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping withthe basic public policy of the State to afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. For theState assures the basic rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just

and humane conditions of work [Article 3 of the Labor Code of the Philippines; See also Section 18, Article II andSection 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution]. This ruling is likewise rendered imperative by Article 17 of the CivilCode which states that laws which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not berendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determination or conventions agreed upon in a foreigncountry.

Second Issue:Proper Venue

Section 1(a) of Rule IV of the NLRC Rules of Procedure reads:Section 1. Venue (a) All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in theRegional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant/petitioner; Provided,however that cases of Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) shall be filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch wherethe complainant resides or where the principal office of the respondent/employer is situated, at the option of thecomplainant.

For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularlyassigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. In the case of field employees, as well as ambulant or itinerantworkers, their workplace is where they are regularly assigned, or where they are supposed to regularly receive their salaries/wages or work instructions from, and report the results of their assignment to their employers.

Under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8042), a migrant worker refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in aremunerated activity in a state of which he or she is not a legal resident; to be used interchangeablywith overseas Filipino worker. [21] Undeniably, respondent was employed by petitioner in its branch


11/121

office in Singapore. Admittedly, she is a Filipino and not a legal resident of that state. She thus fallswithin the category of migrant worker or overseas Filipino worker.

As such, it is her option to choose the venue of her Complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal.The law gives her two choices: (1) at the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) where she resides or (2)at the RAB where the principal office of her employer is situated. Since her dismissal by petitioner,respondent has returned to the Philippines -- specifically to her residence at Filinvest II, Quezon City.

Thus, in filing her Complaint before the RAB office in Quezon City, she has made a valid choice of proper venue.Third Issue:

Illegal Dismissal The appellate court was correct in holding that respondent was already a regular employee at the

time of her dismissal, because her three-month probationary period of employment had already ended.This ruling is in accordance with Article 281 of the Labor Code: An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Indeed, petitioner recognized respondentas such at the time it dismissed her, by giving her one months salary in lieu of a one-month notice,consistent with provision No. 6 of her employment Contract.Notice and Hearing Not Complied With

As a regular employee, respondent was entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges provided under our labor laws. One of her fundamental rights is that she may not be dismissed without due process of

law. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of procedural dueprocess, and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutionalguarantee. [22]

In dismissing employees, the employer must furnish them two written notices: 1) one to apprisethem of the particular acts or omissions for which their dismissal is sought; and 2) the other to informthem of the decision to dismiss them. As to the requirement of a hearing, its essence lies simply in theopportunity to be heard .[23]

The evidence in this case is crystal-clear. Respondent was not notified of the specific act or omission for which her dismissal was being sought. Neither was she given any chance to be heard, asrequired by law. At any rate, even if she were given the opportunity to be heard, she could not havedefended herself effectively, for she knew no cause to answer to.

All that petitioner tendered to respondent was a notice of her employment termination effective thevery same day, together with the equivalent of a one-month pay. This Court has already held that nothingin the law gives an employer the option to substitute the required prior notice and opportunity to be heardwith the mere payment of 30 days salary .[24]

Well-settled is the rule that the employer shall be sanctioned for noncompliance with therequirements of, or for failure to observe, due process that must be observed in dismissing an employee.[25]No Valid Cause for Dismissal

Moreover, Articles 282 ,[26] 283 [27] and 284 [28] of the Labor Code provide the valid grounds or causes for an employees dismissal. The employer has the burden of proving that it was done for any of those just or authorized causes. The failure to discharge this burden means that the dismissal was not

justified, and that the employee is entitled to reinstatement and back wages .[29]Notably, petitioner has not asserted any of the grounds provided by law as a valid reason for

terminating the employment of respondent. It merely insists that her dismissal was validly effectedpursuant to the provisions of her employment Contract, which she had voluntarily agreed to be bound to.

Truly, the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as theywant, and their agreement would have the force of law between them. However, petitioner overlooks thequalification that those terms and conditions agreed upon must not be contrary to law, morals, customs,public policy or public order. [30] As explained earlier, the employment Contract between petitioner andrespondent is governed by Philippine labor laws. Hence, the stipulations, clauses, and terms andconditions of the Contract must not contravene our labor law provisions.

Moreover, a contract of employment is imbued with public interest. The Court has time and timeagain reminded parties that they are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the


12/121

impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. [31]Also, while a contract is thelaw between the parties, the provisions of positive law that regulate such contracts are deemed includedand shall limit and govern the relations between the parties .[32]

Basic in our jurisprudence is the principle that when there is no showing of any clear, valid, and legalcause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. [33]

Awards for Damages Justified Finally, moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith

or constitutes an act oppressive to labor or is done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. [34] Awards for moral and exemplary damages would be proper if the employee washarassed and arbitrarily dismissed by the employer. [35]

In affirming the awards of moral and exemplary damages, we quote with approval the followingratiocination of the labor arbiter:The records also show that [respondents] dismissal was effected by [petitioners] c apricious and high-handedmanner, anti-social and oppressive, fraudulent and in bad faith, and contrary to morals, good customs and public

policy. Bad faith and fraud are shown in the acts committed by [petitioners] before, during and after [respondents]dismissal in addition to the manner by which she was dismissed. First, [respondent] was pressured to resign for twodifferent and contradictory reasons, namely, cost-cutting and the need for a Chinese[-]speaking credit officer, for which no written advice was given despite complainants request. Such wavering stance or vacillating position

indicates bad faith and a dishonest purpose. Second, she was employed on account of her qualifications, experienceand readiness for the position of credit officer and pressured to resign a month after she was commended for her good work. Third, the demand for [respondents] instant resignation on 19 April 1999 to give way to her replacement who was allegedly reporting soonest, is whimsical, fraudulent and in bad faith, because on 16 April1999 she was given a period of [sic] until 15 May 1999 within which to leave. Fourth, the pressures made on her toresign were highly oppressive, anti-social and caused her absolute torture, as [petitioners] disregarded her situationas an overseas worker away from home and family, with no prospect for another job. She was not even providedwith a return trip fare. Fifth, the notice of termination is an utter manifestation of bad faith and whim as it totallydisregards [respondents] right to security of tenure and due process. Such notice together with the demands for [respondents] resignation contravenes the fundamental guarantee and public policy of the Philippine government onsecurity of tenure.[Respondent] likewise established that as a proximate result of her dismissal and prior demands for resignation, shesuffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,

moral shock and social humiliation. Her standing in the social and business community as well as prospects for employment with other entities have been adversely affected by her dismissal. [Petitioners] are thus liable for moraldamages under Article 2217 of the Civil Code.

x x x x x x x x x[Petitioners] likewise acted in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner in terminating [respondents]employment and are therefore liable for exemplary damages. This should served [sic] as protection to other employees of [petitioner] company, and by way of example or correction for the public good so that personssimilarly minded as [petitioners] would be deterred from committing the same acts. [36]

The Court also affirms the award of attorneys fees. It is settled that when an action is instituted for the recovery of wages, or when employees are forced to litigate and consequently incur expenses toprotect their rights and interests, the grant of attorneys fees is legally justifiable. [37]

WHEREFORE , the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED . Costsagainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concu

People v Panis142 SCRA 664 (1986)

Facts:


13/121

Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and OlongapoCity alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from theMinistry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then andthere wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by chargingfees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals namedtherein, 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 hewas accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso inArticle 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are inany 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 relationto Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two citedarticles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper authority, which is the chargeembodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) isunavoidable.

Issue:

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

Held: YES

Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, states that, "(b) ' Recruitment andplacement' 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 entitywhich, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall bedeemed engaged in recruitment and placement."

As we see it, th e 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 theindividual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or morepersons 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 illegalrecruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreignland, and investing hard-earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to beawakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.

THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. 125903. November 15, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DELA CRUZ, and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ, accused.

ROMULO SAULO, Accused-Appellant.D E C I S I O N

GONZAGA-REYES, J .:Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were chargedwith violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code [1 for illegal recruitment in large scale in aninformation which states


14/121

CRIM. CASE NO. Q-91-21911The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZand CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ, of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE(ART. 38(b) in relation to Art. 39(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended byP.D. No. 2018, committed as follows:That on or about the period comprised from April 1990 to May 1990 in Quezon City,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, by falselyrepresenting themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and recruit workers foremployment abroad, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee,recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to LEODEGARIO MAULLON, BENYMALIGAYA and ANGELES JAVIER, without first securing the required license or authorityfrom the Department of Labor and Employment, in violation of said law.That the crime described above is committed in large scale as the same was perpetratedagainst three (3) persons individually or as [a] group penalized under Articles 38 and 39 asamended by PD 2018 of the Labor Code (P.D. 442).CONTRARY TO LAW. [2In addition, accused were charged with three counts of estafa (Criminal Case Nos. Q-91-21908, Q-91-21909 and Q-91-21910). Except for the names of the complainants, the datesof commission of the crime charged, and the amounts involved, the informations [3 wereidentical in their allegationsCRIM. CASE NO. Q-91-21908The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZAND CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ of the crime of ESTAFA (Art. 315, par. 2 (a) RPC), committedas follows:That on or about the period comprised from April 1990 to May 1990, in Quezon City,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent of gain, by means of false pretenses and/or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneouslywith the commission of the fraud, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniouslydefraud one BENY MALIGAYA, in the following manner, to wit: o n the date and in the placeaforementioned, accused falsely pretended to the offended party that they had connectionand capacity to deploy workers for overseas employment and that they could secureemployment/placement for said Beny Maligaya and believing said misrepresentations, theoffended party was later induced to give accused, as in fact she did give the total amount of P35,000.00, Philippine Currency, and once in possession of the said amount and far fromcomplying with their commitment and despite repeated demands made upon them to returnsaid amount, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent todefraud, misappropriate, misapply and convert the same to their own personal use andbenefit, to the damage and prejudice of said offended party in the aforementioned amountand in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.Meanwhile accused Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz have remained at large.During trial, the prosecution sought to prove the following material facts and circumstancessurrounding the commission of the crimes:Benny Maligaya, having learned from a relative of accused-appellant that the latter wasrecruiting workers for Taiwan, went to accused-appellants house in San Francisco del Monte,Quezon City, together with Angeles Javier and Amelia de la Cruz, in order to discuss herchances for overseas employment. During that meeting which took place sometime in Aprilor May, 1990, accused-appellant told Maligaya that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as


15/121

a factory worker once she gave accused-appellant the fees for the processing of herdocuments. Sometime in May, 1990, Maligaya also met with Amelia de la Cruz andClodualdo de la Cruz at their house in Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her that theywere authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruitworkers for Taiwan. Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz the amount of P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a receipt dated May 21, 1990 signed by accused-

appellant and Amelia de la Cruz (Exhibit A in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21908). Seeing that hehad reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint againstaccused-appellant with the POEA. [4Angeles Javier, a widow and relative by affinity of accused-appellant, was told by Ligaya,accused-appellants wife, to apply for work abroad through accused-appellant. At a meetingin accused-appellants Quezon City residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that hecould get her a job in Taiwan as a factory worker and that she should give him P35,000.00for purposes of preparing Javiers passport. Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 toaccused-appellant, but she did not ask for a receipt as she trusted him. As the overseasemployment never materialized, Javier was prompted to bring the matter before the POEA.[5On 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 employmentabroad. As in the case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant assured Maullon that hecould secure him a job as a factory worker in Taiwan if he paid him P30,000.00 for theprocessing of his papers. Maullon paid P7,900.00 to accused-appellants wife, who issued areceipt dated April 21, 1990 (Exhibit A in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Thereafter, Maullonpaid an additional amount of P6,800.00 in the presence of accused-appellant and Amelia dela Cruz, which payment is also evidenced by a receipt dated April 25, 1990 (Exhibit B inCrim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Finally, Maullon paid P15,700.00 to a certain Loreta Tumalig, afriend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt dated September 14, 1990 (Exhibit C inCrim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on the promisedemployment. Maullon thus filed a complaint with the POEA. [6The prosecution also presented a certification dated July 26, 1994 issued by the POEA

stating that accused are not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment (Exhibit Ain Crim. Case No. Q-91-21911). [7In his defense, accused-appellant claimed that he was also applying with Amelia de la Cruzfor overseas employment. He asserts that it was for this reason that he met all threecomplainants as they all went together to Amelia de la Cruz house in Novaliches, QuezonCity sometime in May, 1990 in order to follow up their applications. Accused-appellant flatlydenied that he was an overseas employment recruiter or that he was working as an agentfor one. He also denied having received any money from any of the complainants or havingsigned any of the receipts introduced by the prosecution in evidence. It is accused-appellants contention that the complainants were prevailed upon by accused-appellantsmother-in-law, with whom he had a misunderstanding, to file the present cases against him.[8

The Trial court found accused-appellant guilty of three counts of estafa and of illegal recruitment in large scale. It adjudged:WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Romulo Saulo:A. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21908 , guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, without any mitigating oraggravating circumstances, and this Court hereby sentences the accused Romulo Saulo tosuffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three (3) years, four (4) months andone (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years and one (1) dayof prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Beny Maligaya in the


16/121

amount of P35,000.00, with interest thereon at 12% per annum until the said amount isfully paid, with costs against the said accused.B. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21909 , guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, without any mitigating oraggravating circumstances, and this Court hereby sentences the accused Romulo Saulo tosuffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one

(1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayoras maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Angeles Javier in the amount of P20,000.00with interest thereon at 12% per annum until the said amount is fully paid, with costsagainst said accused.C. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21910 , guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, without any mitigating oraggravating circumstances, and this Court hereby sentences the accused Romulo Saulo tosuffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one(1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayoras maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Leodigario Maullon in the amount of P30,400.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum until the said amount is fully paid, withcosts against said accused.

D. I n Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911 , guilty beyond reasonable doubt of IllegalRecruitment in Large Scale as defined and punished under Article 38 (b) inrelation to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines as amended, and thisCourt sentences the accused Romulo Saulo to suffer the penalty of lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).Being a detention prisoner, the accused Romulo Saulo shall be entitled to the benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.SO ORDERED. [9The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal.

The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38 (b) of theLabor Code and penalized under Art. 39 of the same Code, are as follows:

(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined underArticle 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;(2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor andEmployment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruitand deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and(3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as agroup. [10Under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, andincludes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally orabroad, 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 engagedin recruitment and placement.After a careful and circumspect review of the records, the Court finds that the trial courtwas justified in holding that accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful recruitment andplacement activities. The prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant promisedthe three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and Leodigario Maullonemployment in Taiwan as factory workers and that he asked them for money in order toprocess their papers and procure their passports. Relying completely upon suchrepresentations, complainants entrusted their hard-earned money to accused-appellant in


17/121

exchange for what they would later discover to be a vain hope of obtaining employmentabroad. It is not disputed that accused-appellant is not authorized [11 nor licensed [12 bythe Department of Labor and Employment to engage in recruitment and placementactivities. The absence of the necessary license or authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.Accused-appellant interposes a denial in his defense, claiming that he never received anymoney from the complainants nor processed their papers. Instead, accused-appellant insiststhat he was merely a co-applicant of the complainants and similarly deceived by theschemes of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz. He contends that the fact that Benny Maligayaand Angleles Javier went to the house of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz in Novaliches,Quezon City, to get back their money and to follow-up their application proves thatcomplainants knew that it was the de la Cruz who received the processing fees, and notaccused-appellant. Further, accused-appellant argues that complainants could not havehonestly believed that he could get them their passports since they did not give him any of the necessary documents, such as their birth certificate, baptismal certificate, NBIclearance, and marriage contract.Accused-appellants asseverations are self-serving and uncorroborated by clear andconvincing evidence. They cannot stand against the straightforward and explicit testimonies

of the complainants, who have identified accused-appellant as the person who enticed themto part with their money upon his representation that he had the capability of obtainingemployment for them abroad. In the absence of any evidence that the prosecutionwitnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial courts assessment of the credibilityof the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court. [13The fact that accused-appellant did not sign all the receipts issued to complainants does notweaken the case of the prosecution. A person charged with illegal recruitment may beconvicted on the strength of the testimonies of the complainants , if found to becredible and convincing. [14 The a bsence of receipts to evidence payment does notwarrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions cause.[15Accused-appellant contends that he could not have committed the crime of illegal

recruitment in large scale since Nancy Avelino, a labor and employment officer at the POEA,testified that licenses for recruitment and placement are issued only to corporations and notto natural persons. This argument is specious and illogical . The Labor Code states thatany person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to twoor more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. [16 Corrolarily,a nonlicensee or nonholder of authority is any person, corporation or entity whichhas not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment andplacement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has beensuspended, revoked, or canceled by the POEA or the Secretary. [17 It also bearsstressing that agents or representatives appointed by a licensee or a holder of authority butwhose appointments are not previously authorized by the POEA fall within the meaning of the term nonlicensee or nonholder of authority .[18 Thus, any person, whether natural or

juridical, that engages in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authorityshall be penalized under Art. 39 of the Labor Code.It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convictedfor both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitmentis a malum prohibitum , whereas estafa is malum in se , meaning that the criminalintent of the accused is not necessary for conviction in the former, but is required in thelatter. [19The elements of estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2 (a), of the Revised Penal Code are: (1)that the accused has defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by deceit, and (2) that


18/121


19/121

years of prision mayor , as maximum. [23 Accused-appellant shall also pay LeodigarioMaullon P30,400.00 by way of actual damages.In addition, for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911) and pursuant to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, accused-appellantshall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred ThousandPesos (P100,000.00).WHEREFORE , the March 6, 1996 Decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guiltybeyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa ishereby AFFIRMED subject to the following modifications:In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21908 where accused-appellant defrauded Benny Maligaya in theamount of P35,000.00, one year for the additional amount of P13,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 provided for in Article 315 shall be added to the maximum period of theprescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. Thus,accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, and two (2)months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor asmaximum. Accused-appellant shall also pay Benny Maligaya P35,000.00 by way of actualdamages.In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21909 where accused-appellant defrauded Angeles Javier in the

amount of P20,000.00, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1)year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum to five (5)years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum. Accused-appellant shall also pay Angeles Javier P20,000.00 by way of actual damages.In Criminal Case No. Q-91-21910 where accused-appellant defrauded Leodigario Maullon inthe amount of P30,400.00, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to eight (8)years of prision mayor , as maximum. Accused-appellant shall also pay Leodigario MaullonP30,400.00 by way of actual damages.In addition, for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911) and pursuant to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, accused-appellant shall suffer thepenalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos

(P100,000.00) .Costs against accused-appellant.SO ORDERED.Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 123146. June 17, 2003]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALONA BULI-E and JOSEFINA (JOSIE)

ALOLINO, appellants .D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J .:Appellants Alona Buli-e and Josefina Alolino assail the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio

City, Branch 15, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment committed in large

scale and eight counts of estafa.On March 16, 1993, the following information was filed against Jose Alolino and appellants, AlonaBuli-e and Josefina Alolino:The undersigned accuses ALONA BULI-E, JOSEFINA (JOSIE) ALOLINO and JOSE ALOLINO for VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 38 (b), PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED BY P.D. 1920 FURTHER AMENDED BY

P.D. 2018, committed in large scale, which is an act of economic sabotage, and by a syndicate, committed as follows:That during the period from March 1991 to July 1992, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdictionof this Honorable Court, the above-named accused representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist


20/121

and hire and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment / job placement to the following persons:1. Constancio Macli-ing 2. Jesssica Estay3. Sidolia Fias-eo4. John Mangili

5. Nieva Lampoyas6. Sabado Agapito7. Joseph Oratil and 8. Joel Oratil

in Taiwan without first obtaining or securing license or authority from the proper government agencyCONTRARY TO LAW .[1]

On the same day, eight separate informations for estafa were also filed against Jose Alolino andappellants Alona Buli-e (Buli-e for brevity) and Josefina Alolino (Josefina, for brevity). Except as to thedates, amounts involved [2] and the names of complainants, the following information in Criminal CaseNo. 11123-R typified the seven other informations for the crime of estafa:That on or about the 12 th day of July, 1992, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this

Honorable court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Constancio Macli-ing by way of false pretenses,which are executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused knowing fully well that they are not authorized job recruiters for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced

said Constancio Macli-ing and pretended that they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in considerationof the sum of P 15,000.00 when in truth and in fact they could not; the said Constancio Macli-ing, deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused, parted away the total sum of P 15,000.00 in favor of theaccused, to the damage and prejudice of the said Constancio Macli-ing in the aforementioned amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS ( P 15,000.00), Philippine Currency. [3]

Jose Alolino was never apprehended and remains at large. Upon arraignment, appellants pleadednot guilty to each of the nine informations filed against them. A joint trial ensued since the cases involvedthe same factual milieu.

Evidence for the prosecution showed that on various dates from June 1990 to July 1992,complainants went to the house of appellant Buli-e at No. 63 Sanitary Camp, Baguio City upon learningthat she was recruiting workers for overseas employment. A cousin of complainant Lampoyas, whom Buli-e helped deploy abroad, introduced Lampoyas to Buli-e in 1990. [4] The brothers Oratil went to see Buli-eabout possible overseas employment in April 1992. [5] Mangili inquired from Buli-e if she was recruitingworkers for overseas employment also in April 1992. [6]Sabado and Macli-ing approached Buli-e for possible overseas work in May 1992, [7] while Estay, accompanied by her sister, went to see Buli-e onJune 17, 1992. [8] Fias-eo approached Buli-e on July 13, 1992, accompanied by Lampoyas. [9]

Buli-e confirmed to complainants that she was, in fact, recruiting contract workers for Taiwanand that, although she did not have a license of her own to recruit, her boss in Manila who was alicensed recruiter, was in the process of getting her one which would soon be issued. [10] Buli-eidentified her superiors in Manila to be the spouses Jose [11] and Josefina Alolino. Josefina wasconnected with Rodolfo S. Ibuna Employment Agency (RSI for brevity), a private employment agency

licensed to recruit overseas contract workers. Buli-e informed complainants that requirements for application of overseas work included submission of bio-data, passport, NBI clearance, and medicalexamination clearance to show that the applicant is physically and mentally fit. There was also aplacement fee of P 40,000 of which P 15,000 must be paid in advance. Buli-e told complainants that if theywere interested in applying, they may submit to her said requirements which she, in turn, will submit toher boss who was in charge of processing the necessary documents.

In the case of complainant Lampoyas who originally applied with Buli-e for employment in Kuwait,she was informed by Buli-e that the latter was working for a certain Jessie Agtarep. [12] Lampoyas gaveBuli-e P 4,000 on March 14, 1991 as downpayment for the placement fee andP5,000 on August 24,1991. Lampoyas application papers were processed by Jamal Enterprises in Makati, Metro Manila but in


21/121

1992 , Buli-e transferred Lampoyas application to appellant Josefina, whom Buli-e referred to as her newboss. [13] Lampoyas was enticed to work in Taiwan instead of Kuwait and was assured that her deployment papers would be processed more quickly. [14]

From March to August 1992, Buli-e accompanied complainants, on separate occasions, to Manilawhere they had their medical check-up at Saints Peter and Paul Medical Clinic in Ermita. Lampoyas hadher medical check-up in March 1992 [15] while Mangili and Joseph Oratil had their medical check-up inMay 1992. [16] On June 20, 1992, Estay had her medical check-up, [17] while Agapito and Macli-ing hadtheir medical examination on July 5, 1992 .[18] Fias-eo had her medical examination on July 20, 1992while Joel Oratil had his medical examination in August 1992. Complainants paid for the medicalexamination, the results of which were given to Buli-e.

Immediately after complainants had undergone medical examination, Buli-e brought them to No. 11Concorde Street, Airmans Village, Las Pias, Metro Manila purportedly to introduce them to her boss, thespouses Alolino. Complainants, except for Macli-ing and Agapito, were able to meet only Jose Alolino onthe same day that they had undergone medical examination. Jose Alolino allegedly told complainantsthat his wife, Josefina, was in Taiwan following up applications but he assured them that they too wouldbe deployed abroad in a matter of months. [19] Mangili, Estay, and the brothers Oratil were able to meetJosefina personally when they returned to the residence of the Alolinos in Manila to follow up their applications .[20] Fias-eo and Lampoyas, on the other hand, never met Josefina personally although theywere able to talk to her over the telephone several times when they were following up the status of their applications .[21] It was during these telephone conversations that Josefina instructed Fias-eo andLampoyas to have their medical examinations and secure their NBI clearance in Manila accompanied byBuli-e whom she identified as her agent. [22]

Complainants were assured by one or both of the spouses that they were licensed to recruitoverseas contract workers and that they can deploy workers within two to three months.[23] Complainants were informed by Buli-e and Josefina that deployment for Taiwan is on a first-come,first-served basis and that those who can comply with the requirements, particularly the advance paymentof P15,000, shall be deployed first .[24]

On different dates from May 1992 to July 1992, complainants handed to Buli-e at Sanitary Camp,Baguio City their advance payments of P15,000 for which they were issued receipts. [25] Mangilipaid P11,000 on May 22, 1992 and P 4,000 on June 18, 1992 .[26] The Oratil brothers paid P15,000 eachin installments from May 1992 to July 15, 1992. [27] Macli-ing paid P15,000 on July 12, 1992. [28] Fias-eo gave Buli-e P15,000 on July 13, 1992. [29] In addition to her previous payments amounting to P9,000,Lampoyas paid Buli-e P5,000 also on July 13, 1992 .[30] Estay gave P15,000 on July 21, 1992 [31] whileAgapito paid Buli-e P15,000 on July 22, 1992 .[32] Buli-e assured complainants that she delivered thepayments to Josefina. Aside from giving the downpayment of the placement fee, complainants compliedwith the rest of the requirements which included submission of pictures, bio-data, passports, NBIclearances and medical examination reports.

After months of waiting and despite compliance with all the requirements, complainants were notdeployed abroad as promised by appellants. From August 1992 to February 1993, complainants troopedto Buli-es house but Buli-e merely kept on telling them to wait. When complainants called up Josefina bylong distance telephone, they were also told just to wait.

Weary of the interminable waiting, complainants went to the POEA office in Baguio City on February

2, 1993, to check whether appellants were indeed licensed to recruit overseas contract workers. Theywere dismayed to find out that appellants had no license to recruit in Baguio City or any part of theCordillera Administrative Region (CAR). On the same day, complainants filed their complaints with thePOEA-CAR and the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City.

After appellants were apprehended and during their detention at the Baguio City Jail, Josefina,through counsel, refunded complainant Fias-eo P 15,000 for his downpayment on the placement fee.[33] Complainant Mangili also demanded a refund and he was paid by Josefina, again through her counsel, the sum of P25,000 for his advance payment of P15,000 and as reimbursement of the actualexpenses he incurred for his application. [34]


22/121

During trial, Buli-e testified that she worked for RSI and had been referring applicants to the agencybefore 1991. She met Josefina a year after she resigned from RSI .[35] In 1990, Buli-e had an applicantfor Singapore, a certain Prescilla Laoayan from Baguio City. Buli-e referred Prescilla to RSI which,through Mrs. Fe Go, handled the processing of her application. As part of the requirements of the agency,Prescilla had to undergo training at the house of Josefina, who was then the Marketing Director of RSI. In1991, Josefina sent Buli-e a note, through Prescilla, telling her to go to the house of Josefina at

No.11 Concorde Street, Airmans Village, Las Pias, Metro Manila to discuss matters about recruitmentof workers. Buli-e went to the house of Josefina as requested and it was then that she was appointed asan agent of Josefina. [36] Buli-e was tasked to find job applicants for Taiwan, Korea or Singapore whomshe can refer to RSI through Josefina. Buli-e would then be paid for each referral. When Buli-e askedJosefina if the latter was authorized or had any license to recruit for overseas placement, Josefinaanswered in the affirmative. [37]

Thereafter, Buli-e started recruiting job applicants for Taiwan, Singapore and Korea at her house inNo. 63 Sanitary Camp, Baguio City. Complainants sought her of their own accord and Buli-e informedthem of the requirements for job application which consisted of submission of bio-data, passport, NBIclearance and placement fee of P 40,000 of which P15,000 must be paid in advance upon instructions of Josefina. Josefina allegedly instructed Buli-e to accompany complainants to Sts. Peter and Paul MedicalClinic in Ermita, Manila for medical check-up .[38]Buli-e was likewise instructed by Josefina to accompanysome of the complainants in securing their NBI clearance and to receive whatever documentscomplainants will be submitting including the P15,000 advance payment, all of which should be submittedto Josefina. Buli-e said that she submitted the documents and the payments either to Jose Alolino or toJosefina. [39] She clarified that she did not have a hand in securing the passports of complainants [40] and received instructions from Josefina only when she communicated with Josefinathrough the telephone or went to Manila. She averred that she and several members of her family alsotried to apply for overseas work with Josefina and paid the latter P100,000. [41]

Buli-e presented Mrs. Nonette Legaspi-Villanueva, Unit Coordinator of POEA-CAR, to testify that RSIwas a licensed employment agency and that Josefina was a licensed recruiter at the time that Buli-e haddealings with her co-appellant. Mrs. Villanueva testified that she has been with the POEA since1985. Part of her functions included administrative and technical supervision of the staff regardingemployment, facilitation, licensing, investigation and monitoring of the provincial recruitment authority aswell as issuance of authorization to personnel to conduct inspection of licensed agencies in the City of

Baguio. [42] Mrs.Villanueva said that, as per the certification of the Chief of the Licensing Branch of thePOEA, RSI was a private employment agency with a l icense which expired on July 14, 1992. JosefinaAlolino was included in the list of the personnel submitted by the agency in July 1990 as MarketingConsultant .[43] Mrs. Villanueva, however, clarified that licenses or permits to recruit workers areterritorial in nature so that an agency licensed in Manila can only engage in recruitment activitieswithin the place specified in the license although the applicants may be non-residents of MetroManila. She further testified that she cannot remember if Buli-e was given any authority to recruit inBaguio City. [44]

Josefina, on the other hand, testified that on September 16, 1987, she was appointed as one of thefour Marketing Directors of RSI which was located in 408 Jovan Condominium, Shaw Boulevard,Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. RSI, represented by Rodolfo S. Ibuna as proprietor, was a privateemployment agency with a license which expired on July 14, 1992. As Overseas Marketing Director of RSI, Josefina was tasked to represent the agency in negotiating with employers in Taiwan, Malaysia,United States and Singapore [45] for said employers to avail of the services of RSI in recruiting, hiring,processing and deploying Filipino contract workers. She was also authorized to solicit applicants for overseas placement through advertisements, referrals, walk-ins, etc., and to undertake screening,evaluation and final selection of applicants. As per agreement with RSI, Josefina was entitled to a certainshare for each successful negotiation with a foreign employer .[46]

Josefina denied that Buli-e was her agent and insisted that she never gave Buli-e authority to recruitfor RSI. On the contrary, Buli-e allegedly informed Josefina that she was an agent of Mrs. Fe Go,another marketing Director of RSI. Sometime in 1991, Mrs. Go referred to Josefina a certain PrescillaLaoayan, who wanted to apply as a domestic helper in Taiwan. Upon being told that she could not be


23/121

deployed unless she would give a downpayment of P15,000 for the placement fee, Prescilla informedJosefina that she already gave P15,000 to an agent whom she identified to be Buli-e. Josefina then wrotea note for Buli-e informing her that there was a problem regarding the processing of Prescillasapplication. Prescilla delivered the note to Buli-e who in turn went to see Josefina at her house in No. 11Concorde Street, Airmans Village, Las Pias, Metro Manila. Josefina said that she and Buli-e merelytalked about Prescillas application and that was the first time that Josefina met and talked with Buli-e

although she had already seen her before in the office of Mrs. Fe Go .[47]Josefina testified that herein complainants were originally referred by Buli-e to Mrs. Fe Go who, inturn, referred them to her. Josefina said that she accepted referrals from Buli-e even though the latter was not her agent nor connected with RSI because their agency accepts referrals from everyone. In1992, Buli-e, claiming that complainants authorized and designated her to act as their spokesperson,went to the house of Josefina several times to follow up the progress of their applications. [48]

Josefina denied having given Buli-e instructions to accompany complainants to Saints Peter andPaul Medical Clinic in Ermita, Manila. She also denied having an understanding with Buli-e to receivepayments from each of complainants and to bring them to her house in Las Pias, Metro Manila.[49] Josefina explained that the deployment of complainants was delayed because the Taiwanesegovernment changed its previous policy of allowing foreign employment agencies like RSI to negotiatedirectly with prospective employers in Taiwan. Foreign employment agencies were instead allowed tonegotiate only with local employment agencies in Taiwan, which, in turn, were responsible for negotiatingwith the Taiwanese employers. The change in the policy caused delay in the deployment of complainantssince the local employment agencies in Taiwan demanded additional requirements such as additionalfees. Josefina said she informed complainants of the delay and the reason for it but complainants couldnot wait to be deployed and, instead, demanded the refund of their payments. [50]

On March 2, 1993, Josefina allegedly gave Buli-e P75,000 with the instruction that she was to givecomplainant Lampoyas P5,000 as refund, and P10,000 each to complainants Macli-ing, Estay, Fias-eo, Mangili, Agapito, and the Oratil brothers. Upon having been approached by complainants for therefund of their money, Josefina informed them that she already gave their refunds through Buli-e. Complainants, however, claimed that they did not receive their refunds from Buli-e. Whencomplainants could not wait for the refund of their payments and failed to see Josefina who was alwaysout of the country due to her work, they filed the present cases. [51]

Emelita Racelis testified that she was an employee of RSI from 1989 to 1992 and was one of the two

persons assigned to Josefina. [52] Ms. Racelis said that Buli-e frequently went to the RSI, bringingapplicants with her three times a month. Among the applicants whom Buli-e referred to RSI through oneof the marketing directors, Mrs. Fe Go, was a certain Prescilla Laoayan. Racelis said that Laoayan wasendorsed by Mrs. Go to Josefina because it is the practice that when the applicant of one of the marketingdirectors cannot be deployed, the applicant will be endorsed to another marketing director with a jobopening. Josefina, however, had trouble deploying Ms. Laoayan whose placement fee had not beenforwarded by Buli-e to RSI .[53]

On July 4, 1995, the Trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, asfollows:WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 11122-R, the Court finds the accused Alona Buli-e and Josefina (Josie) Alolino guilty beyond reasonable doubt, by direct participation and in conspiracy with eachother, of the crime of illegal recruitment in a large scale as defined and penalized under Article38(b) in relation to Article 39 of PD 442 as amended by PD 2018 and sentences each of them tolife imprisonment and to pay a fine of P 100,000.00 each, and to pay the costs.

2. In Criminal case No. 11123-R to 11130-R (8 counts), t he court finds the accused Alona Buli-e and Josefina (Josie) Alolino guilty beyond reasonable doubt by direct participation and inconspiracy with each other of the crime of Estafa as charged in the Informations in the aforesaid 8 cases as defined and penalized under Article 315 first paragraph in relation to No. 2 (a) of the

same article and sentences each of them, applying the indeterminate sentence law, to animprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to

six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum in each of the


24/121

aforesaid 8 cases; to indemnify jointly and severally the offended parties Constancio Macli-ing, Jessica Estay, Sidolia Fias-eo, John Mangili, Sabado Agapito, Joseph Oratil and Joel Oratil the sum of P15,000.00 each and Nieva Lampoyas the sum of P14,000.00 as actual damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.The accused Alona Buli-e and Josefina (Josie) Alolino being detention prisoners are entitled to becredited 4/5 of their preventive imprisonment in the service of their sentence in accordance with

Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.SO ORDERED .[54]

In rendering the decision, the trial court ruled that by their acts, Buli-e and Josefina, conspired andconfederated with one another in the illegal recruitment of complainants for overseas employment. Buli-eperformed the recruitment activities in Baguio and Josefina, in Manila. The trial court specifically notedBuli-es acts of accompanying the complainants to Manila for their medical examinations,securing complainants NBI clearances and passports as well as receiving complainantsdownpayments for the purported placement fee as an indication that she directly part

Documents

Labor Full Text Aug 16