People of the Philippines (PP) v Melissa Chua

DOCTRINE:
➢ Recruitment and placement (Article 13 (b))
- 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 and placement.

➢ Illegal Recruitment (Article 38 (a))

- Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate
complaints under this Article.
- (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
accordance with Article 39 hereof.

➢ Illegal recruitment; committed by syndicate or in large scale

a) Committed by a syndicate – if carried out by three (3) or more persons
conspiring and confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
transaction, enterprise, or scheme.
b) Committed in large scale – If committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.
i. Elements of illegal recruitment in large scale:
1) Accused undertook a recruitment activity under Art. 13(b) or any
prohibited practice under Art. 34
2) Accused did not have license or authority to lawfully engaged in the
recruitment and placement of workers
3) Accused committed such illegal activity against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group.

➢ Estafa (Art. 315 (2), RPC)

- Committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or
falsely pretends to possess’ power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business, imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.

➢ Intent; illegal recruitment & Estafa

a) Illegal recruitment: Malum Prohibitum = intent is immaterial
b) Estafa: Malum in se = intent is imperative
FACTS:
1Melissa Chua (appellant) was indicted for Illegal Recruitment (large scale) and was convicted
thereof. She was also indicted for five counts of Estafa but was convicted only for three. The
CA rendered a decision affirming the appellant’s conviction.
2
Sometime in September 2002, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each other, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to the below-mentioned persons
for overseas employment abroad without first having secured the required license from DOLE,
and charge of accept them directly from:
1) Erik De Guia Tan - ₱73,000
2) Marilyn Macaranas - ₱83,000
3) Napoleon Yu, Jr. - ₱23,000
4) Harry James King - ₱23,000
5) Roberto Angeles - ₱23,000
3
Such fees allegedly for purposes of their deployment which amounts are in excess of or greater
than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees as prescribed by the POEA, and without
valid reasons and without fault, the complainants, failed to actually deploy them and failed to
reimburse expenses incurred in connection with their documentation and processing for
purposes of their deployment.
4
The five information charged appellant and Josie with Estafa, alleging that in the City of
Manila, the said accused were conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud, in the following manner:
1) The said accused by means of false manifestations which they made to said to the effect
that they had the power and capacity to recruit the latter as a factory worker in Taiwan
could facilitate the processing of pertinent papers if given necessary amount to meet the
requirements thereof
2) And by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing (omitted) to
give and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused the amount of, 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 they did obtain
the amount of (omitted) which amount once in their possess, with intent to defraud, they
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied, and converted to
their own person use and benefit, to the damage of (omitted) in the amount of (omitted)
5
Appelant pleaded not guilty on arraignment, and her co-accused remained at large. The cases
were consolidated, and trial proceeded with respect only to the appellant. Of the five complaints,
only three testified, namely, Macaranas, Tan, and King, testifying as follows:

Macaranas’ Testimony:
6
After she was introduced in June 2002 by Josie to appellant as capacitated to deploy factory
workers to Taiwan, she paid appellant ₱80,000 placement fee and ₱3,750 as medical expenses
fee, a receipt for the first amount was issued by appellant.
7
She was thereafter informed by appellant that she could leave for Taiwan in the last week of
September 2002, which she did not, and after assurance that she’ll leave on the first or second
week of October, she did not.
8
The complainant asked for refund but the appellant claimed that she was not in possession but
promised to pay the same, she did not. In June 2003, the complainant learned that the appellant
was not a licensed recruiter, prompting the complaint.

Tan’s Testimony:
9
He was introduced by Josie to appellant at Golden Gate, an agency situated in Manila, he
underwent medical examination upon appellant’s assurance that he could work in Taiwan as a
factory worker with a guaranteed monthly salary of 15,800 in Taiwanese currency.
10
He paid the appellant in September 2002, ₱70,000 representing placement fees for which the
appellant issued a receipt. Appellant failed to deliver her promise, thus, Tan demanded for a
refund of his money, but appellant failed. Thereafter, he learned that Golden Gate was not
licensed to deploy workers to Taiwan, hence the complaint.

King’s Testimony:
11
His friend and fellow complainant Yu, introduced him to Josie, who introduced him to
appellant as a person who can deploy him to Taiwan.
12
On September 2002, King paid the appellant ₱20,000 representing partial payment for
placement fees amounting to ₱80,000, but when he inquired of his deployment, Golden Gate
was already closed. Learning thereafter that the license of Golden Gate had already expired,
prompting the complaint.

Appellant’s testimony:
13
Denying charges against her, the appellant claimed to be a temporary cashier from January to
October 2002 at the office of Golden Gate, owned by Marilyn Calueng, maintaining that Golden
Gate was a licensed recruitment Agency, and the Josie, her God Mother, was an agent.
14
The appellant, however, admitted to receiving the amount of ₱80,000 from the complainants
Macaranas and Tan, for which she issued receipts, denying however receiving any amount from
king. She claimed further that she turned the money over to the documentation officer, Arlene
Vega, who remitted the money to Calueng.
15The Court convicted appellant of Illegal recruitment (large scale) and three counts of Estafa.

CA’s ruling
16
On appeal with the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision holding that
the appellant’s defense that as a temporary cashier at Golden Gate, she received the money
ultimately remitted to Marilyn Calueng is immaterial, for failing to prove the existence of an
Em-Rel between her and Calueng, as well as the legitimacy of the operations of Golden Gate
and the extent of her involvement therein.
17
The Court explaining further that an employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment
may be held liable as principal together with his employer if it is shown that he actively and
consciously participated therein.
18
Additionally, the CA noted that a person convicted of illegal recruitment may be convicted of
Estafa penalized under Art. 315 (RPC) especially in the concurrence of the following elements:
a) The appellant deceived the complainants and assured them of employment in Taiwan
provided they pay the required placement fee
b) Relying on such representation, the complainant-victim paid to the appellant the amount
demanded
c) That her representation turned out to be false because she failed to deploy them as
promised
d) The complainants suffered damages when they failed to reimburse the amount paid.
ISSUES:
RULING:
19In its ruling the Court defined “recruitment and placement” as enunciated in Article 13(b)

(LC):
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refer 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 and placement.
20
On the other hand, the Court cited article 38 (a) (LC):
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. –
(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34
of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or
any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39
hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or
illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.
21
Thus, the Court explained that any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-license or
non-holder of contracts, or as the present case, an agency with an expired license, shall be
deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 (LC). Explaining further that, illegal recruitment
is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or
grouped.
22
Thus for illegal recruitment in a large scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove three
essential elements:
 1) Accused undertook a recruitment activity under art. 13(b) or any prohibited practice
under Art. 34 (LC)
2) Accused did not have license or authority to lawfully engaged in the recruitment and
placement of workers
3) Accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as
a group.
23
In the instant case, Golden Gate, which the appellant admitted being a cashier from, was
initially authorized to recruit workers for deployment abroad. Golden Gate’s license only
expired in February 2002 and delisted from the roster of licensed agencies in April 2002.
24
The Court found that the appellant was positively pointed to as one of the persons who enticed
the complainants to part with their money upon the fraudulent representation that they would be
able to secure for them employment abroad.
25
That, even if the appellant was a mere temporary cashier of Golden Gate, that did not make
her any less an employee to be held liable for illegal recruitment as principal by direct
participation, together with the employer, as it was shown that she actively and consciously
participated in the recruitment process.
26
The Court further explained that, even assuming that the appellant was unaware of the illegal
nature of the recruitment business of Golden Gate, that does not free her of liability either,
because:
1) Illegal recruitment: Malum prohibitum = intent is immaterial
2) Estafa: Malum in se = intent is imperative
The Court explaining that Estafa under Art. 315(2) (RPC) is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess’ power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, imaginary transactions, or by means of similar
deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied.

 PP v Domingo Panis
DOCTRINE:
➢ Article 13 (b) interpretation; establishes a presumption of recruitment and
placement
- Establishes a presumption that an individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and
placement whenever he or it, is:
a) Dealing with two or more persons
b) In consideration of a fee
c) An offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring of workers.”

➢ Number of persons dealt; not essential to recruitment and placement

- Any act mentioned in the basic Article 13(b) can constitute recruitment and
placement even if only one prospective worker is involved.
FACTS:
1Four (4) informations were filed on January 1981 alleging that Serapio Abug, the private

respondent, “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 willfully, and unlawfully, and
criminally operate a private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses
and promising employment in Saudi Arabia” to four separate individuals, in violation of Article
16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
2
Abud 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.
That under Article 13(b), he argues that there would be illegal recruitment only “whenever two
or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee.”
3
The motion was reconsidered and granted.
4
The petitioner argues that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation
with Article 16 (LC), 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 charge
embodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruit and placement in Article
13(b) is unavoidable.
5
The private respondent argues that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts
mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or more persons as an indispensable
requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that that the requirement of two or more
persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consist 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.
ISSUES:
RULING:
6The Court disagreed with both interpretations. The Court is of the view that the provision on

Article 13(b) was intended neither to:

1) Impose a condition on the basic rule
 2) 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.”
7
The Court elucidated further that the number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient
of the act of requirement and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule
in Article 13(b) can constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker
is involved.
8
That, the provision 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” created that presumption.
 YAP v THENAMARIS SHIPS MANAGEMENT
DOCTRINE:
➢ Section 10 (5), RA 8042; Unconstitutional
- In Serrano, the Court declared the clause “or for three months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less” as unconstitutional.
- That the clause or provision violates the right of OFWs to the equal protection of
laws.
- It is unconstitutional for imposing a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with
unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims
of other OFWs and local workers with fixed term employment.

➢ Tanker allowance; included in the computation of salary

- The tanker allowance was not categorize as a bonus but was rather encapsulated in
the basic salary clause.
FACTS:
1Petitioner Yap was employed as an electrician of the vessel M/T SeaScout in August 2001 by

Intermare Maritime Agencies, on behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping Limited. The contract
of employment entered into by Yap and the General Manager of intermare, was for a duration
of twelve months.
2
On August 2001, Yap boarded M/T SeaScout and commenced his job as electrician. However,
in November 2001, the vessel was sold. The POEA was informed about the sale in December
2001. The petitioner along with other crewmembers, was informed by the master of their vessel
that the same was sold and will be scrapped.
3
The petitioner and other crewmembers was also informed about the advisory sent by Capt.
Constantinou, which states:
“Please ask your officers and ratings if they wish to be transferred to other vessels after vessels
delivery (Greek via Athens-Philipinos via Manila) ... For crew not wish transfer to declare their
prospected time for re-embarkation in order to schedule them accly...”
4
The petitioner received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus, extra bonus along with the
scrapping bonus. However, with respect to the payment of his wage, he refused to accept
payment of one-month basic wage. Insisting that he was entitled to the payment of the unexpired
portion of his contract since he was illegally dismissed from employment. Alleging that he opted
for immediate transfer, but none was made.
5
On their part, respondents contend that Yap was not illegally dismissed. Alleging that following
the sale of the M/T SeaScout, Yap signed off from the vessel in November 2001 plus his
seniority bonus, vacation bonus, and extra bonus. Alleging further that Yap’s employment
contract was validly terminated due to the sale of the vessel and no arrangement was made for
Yap’s transfer to Thenamaris’ other vessels.
6
The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages and attorney’s fees before
the LA. Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to the salaries corresponding the unexpired
portion of his contract. Subsequently, he filed an amendment complaint, impleading Captain
Adviento of Intermare and Thenamaris Ship’s Management, Together with Martionos, Interseas
Trading and Financing Corporation, and Vulture Shipping Limited/Stejo Shipping Limited.

LA’s Ruling
7
The La rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, finding the latter to have been constructively
and illegally dismissed by respondents. The LA finding further that, respondents acted in bad
faith when they assured petitioner of re-embarkation and required him to produce an electrician
certificate during the period of his contract, but actually he was not able to board one despite of
respondents’ numerous vessels. Petitioner made several follow-ups for his re-embarkation, but
respondents failed to heed his plea.
8
Petitioner was forced to litigate in order to vindicate his rights. Lastly, the LA opined that since
the unexpired portion of petitioner’s contract was less than one year, petitioner was entitled to
his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract for a period of nine months. Declaring
complainant to have been constructively dismissed.

NLRC’s Ruling
9
On appeal with the NLRC, the commission affirmed the LA’s findings that petitioner was
indeed constructively and illegally dismissed. That, respondents’ bad faith was evident on their
willful failure to transfer petitioner to another vessel.
10
The NLRC held, however, that instead of an award of salaries corresponding to nine months,
petitioner was only entitled to salaries for three months. However, on appeal for reconsideration,
the commission affirmed the:
1) Illegal dismissal
2) Respondents’ failure to transfer the petitioner to another vessel
3) Entitlement of petitioner to his salary for the unexpired portion of employment contract.

CA’s ruling
11
The CA affirmed the findings and ruling of the LA and NLRC that petitioner was
constructively and illegally dismissed.
12
The CA found that in the employment contract concerned has a term of one year or 12 months
which commenced in August 2001. However, it was pre-terminated without a valid cause,
petitioner was paid his wages for the corresponding months he worked until November. That,
pursuant to RA 8042, the option of “three months for every year of the unexpired terms” is
applicable.
ISSUES:
WHETHER SECTION 10 OF RA 8042 TO THE EXTENT IT AFFORDS AN
ILLEGALY DISMISSED MIGRANT WORKER THE LESSER BENEFIT OF
“SALARIES FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT OR FOR THREE (3) MONTHS FOR EVERY YEAR OF THE
UNEXPIRED TERM, WHICHEVER IS LESS” – IS CONSTITUTIONAL
RULNG:
13During the subsistence of the case, the Court declared Section 10 of RA 8042 as

unconstitutional.
Petitioner’s argument
14
The petitioner claims that the assailed provision is unconstitutional for it gives an erring
employer the option to pay an illegally dismissed migrant worker for only three months for every
year of the unexpired term of his contract. That, such provision has long been a source of abuse
by callous employers against migrant workers.

Respondent’s argument
15
Respondent on the other hand contends that the tanker allowance should be excluded from the
definition of the term salary.

Court’s ruling
16
In its decision, the Court prefaced it emphasizing that the issue with regard to the illegal
dismissal committed against the petitioner was not disputed. That, the remaining issue in this
case is the constitutionality of Section 10 (5) of RA 8042.
17
The Court explained that it had declared in Serrano that the clause “or for three months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” in Section 10 (5) of RA 8042 is
unconstitutional for violating the right of OFWs to equal protection of the laws. As it imposes a
3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their
contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs and local workers with fixed term employment.
18
Following the pronouncement in Serrano, the Court holds that the instant case should not be
included in the exception of the operative fact doctrine, that it was not the fault of petitioner that
he lost his job due to illegal dismissal.
19
Similarly, the Court disagrees with the respondent’s position that the Tanker allowance should
not be included in the computation of the salary to be awarded to the petitioner, on the following
grounds:
1) It was only at this point that the respondents raised the issue.
2) Respondent’s invocation of Serrano is unavailing.
The Court notes that it made the following pronouncement in Serrano:
The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not include overtime and leave pay. For
seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department Order No. 33, series 1996, provides a Standard
Employment Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage, exclusive
of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work
"performed" in excess of the regular eight hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any work
"performed" on designated rest days and holidays
20
In the instant case however, the Court notes that the tanker allowance was not categorized as
a bonus but was rather encapsulated in the basic salary clause, hence, forming part of the basis
salary of petitioner. Noting further that, should the respondents intended it differently, they
should have indicated that the allowance does not form part of the basic salary, or simply
separated it from the basic salary clause.
 PP v Gallo
DOCTRINE:
➢ Elements of syndicated illegal recruitment:
a) The offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and
placement” defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 (LC)
b) He has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage
in recruitment and placement of workers
c) The illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group, it considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

➢ 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.

➢ Illegal recruitment; Committed with license

a) Section 6, under RA 8042 – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall
mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee
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.
It shall, likewise, include the following act, whether committed by any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than
that actually received by him as a loan or advance
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the
Department of Labor and Employment
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection
with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does
not actually take place without the worker’s fault. Illegal recruitment when
committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense
involving economic sabotage.

➢ Estafa (Art. 315 (2)(a), RPC)

- Swindling – any person who shall defraud another by any mean mentioned herein
below...
(2) by means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
 (a) by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; or by
means of other similar deceits.
- Elements of Estafa:
(1) The accused defrauded another
(a) By abuse of confidence
(b) By means of deceit
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
- Deceit – the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct,
by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed, which deceives or intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it,
to his legal injury.
FACTS:
1Accused-appellant Gallo and accused Pacardo and Manta, together with Martir and nine (9)

others were charged with syndicate illegal recruitment and eighteen (18) counts of estafa
committed against eighteen complainants. However, records show that the criminal cases which
was filed was only those against Accused-appellant Gallo and accused Pacardo and Manta for
syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa proceeded to trial while the rest of the accused remain
at large.
2
Accused Pacardo and Manta were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Likewise, accused-
appellant Gallo was similarly acquitted two criminal cases, but was found guilty on two others
for syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa.
3
The respondent and his co-defendants was charged with violation of Section 6(a), (l) and (m)
of RA 8042, committed by a syndicate and in large scale.
4
That between the period of November 2000 and December 2001, in the City of Manila, the said
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 in Korea as factory workers and charge or accept directly or indirectly from
petitioner’s several amounts, as placements fees in connection with their overseas employment
which amounts are in excess of or greater than those specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the POEA Resolution No. 2 Series of 1998, and without valid reasons and without
fault of the said complainants failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse the expenses
incurred by the said complainants in connection with their documentation and processing for
purposes of their deployment.
5
That in May 2001, in the City of Manila, the said accused conspiring and confederating together
and helping one another, did there and then willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud
petitioner, in the following manner:
1) The said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which
they made to the latter, prior to or even simultaneous with the commission of the fraud,
to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ said petitioner
 in Korea as a factory worker and could facilitate the processing of pertinent papers if
given necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof
2) Induced and succeeded in inducing said petitioner to give and deliver, as in fact, he gave
and delivered to the accused the amount of ₱45,000, which amount once in their
possession, with intent to defraud said petitioner, they willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously misappropriated, misapplied, and converted the said amount to their own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the petitioner, in the said
amount.
6
On arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty of all charges.

Prosecution’s version
7
On May 2001, Dela Caza (petitioner) was introduced by Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo,
Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Mendanes, Sin Ung and another Korean national at the office of
MPM agency.
8
The petitioner was informed that Mardeolyn was the President of MPM agency, while Martir
was one of the incorporators, and that several others were its board members. Mendanes acted
as the cashier and accountant, while Pacardo acted as the agency’s employee in charge of the
records of the applicants. Manta was an employee tasked to deliver documents to the Korean
embassy.
9
Accused-appellant Gallo introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn and informed petitioner
that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Together with Pacardo and Manta,
petitioner was told about the placement fee of ₱150,000 with a down payment of ₱45,000 and
the balanced paid through salary deduction.
10
The petitioner together with other applicants were briefed by Mardeolyn about the processing
of their application papers for job placement in Korea as a factory worker and their possible
salary. Accused, Yeo Sin Ung also gave a briefing about the business and what to expect from
the company and the salary.
11
With the accused-appellants assurance that many workers had been sent abroad, as well as the
presence of two Korean nationals and upon being shown the visas procured for the deployed
workers, the petitioner was convinced to part with his money. Thus, On May 2001, he paid
₱45,000 to MPM agency through accused-appellant Gallo while in the presence of Pacardo,
Manta, and MArdeolyn signed and issued an official receipt.
12
Two weeks after such payment, petitioner went back to the agency’s office only to discover
that the office had move to a new location. He proceeded to the new address and found that the
agency was renamed to New Filipino Manpower Development & Services (New Filipino). At
the new office, he talked to Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Mendanes, and accused-appellant
Gallo. Informing him that the transfer was done for easy accessibility to clients and for the
purpose of renaming the agency.
13
The petitioner decided to withdraw his application and recover the amount he paid but
Mardeolyn, Pacardo, Manta, and Mendanes talked him out of such decision. Whereas Gallo
denied knowledge of the payment.
14
Two months thereafter, the petitioner and other applicants decided to take action. The first
attempt was unsuccessful because the agency had again moved to another place, the agency
explained that it had to move in order to separate those applying as entertainers and factory
workers. Accused-Appellant Gallo, Pacardo, and Manta were then arrested.
15
A POEA employee testified of the existence of the following documents:
1) Certification to the effect that New Filipino was a licensed agency whose license expired
in December 2001 and was delisted from the roster of licensed agencies on the same
month and year.
2) Certifying that Pacardo was the agency’s recruitment officer.
3) Certification that MPM agency is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for
overseas employment
4) Certified copy of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 14-1999 regarding the placement
fee ceiling for landbased workers
5) Certified copy of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09-1998 on the placement fee
ceiling for Taiwan and Korean markets
6) Certified copy of POEA Governing Board Resolution No. 02-1998

Defense’s version
16
The accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of petitioner. Testifying that
he also applied with MPM agency for deployment to Korea as a factory worker. Claiming that
he gave his application directly to Mardeolyn because she was his town mate, and he was
allowed to pay only the amount of ₱10,000 for the processing fee.
17
He further claims that in order to facilitate the processing of his paper, he agreed to perform
some tasks for the agency, such as taking photographs of the visa and passport of applicants,
running errands, and performing such other tasks assigned to him, without salary except for
some allowance.
18
Lastly, claiming that he only saw the petitioner twice at the agency’s office when he applied
for work abroad, and that he was also promised deployment abroad, but it never materialized.

RTC Ruling:
19
The RTC rendered a decision convicting the accused of syndicated illegal recruitment and
estafa.

CA ruling:
20
The CA affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Holding that the totality of the prosecution’s evidence
showed that the accused-appellant, together with the others, engaged in the recruitment of
petitioner. His actions and representations to the petitioner can hardly be construed as the actions
of an errand boy.
ISSUES:
 WHETHER ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

WHETHER ACCUSED-APPELANT IS GUILTY OF ESTAFA

RULING:
21The accused-appellant argues that he cannot be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment

because he was neither an officer nor employee of the recruitment agency. Alleging that the trial
court erred in adopting the asseveration of the petitioner that he was indeed an employee because
such was not duly supported by competent evidence. According to him, even assuming that he
was an employee, such cannot warrant his outright conviction sans evidence that he acted in
conspiracy with other officers of the agency.
22
The Court in disagreement, explained that to commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three
elements must be established:
1) The offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and
placement” defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Art. 34 (LC)
2) He has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers
3) The illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another.
Illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in a large scale, if it is committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group, it considered an offense
involving economic sabotage.
23
Citing Article 13(b) (LC):
"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".
24
The Court found that the records show that the prosecution was able to establish the elements
of the offense, readily revealing that MPM Agency was never licensed by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment.
25
Proceeding that, even with a license, however, illegal recruitment could still be committed
under Section 6 of RA 8042 which reads:
Sec. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether
for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee 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. It shall, likewise, include the following act, whether committed by any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee, or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a
worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor
and Employment

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation
and processing for purposes of deployment and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases
where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault. Illegal recruitment
when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving
economic sabotage.
26
Finding that in the instant case, accused-appellant committed acts enumerated in Section 6,
RA 8042, on the following evidences:
1) Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that in consideration
of a promise of foreign employment
2) Accused-appellant received the amount of ₱45,000 from petitioner.
3) When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agency’s purported
power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process, collected
money in the guise of placement fees

Which is a clear commission of an act constituting illegal recruitment.

27
Additionally, the Court ruled that the accused-appellant cannot argue that the trial court erred
in finding that he was indeed an employee of the recruitment agency. That, his active
participation in the illegal recruitment is unmistakable, on the fact that he was the one who
issued and signed the official receipt of the crime of syndicated illegal recruitment.
28
The Court concluding that it cannot be denied that the accused-appellant together with the rest
of the officers and employees of MPM agency participated in a network of deception. That such
active involvement in the recruitment scam was directed at a single purpose, that is, to divest
petitioners with their money on the pretext of guaranteed employment abroad.

Estafa
29
The prosecution likewise established that the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of estafa
as defined under Article 315 (2)(a)(RPC)
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned
hereinbelow…

(2) By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar
deceits.
30
Simplyfying the court enumerated the elements of estafa in general as:
(1) The accused defrauded another
(a) By abuse of confidence
(b) By means of deceit
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party
or third person.
Defining deceit as the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by
false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed,
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.
31
The Court found that all the elements of Estafa are present in the instant case in that:
(1) the accused-appellant, together with other accused, deceived the complainants into
believing that the agency had the power and capability to send them abroad for
employment
(2) that there were available jobs for them in Korea as factory workers
(3) that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their
money in payment of the placement fees
(4) that after receiving the money, accused-appellant and his co-accused went into hiding
by changing their office locations without informing complainants
(5) complainants were never deployed

WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied.