A Mere Employee; Not the Owner

2016 January 20

To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur:

  • The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment placement of workers;
  • The offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under the Labor Code of the Philippines, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995; and
  • The offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

The Labor Code of the Philippines1Under Article 13 (b) defines “recruitment and placement” as

“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.”

It also provides that

“any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.”

The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,2Under Section 6 in turn, provides:

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 acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

x x x

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. (Emphases supplied.)

The accused in this case contended that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the first element of illegal recruitment in large scale, i.e., she undertook a recruitment activity as contemplated under the law. She pointed out that:

  • She was incapable of deploying workers to Istanbul, Turkey, for she only worked as a cashier at the agency. She issued vouchers for payments made by its clients and subsequently turned over such payments to the true owner of the agency;
  • She did not entice the private complainants to apply for work overseas. The private complainants themselves testified that they learned about the job opportunities abroad from the travel agency’s employees. The accused posits that these persons were so persuasive that private complainants traveled from their respective provinces to Manila just to meet her;
  • If it were true that she received money from private complainants, she would have already fled after getting private complainants’ money so as to evade arrest; and
  • The prosecution presented a mere photocopy of the handwritten agreement that she supposedly executed. Considering that the contents of such agreement are in issue in this case, the Court wrongfully accorded much weight to such evidence.

The Supreme Court did not agree.

First, the accused’s allegations lacked corroborative evidence. The accused failed to present her appointment papers, identification card, payslips or other pieces of evidence to establish her employment. Record shows that the vouchers for the placement fees paid by private complainants were issued and signed by the accused herself, without any indication that she issued and signed the same on behalf of the purported true owner of RBC. The accused was even unable to substantiate the claim that the said owner received the amounts paid by the private complainants.

Second, there was no showing that agency was licensed as a recruitment agency. On the other hand, record revealed that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration issued a certification on May 17, 2005 stating that the accused, in her personal capacity, and the agency were not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Third, record established that the accused had engaged in recruitment activities. Employees of the agency brought private complainants to the former’s office and introduced them to the accused. It was the accused herself who offered and promised private complainants jobs in Istanbul, Turkey, in consideration of placement fees.

Finally, the non-presentation of the original copy of the handwritten agreement was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. A private complainant personally testified before the Regional Trial Court as to the circumstances of her recruitment by the accused, who made verbal, and not only written, promises to the said complainant of employment abroad. According to the Court, the handwritten agreement merely substantiated the private complainant’s testimony at best.

Further reading:

  • People v. Abella y Buhain, G.R. No. 195666, January 20, 2016.