People vs Saulo G.R. No.

125903 Case Digest November 15, 2000

FACTS:
Accused-appellant, together with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were
charged with violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code 1[1] illegal recruitment in large scale and
the accused were also charged with three counts of estafa.
During a meeting sometime in April or May, 1990, ROMULO SAULO told BENNY MALIGAYA
that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she gave him the fees for the
processing of her documents. Sometime in May, 1990, Maligaya also met with AMELIA DE LA
CRUZ and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ at their house in Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her
that they were authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to
recruit workers for Taiwan. Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz the amount of
P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a receipt signed by accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz.
Seeing that he had reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a complaint
against accused-appellant with the POEA.
Meanwhile, ANGELES JAVIER was told by Ligaya, accused-appellants wife, to apply for
work abroad through accused-appellant. At a meeting in accused-appellants Quezon City
residence, Javier was told by accused-appellant that he could get her a job in Taiwan as a factory
worker and that she should give him P35,000.00 for purposes of preparing Javiers passport.
Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-appellant, but she did not ask for a
receipt as she trusted him. As the overseas employment never materialized, Javier was prompted
to bring the matter before the POEA.
On April 19, 1990, LEODIGARIO MAULLON, upon the invitation of his neighbor Araceli
Sanchez, went to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for gaining
employment abroad. As in the case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-appellant assured Maullon
that he could secure him a job as a factory worker in Taiwan if he pays him for the processing of
his papers. Maullon pay to accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt. Thereafter, Maullon
paid an additional amount in the presence of accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz, which
payment is also evidenced by a receipt. Finally, Maullon pay to a certain Loreta Tumalig, a friend
of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt. Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver on the
promised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint with the POEA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not ROMULO SAULO is guilty of the act of Illegal Recruitment and estafa.
HELD:
Yes. The Court finds that the trial court was justified in holding that accused-appellant was
engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement activities. The prosecution clearly established
that accused-appellant promised the three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier and
Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan as factory workers and that he asked them for money
in order to process their papers and procure their passports. It is not disputed that accusedappellant is not authorized nor licensedby the Department of Labor and Employment to engage
in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or authority
renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal.
It is also well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for
both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum
1[1]

Art. 38. Illegal recruitment. x x x (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. Labor Code.

prohibitum, whereas estafa is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction in the former, but is required in the latter.
WHEREFORE, Decision of the Trial Court is AFFIRMED subject to MODIFICATIONS.
Executive Secretary vs. The Court of Appeals
[GR 131719, 25 May 2004]
Second Division, Callejo Sr. (J): 3 concur, 1 on official leave
Facts:
Republic Act 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,
took effect on 15 July 1995. The Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 was, thereafter, published in the 7 April 1996 issue of
the Manila Bulletin. However, even before the law took effect, the Asian Recruitment Council
Philippine Chapter, Inc. (ARCO-Phil.) filed, on 17 July 1995, a petition for declaratory relief under
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to declare as
unconstitutional Section 2, paragraph (g), Section 6, paragraphs (a) to (j), (l) and (m), Section 7,
paragraphs (a) and (b), and Sections 9 and 10 of the law, with a plea for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining The Executive
Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, OWWA Administrator, and POEA Administrator from enforcing the assailed
provisions of the law. In a supplement to its petition, the ARCO-Phil. alleged that RA 8042 was
self-executory and that no implementing rules were needed. It prayed that the court issue a
temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of Section 6, paragraphs (a) to (m) on
illegal recruitment, Section 7 on penalties for illegal recruitment, and Section 9 on venue of
criminal actions for illegal recruitments. On 1 August 1995, the trial court issued a temporary
restraining order effective for a period of only 20 days therefrom. After the Executive Secretary,
et al. filed their comment on the petition, the ARCO-Phil. filed an amended petition, the
amendments consisting in the inclusion in the caption thereof 11 other corporations which it
alleged were its members and which it represented in the suit, and a plea for a temporary
restraining order enjoining the Executive Secretary, et al. from enforcing Section 6 subsection (i),
Section 6 subsection (k) and paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof, Section 8, Section 10, paragraphs 1
and 2, and Sections 11 and 40 of RA 8042. Arco-Phil averred that the provisions of RA 8042
violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution (i.e. discrimination against unskilled workers,
discrimination against licensed and registered recruiters, among others) In their answer to the
petition, the Executive Secretary, et al. alleged, inter alia, that (a) Acro-Phil has no cause of
action for a declaratory relief; (b) the petition was premature as the rules implementing RA 8042
not having been released as yet; (c) the assailed provisions do not violate any provisions of the
Constitution; and, (d) the law was approved by Congress in the exercise of the police power of
the State. After the respective counsels of the parties were heard on oral arguments, the trial
court issued on 21 August 1995, an order granting Acro-Phils plea for a writ of preliminary
injunction upon a bond of P50,000. Acro-Phil posted the requisite bond and on 24 August 1995,
the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Section 2,
subsections (g) and (i, 2nd par.); Section 6, subsections (a) to (m), and pars. 15 & 16; Section 7,
subsections (a) & (b); Section 8; Section 9; Section 10; pars. 1 & 2; Section 11; and Section 40 of
RA 8042, pending the termination of the proceedings. The Executive Secretary, et al. filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the order and the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the trial court. They asserted that Acro-Phil is not the real party-in-interest as
petitioner in the trial court, as it was inconceivable how a non-stock and non-profit corporation,

could sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the law. They argued that if, at all,
any damage would result in the implementation of the law, it is the licensed and registered
recruitment agencies and/or the unskilled Filipino migrant workers discriminated against who
would sustain the said injury or damage, not Acro-Phil. On 5 December 1997, the appellate court
came out with a four-page decision dismissing the petition and affirming the assailed order and
writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. The appellate court, likewise, denied the
Executive Secretary, et al.s motion for reconsideration of the said decision. They thus filed a
petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether ACRO-Phil has locus standi.
Held: PARTLY YES. ACRO-Phil has locus standi to file the petition in the RTC in representation of
the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies impleaded in the amended petition. The
modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view
fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to
file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action.
An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents. In Telecommunications
and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, the Court held that
standing jus tertii would be recognized only if it can be shown that the party suing has some
substantial relation to the third party, or that the right of the third party would be diluted unless
the party in court is allowed to espouse the third partys constitutional claims. Herein, ACRO-Phil
filed the petition for declaratory relief under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court for and in behalf of its
11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies which are its members, and which approved
separate resolutions expressly authorizing ACRO-Phil to file the said suit for and in their behalf.
The Court note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, ACRO-Phil was organized for the purposes
inter alia of promoting and supporting the growth and development of the manpower recruitment
industry, both in the local and international levels; providing, creating and exploring employment
opportunities for the exclusive benefit of its general membership; enhancing and promoting the
general welfare and protection of Filipino workers; and, to act as the representative of any
individual, company, entity or association on matters related to the manpower recruitment
industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplish the purposes
embodied therein. ACRO-Phil is, thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its members,
because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. ACRO-Phil asserts that the
assailed provisions violate the constitutional rights of its members and the officers and
employees thereof. ACRO-Phil is but the medium through which its individual members seek to
make more effective the expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances. However,
ACROPHIL has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of unskilled workers. The Court
notes that it even failed to implead any unskilled workers in its petition. Furthermore, in failing to
implead, as parties-petitioners, the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies it claimed to
represent, ACRO-Phil failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
Nevertheless, since the eleven licensed and registered recruitment agencies for which ACRO-Phil
filed the suit are specifically named in the petition, the amended petition is deemed amended to
avoid multiplicity of suits.

G.R. No. 187730 People vs. Gallo

June 29, 2010
FACTS:
Accused-appellant made false misrepresentations and promises in assuring Dela Caza and
the other victims that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in Korea as factory workers were
waiting for them and that they would be deployed soon. In fact, Dela Caza personally talked to
accused-appellant and gave him the money and saw him sign and issue an official receipt as
proof
of his payment
ISSUE:
Whether Gallo and others are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa.
LAWS INVOLVED:
Articless 13 (b) and 34 of the Labor Code.
RULING:
In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042.
Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a
promise
of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela
Caza.
When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agencys purported power and
authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of
placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.

In this case, it cannot be denied that the accused-appellent together with Mardeolyn and the
rest of the officers and employees of MPM Agency participated in a network of deception. Verily,
the active involvement of each in the recruitment scam was directed at one single purpose to
divest complainants with their money on the pretext of guaranteed employment abroad. The
prosecution evidence shows that
complainants were briefed by Mardeolyn about the processing of their papers for a possible job
opportunity in Korea, as well as their possible salary. Likewise, Yeo Sin Ung, a Korean national,
gave a briefing about the business and what to expect from the company. Then, here comes
accused-appellant who introduced himself as Mardeolyns relative and specifically told Dela Caza
of the fact that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Dela Caza was even showed
several workers visas who were already allegedly deployed abroad. Later on, accused-appellant
signed and issued an official receipt acknowledging the down payment of Dela Caza. Without a
doubt, the nature and extent of the actions of accused-appellant, as well as with the other
persons in
MPM Agency clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking. Hence, conspiracy is
evidently present.