Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Santos
A, B, C, D
Complainants,
NLRC RAB NCR
- Versus - CASE NO. NCR-
Jose
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------x
1. Jose is applying for employment abroad. He learned that Mario is a very close
relative of Eric Tamayo, the president of Tamayo Placement, Inc., one of the biggest
placement companies in the Philippines sending seafarers abroad.
2. Jose approached Mario and requested that an introductory letter be issued to him
addressed to Eric Tamayo.
3. On his way to Tamayo Placement Corp., Jose passed by four other neighbours,
namely, A, B, C, D whom he also knew were seafarers also applying for employment
abroad.
4. Jose bragged that he was given an introductory letter by Mario to Eric, and invited the
four to join him in applying to said company.
5. Tamayo accepted the application papers of Jose, A, B, C, D, took their passports and
other documents and charged them Php50,000.00 each as placement fee.
6. Eight months later, Jose and the four others are still unemployed and Tamayo is
nowhere to be found.
John Dominic T. Buhangin Labor Law Review I Prof. G. Santos
II. Arguments
III. Discussion
9. Jose is liable for illegal recruitment as defined in Labor Code Article 38, which states
the following:
b. Article 13 (b) of the same Code 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:
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.
10. In this case, Joses act of inviting A, B, C, D to apply to Eric Tamayos placement
agency constitutes referral. According to Rodofo v. People, G. R. No. 146964, August
10, 2006, act of referral means:
11. Jose is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority to deploy workers abroad. Even if
Tamayo Placement Corp., carried a valid license, there was no evidence that the
recruitment agency authorized Jose to act as its agent. Joses not being a licensee or
holder of authority to deploy workers abroad makes him liable for the second
element. This was explained in the case of People v. Martinez, G. R. No. 158627,
March 5, 2010:
a. The fact alone that Marina (Martinez) was not a licensee or holder of authority
to deploy workers abroad, she is already deemed to have engaged in illegal
recruitment. The fact that JH Imperial was a holder of a valid license to deploy
workers abroad did not benefit Marina since there was no evidence at all that
said recruitment agency authorized her to act as its agent.
Notary Public
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017.
John Dominic T. Buhangin Labor Law Review I Prof. G. Santos
Copy Furnished: