Labor Law – Recruitment and Placement

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10022

AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF
1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT
WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

RULE II
DEFINITION OF TERMS
(b) Authority - refers to a document issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment authorizing the officers, personnel, agents or
representatives of a licensed recruitment/manning agency to conduct recruitment and placement activities in a place stated in the
license or in a specified place.
w) License - refers to the document issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment authorizing a person, partnership or
corporation to operate a private recruitment/manning agency.
Elements
In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur:
(1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article l 3(b) of the Labor
Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042)
and
(2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers.
In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, as in this case, a third element is required: that the offender commits any of the
acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
Illegal Recruitment vs Estafa

It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The
reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. 52
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as
to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended
party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d)
that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 53

G.R. No. 91552-55 March 10, 1994

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FERNANDO MANUNGAS, JR. y GO @ "PERCY", accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Rolando Gamalinda for accused-appellant.

NOCON, J.:
This is an appeal by accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. alias "Percy" from the decision 1 dated October 31, 1989 of the
Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasisnan, Branch 38 in Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994,
L-3996 and L-4000 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of ESTAFA and ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
In the light of what has been stated and discussed above, the court finds and holds the accused Fernando
Manungas y Go alias "Percy" guilty beyond peradventure of doubt of the crimes filed against him and conformable
thereto, hereby pronounces judgment as follows:
In Criminal Case No. L-3993, the court declares accused, Fernando Manungas y Go alias "Percy" guilty of estafa for
the sum of P16,800.00 as alleged in the information filed against him and there being no aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in his favor, said accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer the prison term from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten years (10) days as minimum to
 Labor Law – Recruitment and Placement
five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum and to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
The court further orders the accused to reimburse the offended party, Wilfrey Mabalot, the sum of sixteen
thousand eight hundred (P16,800.00) pesos which is the amount of money paid and delivered to him by said
complaining witness without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. L-3994, the court likewise declares the accused, Fernando Manungas y Go alias "Percy" guilty
of estafa for the sum of P17,550.00 as charged in the information. And there being no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance present, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in his favor, the accused is hereby sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate prison term from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days as minimum to
five (5) years, five (5) months and (11) days of prision correccional as maximum and to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
The court further directs the accused to reimburse the offended party, Danilo Ramirez the sum of seventeen
thousand five hundred fifty (P17,550.00) pesos which the accused took from the complaint without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. L-3996, the court also declares the accused, Fernando Manungas y Go alias "Percy" guilty of
estafa for eighteen thousand six hundred (P18,600.00) pesos as charged in the information filed against him. There
being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance present, and applying the Indeterminate Law in his favor, said
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term from two (2) years, eleven months (11)
months and ten (10) days asminimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional as maximum and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The court also directs the accused to reimburse the offended party the sum of eighteen thousand six hundred
(P18,600.00) pesos which is the amount paid and delivered by the offended party to him without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. L-4000, the court likewise holds the accused, Fernando Manungas y Go alias "Precy" guilty of
the crime of Illegal Recruitment on Large Scale as charged in the information filed against him, defined and
penalized under the provisions of Article 39, par. (a) of Presidential Decree No. 2018 amending Articles 38 and 39
of P.D. No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, and conformable thereto, hereby sentences
the said accused to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand
(P100,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency pursuant to law.
The accused shall serve the penalties herein imposed against him successively or one after the other according to
their severity.2
Based on the evidence adduced before the trial court, the facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime in April of 1987, accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan where he
stayed in the house of Arturo and Lilia de Vera to recruit workers for employment abroad. During his stay, accused-appellant was
able to convince complainants Wilfrey Mabalot, Danilo Ramirez, Leonardo Estanoco and Crisanto Collado to apply as janitors in
Saudi Arabia. He told them to bring all the necessary documents for the processing of their applications to his office in Manila.
On April 29, 1987, complainants went to accused-appellant's office located at Room 611, L and S Bldg., 1414 Roxas Blvd., Ermita,
Manila and paid accused-appellant P250.00 each for their medical examination. Thereafter, accused-appellant required the
complainants to pay, on various occasions, placement fees and other expenses incurred in the processing of their papers and issued
corresponding receipts for said amounts. The total amount paid by the complainants to accused-appellant are the following: Wilfrey
Mabalot — P16,800.00; Danilo Ramirez — P17,550.00, Leonardo Estanoco — 18,600.00, and Crisanto Collado — 13,300.00
When complainants failed to leave for Saudi Arabia, they requested Luis "Jing" Ramirez, to verify with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) whether accused-appellant was licensed to recruit workers for abroad. They subsequently
learned that he was not as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. 3
Thereafter, complaints filed against accused-appellant complaints for Estafa defined under par. 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale. In due course, informations fro three (3) counts of Estafa (Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993,
L-3994 and L-3996) and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale (Criminal Case No. L-4000) were filed against accused-appellant before
the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
On the other hand, accused-appellant maintained that he was the operations manager of the ZG Recruitment and Placement
Agency, a duly licensed recruitment agency. Sometime in April 1987, he went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan and recruited
complainants to work in Saudi Arabia as janitors. Unfortunately, the job order for the janitorial services was awarded to Express
Placement Agency instead of ZG Recruitment and Placement agency. Thereafter, accused-appellant transferred complainants'
application for overseas employment to Nora Cunanan of Express Placement Agency. Accused-appellant also turned over the fees
paid by the complainants to Nora Cunanan as evidenced by the receipts 4 issued by the latter. When Nora Cunanan absconded with
the money of the complainants, accused-appellant filed an estafa case against Nora Cunanan after securing a Special Power of
 Labor Law – Recruitment and Placement
Attorney from the complainants to prosecute and collect their money. However, he was not able to attend the hearing as he was
arrested in connection with the these cases.
Accused-appellant maintains that he did not make false representations to the complainants when he requited the latter for
employment abroad as he had told complainants that he is only an employee of a licensed recruitment agency in Manila. He further
claims that he was not motivated by any deceitful intentions and had not caused any damage to the complainants because the
amounts of money given to him by the latter were actually spent for their medical tests and other documents necessary for their
overseas employment.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor 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.
In the instant case, accused-appellant told complainants to submit to him their pictures, birth certificates, NBI clearances and the
necessary documents for the processing of their employment in Saudi Arabia. Thereafter, accused-appellant collected from each of
the complainants payment for the their respective passport, training fee, placement fee, medical tests and other sundry expenses
which unquestionably constitutes acts of recruitment within the meaning of the law. Besides, there is illegal recruitment when one
gives the impression of his ability to send a worker abroad 5 and there is evidence that accused-appellant had represented to the
complainants that he could send them abroad as janitors in Saudi Arabia. And because of his representation, complainants gave
their hard-earned money to accused-appellant in consideration of the same representation. As pointed out by the Solicitor General
in his brief:
It may be that at the time appellant recruited private complainants, he was then the operations manager of the
ZGR Placement Agency, a duly licensed recruitment agency. But, as amply established by the evidence, the
recruitment of private complainants was appellant's own personal undertaking. He did not do it for the agency.
This is clearly shown by the sequence of events that led to the consum[m]ation of the transaction in question.
Thus: it was appellant who talked private complainants into applying for employment abroad; when private
complainants signified their interest, he alone was the one who informed them of the documents that they have to
secure; he too was the one who demanded and received from them the fees for medical examination, passport,
authentication, training, placement and psycho and AIDS test; also, he was the one who assured them of
employment abroad and of the return of their money in the event of their non-deployment; moreover, it was he
who undertook to inform private complainants of their departure.
But that is not all. When private complainants failed to receive notice of their departure as promised them by
appellant, they had somebody verify with the POEA if appellant was a licensed recruiter. This circumstance shows
all the more that indeed appellant represented himself to be the recruiter, otherwise it would have been the
status of the agency with which he allegedly worked for, that private complainants would have requested to be
verified.6
As to accused-appellant's claim that he did not misappropriate the money given to him by the complainants as he had turned over
the latters' placement fees to Nora Cunanan, who subsequently absconded with the complainant's money, the trial court correctly
held that:
The version of the defense has the nature of a cock and bull story which is difficult and hard to accept. It is
something that is fantastic and ridiculous. It is within the realm of fiction and patently a mere fabrication to
exculpate the accused from the consequences of his nefarious and deceitful activities. If it is really true that the
complainants were transferred and accommodated by the agency of Nora Cunanan, why did not the accused and
Mrs. Lydia Zamora who appear to be both intelligent take the necessary prudence and caution of putting the
supposed agreement to transfer in writing considering the amounts of funds involved in the alleged transfer. Logic
and common sense dictate that under such a situation, the accused and Mrs. Zamora take ordinary care of their
concerns. To impress the court that there was really a transfer made, the accused claimed that there was a estafa
case filed against Mrs. Cunanan before the City Fiscal's Office in Manila. It is however surprising why Atty. Jose
Torrefranca who was engaged by the accused to file the estafa case did not present any letter-complaint or any
charged sheet filed against Mrs. Cunanan. He did not even mention the Fiscal who investigated the case. More
intriguing is the fact that counsel does not know what happened to the alleged case of estafa after he filed the
same. Likewise, when Mrs. Lydia Zamora declared, she claimed that the case filed against Nora Cunanan was
before the Regional Trial Court and not in the City Fiscal's Office.
Defense also made capital of the special power of atty. executed by the complainants (exhibit 4) and their letters
sent to the accused (exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8) to convince the court that the real culprit in the whole mess in Nora
Cunanan. The complainants made convincing explanation why they signed the special power of attorney. Wilfrey
Mabalot declared that when the accused asked him to sign the document, he was told that its purpose is to
 Labor Law – Recruitment and Placement
facilitate their departure and when he signed the letter exhibit "6" he was just told to sign by the accused and
because the latter was in [a] hurry, he signed without knowing its contents. He likewise explained that being a
mere high school graduate he was not able to understand the imports of its contents. Danilo Ramirez explained
that when he signed the special power of attorney, he did not read the contents because the accused was in [a]
hurry in returning to Manila and that he sent the three letters to the accused while he was confined in jail because
Manungas asked him to help him (accused) recover the money given to Mrs. Cunanan. Leonardo Estanoco
declared, that he signed exhibit "4" because the accused told him that the document will be used to facilitate the
processing of their papers. He did not understand its contents because he only understands little English. 7
Thus accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. Under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, the
crime of illegal recruitment is qualified when the same is committed against three (3) or more persons.
A person who violates any of the provisions under Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code can be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment and estafa [Revised Penal Code, Article 315, 2(a)] because illegal recruitment is a malum
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for a conviction while estafa is a malum in se where criminal
intent of the accused is necessary for a conviction.
WHEREFORE, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment in a large scale, decision of the trial
court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Puno, JJ., concur.

LIABILITIES

e liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and
several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its
approval. The performance bond to de filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all
money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the
corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
"Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any
substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country of the said contract.
"Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on money claims inclusive of damages under this section shall be
paid within thirty (30) days from approval of the settlement by the appropriate authority.
Pre-termination of contract
"In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any
unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if his placement
fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
DIRECT HIRING
Suspension or cancellation of license
Article 35. Suspension and/or cancellation of license or authority. The Minister of Labor shall have the power to suspend or cancel
any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment for violation of rules and regulations issued by the Ministry
of Labor, the Overseas Employment Development Board, or for violation of the provisions of this and other applicable laws, General
Orders and Letters of Instructions.

Art. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power.

a. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives, including labor regulation officers, shall
have access to employer’s records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein,
and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be
necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or
rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
 Labor Law – Recruitment and Placement
b. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of
employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have
the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor
legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the
course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate
authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor
employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the
course of inspection. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994).

An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this Article may be
appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from. (As amended by Republic
Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994)

c. The Secretary of Labor and Employment may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or
department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulations poses grave and
imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. Within twenty-four hours, a hearing shall be
conducted to determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be lifted or not. In
case the violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages
during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension of operation.

d. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority granted under
this Article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order or otherwise
assume jurisdiction over any case involving the enforcement orders issued in accordance with this Article.

e. Any government employee found guilty of violation of, or abuse of authority, under this Article shall, after appropriate
administrative investigation, be subject to summary dismissal from the service.

f. The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, require employers to keep and maintain such
employment records as may be necessary in aid of his visitorial and enforcement powers under this Code.

ART. 22. Mandatory remittance of foreign exchange earnings. - It shall be mandatory for all Filipino workers 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 the Secretary of Labor.