Assigned Case: People vs Coral, 230 SCRA 499

Facts
 This case revolves around the crime of Illegal Recruitment allegedly committed by Elizabeth
Coral.
 According to the information, she allegedly transported five (5) Filipino workers for
employment abroad for a fee and without obtaining permit from the Department of Labor.
 According to Glenda, one of the victims, she was offered a job in Taiwan as a factory worker
was asked to give an advanced payment for processing of her visa and preparation of her
passport but no receipt was issued. After a couple of weeks, her visa was still unavailable
allegedly because of the strictness of Taiwanese embassy.
 When she returned, she was then offered to work in South Korea instead and asked an
additional advanced payment. She paid together with two of her co-complainants, Bella and
Jossie and they were then issued one receipt in Glenda’s name.
 Despite promise by accused, Glenda was never transported to Korea. When she met another
co-complainant Remedios who was from Korea at that time, she was convinced not to continue
her plans since she was told about how Remedios almost died in Korea. Glenda demanded
return of her money but accused-appellant refused – it was then that she went to POEA and
she found out that accused appellant had no authority to recruit workers for jobs abroad.
 As to Bella, she was offered a job as a factory worker in South Korea. She also met Remedios
and because of what she heard, she lost her trust with accused-appellant and then she also
found out that the former is actually not licensed.
 As to Remedios, she was offered a two-year job as a factory worker in South Korea but upon
her arrival there, she was instead made to work as a laundry woman for about three months
and then asked to return to the Philippines due to lack of working visa – in turned out that she
was only provided with 15-day re-entry permit and not a working visa. She was eventually kept
in a room by her Korean employer because she has no working visa. She was also detained by
Korean immigration officers before she was able to return to the Philippines.
 Meanwhile, accused-appellant merely denied the allegations and stated that she is not a
recruiter but an importer/exporter and an authorized travel agent.
Issue
 Is Coral liable for Illegal Recruitment?

Law Applicable / Legal Principle

 The law applicable is Article 38, Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines providing the elements the crime of Illegal recruitment and Presidential Decree No.
1412 amending certain provisions in the Labor Code.
 The crime of illegal recruitment has two element: (1) that the offender is a non-licensee or non-
holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2)
that the offender undertakes any of the recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code, as amended, or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the same
Code.
Case History
 One information for Illegal Recruitment and five for Estafa was filed against Coral for allegedly
holding out herself as one who is authorized to transport Filipino workers abroad for work to
the prejudice of the offended parties herein. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of
Illegal Recruitment and 4 counts of Estafa. The case was submitted to the Supreme Court by
automatic review of accused-appellant’s conviction.
Ruling
 Coral does not dispute that she is neither a licensee nor a holder of any authority to engage in
recruitment and placement activities and that the offended parties were not aware of her lack
of authority.
 Accused-appellant urged it was not she who “recruited” private complainants, but Nora
Rubias. But the Court rejected her defense. In the first place, even assuming she did not
directly recruit private complainants, it is abundantly clear from their testimonies that Rubias
led them to believe she was acting for, or at least with the tacit consent of accused-appellant.
This belief was buttressed when accused-appellant made no disclaimer to private
 complainants of Rubias’s authority when the latter accompanied them to accused-appellant’s
office in Manila. In the second place, even downgrading the participation of Rubias in the
recruitment scheme, private complainants proved that accused-appellant herself promised
them jobs in Taiwan and Korea.
 They paid various sums of money to accused-appellant to take care of
 the expenses for the processing of their passports and visas. It was even
 accused-appellant who accompanied Casiano to South Korea.
Opinion of the Student

1. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas vs Rey Salac (G.R. NO. 152642)

2. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas vs Hon. Jose G. Paneda (G.R. NO. 152710)
3. Republic of the Philippines vs PASEI (G.R. NO. 167590)

Facts
Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 that, for
among other purposes, sets the Government’s policies on overseas employment and establishes a higher standard of
protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.

For the first two cases, Sections 29 and 30 of the Act mandated the Department of Labor and Employment
(“DOLE”) to begin deregulating the business of handing the recruitment and migration of overseas Filipino workers and
phase out the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Salac, et al. sought
to: prohibit the DOLE, POEA, and TESDA from implementing the same and from further issuing rules and regulations that
would regulate the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs); and also enjoin them to comply
with the policy of deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and 30 of Republic Act 8042. Pursuan to the grant of such
request, the petitioners seek to annul such decision. As to the third case, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.
(PASEI) sought to annul Sections 6, 7, and 9 for being unconstitutional. All of which were granted by the RTC.

Issue
Whether or not the respective sections of RA 8042 are unconstitutional.

Law Applicable / Legal Principle

The Legal principle applicable is the Police Power of the State as granted by the Constitution

Case History
Salac et al. filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for temporary restraining
order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against the DOLE Secretary, POEA Administrator, and the Technical Education
and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) Secretary General before the RTC of QC. The trial court granted Salac, et al.’s
petition and ordered the government agencies mentioned to deregulate the recruitment and placement of OFWs. The
RTC also annulled DOLE
DO 10, POEA MC 15, and all other orders, circulars and issuances that are inconsistent with the policy of deregulation
under R.A. 8042. Because of which, the petitioners now file the present petition to annul the decision of the RTC. The
Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining the RTC from enforcing the decision.

Meanwhile, respondent Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) filed a petition for declaratory
relief and prohibition with prayer for issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Manila,
seeking to annul Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042 for being unconstitutional. The RTC of Manila declared Section 6
unconstitutional after hearing on the ground that its definition of “illegal recruitment” is vague as it fails to distinguish
between licensed and non-licensed recruiters and for that reason gives undue advantage to the non-licensed recruiters.
It also declared Section 7 unconstitutional on the ground that its sweeping application of the penalties failed to make
any distinction as to the seriousness of the act committed for the application of the penalty imposed on such violation. It
also invalidated Section 9 of R.A. 8042 on the ground that allowing the offended parties to file the criminal case in their
place of residence would negate the general rule on venue of criminal cases which is the place where the crime or any of
its essential elements were committed.

Ruling by the SC

No, the sections disputed were held to be constitutional. The Supreme Court found that the “illegal recruitment”
as defined in Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and, contrary to the RTC’s finding, actually makes a distinction between
licensed and non-licensed recruiters.

R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of OFWs. It aims to
curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. The Court held
that it cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the
absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, the Court must uphold its validity. in G.R.
152642 and 152710, the Court dismissed the petitions for having become moot and academic. In G.R. 167590, the Court
set aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and declared Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Republic Act 8042 valid
and constitutional.

Opinion of the Student

I agree with the Supreme Court in upholding the constitutionality of the Migrant Workers Act. The petitioners
should not just baselessly challenge the constitutionality of such law just because it would impose heavier burden upon
them in taking care of the country’s migrant workers. The sad reality is that even such government agencies who should
have appreciated such law were the ones who were first to challenge it – an additional mandate which is in pursuance to
the reason of the creation of such agencies.