1
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 178337 June 25, 2009
CARMEN RITUALO y RAMOS, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 23
April 2007 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 29393 entitled, "People of the Philippines v.
Carmen Ritualo y Ramos," affirming with modification, the Decision2 dated
1 December 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 199, Las Piñas
City, in Criminal Cases No. 01-0076 and No. 01-0077.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court, petitioner Carmen Ritualo yRamos (petitioner Ritualo) prays
for the reversal of the appellate court’s decision affirming with
modification the decision of the trial court finding her "guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of [committing] the crimes of x x x Simple Illegal
Recruitment [defined and punished] under Section 7 of Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the ‘Migrant Workers Act of 1995,’" 3 and
"Estafa."4
This case originated from two Informations, both dated 2 January 2001,
which charged Ritualo with the crimes of Illegal Recruitment defined and
penalized by Republic Act No. 8042; and Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a)
of the Revised Penal Code, respectively. The accusatory portion of the
first Information reads as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of May, 2000, in the City of Las Piñas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, falsely representing herself to have the capacity and
power to contract, enlist and recruit workers for employment abroad, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously collect for a fee,
recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to Felix Biacora
without first securing the required license or authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment.5
The one for Estafa states, viz:
That during the periods (sic) from May 1, 2000 to June 1, 2000, in the
City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, with intent of gain, by means of false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud the Complainant Felix Biacora amounting to
₱80,000.00 committed in the following manner to wit: that the Accused
represented to the Complainant that she was authorized or licensed by
the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas
employment and that she could send Complainant to work abroad
(Australia) as farm worker as soon as possible, knowing very well that such
representation is false and was intended only to get money from the
Complainant and the Complainant after relying from the said
representations made by the accused, handed to the accused the said
amount and the accused, once in possession of the money, misappropriated,
misapplied and converted the same for her personal use and benefit, and
not withstanding repeated demands failed and refused to pay the said
amount of ₱80,000.00 to the damage and prejudice of the Complainant in
the aforementioned amount of ₱80,000.00.6
The foregoing were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 01-0076 and No. 0077
and raffled to Branch 275 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas
City.
Upon arraignment on 24 May 2001, petitioner Ritualo, duly assisted by
counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the crimes charged.7
On 26 May 2003, during the joint trial of the cases, petitioner Ritualo
orally manifested in open court that earnest efforts were being
undertaken to settle the civil aspect thereof. Thus, with the conformity
of the accused, herein petitioner Ritualo, coupled with the latter’s express
waiver apropos the attachment of double jeopardy, the RTC ordered 8 the
provisional dismissal of the two cases.
On 13 October 2003, however, the RTC ordered9 the revival of the cases
upon the motion of the prosecution, on the ground that Ritualo reneged on
her undertaking as embodied in a handwritten note entitled, "Kasunduan"
viz:
May 26, 2003
Kasunduan
Ako si Carmen Ritualo, ay sa araw na ito May 26, 2003, nagbabayad kay
Felix Biacora ng halagang Sampung–libong Piso (₱10,000.00) at ang natirang
Twenty One Thousand Pesos ay babayaran ko sa loob ng Tatlong Buwan
magmula ngayon.
(Sgd.)
Carmen Ritualo
Akusado
Sumang-ayon:
(Sgd.)
Felix Biacora
Complainant10
In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, namely,
Felix Biacora, the victim;11 and Belen Blones, employee of the Licensing
Branch of the Philippines Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). Taken
altogether, the evidence of the prosecution established the following
facts:
In 1993, Felix Biacora went to Saudi Arabia for overseas employment that
was facilitated by one Cynthia Libutan (Libutan) who worked for a
recruitment agency.12 Several years after his return to the country,
Biacora accidentally met Libutan in Baclaran Church sometime in 2000.
After they exchanged pleasantries, the former signified to the latter his
desire to seek another overseas employment. Libutan then gave Biacora
the name, address and contact number of her friend, one Carmen Ritualo,
the petitioner herein, who was able to help Libutan’s sister find work in
Australia. Biacora thereafter called petitioner Ritualo to set up a meeting.
On 1 May 2000, accompanied by his wife, Biacora went to the house of
petitioner Ritualo and inquired from her whether she could help him
secure overseas employment in Australia. Petitioner Ritualo answered in
the affirmative, and to be convincing, brought out travel documents of
several people she was able to "help," who were then supposedly scheduled
to leave for abroad pretty soon.13 Biacora was then assured that:
[He could] leave for Australia [in a month’s time] if [he] will give
[petitioner Ritualo] a total amount of ₱160,000.00, and [his] salary would
be US$700.00 per month as a farm worker.14
On the above-quoted representation on the same date, Biacora paid
petitioner Ritualo the amount of ₱40,000.00 as downpayment, with the
balance to be completed before he left for Australia. Upon receipt of the
money, petitioner Ritualo issued Biacora a Cash Voucher15 as evidence of
said payment. To complete their transaction, Biacora left her a copy of his
Bio-data.16
On 4 May 2000, Biacora again gave petitioner Ritualo ₱20,000.00 as
additional payment, making the total amount received by the latter
₱60,000.00. Again, petitioner Ritualo issued a Cash Voucher.17

Subsequently, Biacora was informed by petitioner Ritualo that all he
needed in securing an employment in Australia was his Passport and an
endorsement from the Representative of his district. Accompanied by
petitioner Ritualo and one Anita Seraspe, the assistant 18 of the former,
Biacora went to the Batasan Pambansa to secure the necessary
endorsement. Thereafter, all three went to the Australian Embassy to
apply for Biacora’s working visa.
On 1 June 2000, Biacora went to see petitioner Ritualo to follow up the
date of his departure. Petitioner Ritualo asked from Biacora another
₱20,000.00 and told the latter to be patient. As with the other amounts
given, proof of payment19 was similarly issued to acknowledge receipt
thereof.
Several dates were set for Biacora’s departure, but none pushed through.
To top it all, his Australian Visa application was denied by the Australian
Embassy. Consequently, on 9 September 2000, Biacora demanded from
petitioner Ritualo the return of the ₱80,000.00. The latter promised to
pay back the money on the 13th of September 2000. None came.
Thereafter, Biacora filed the subject criminal complaints against
petitioner Ritualo.
In two Certifications dated 23 October 200020 and 5 November
2003,21 respectively, both identified by Belen Blones of the Licensing
Division of the POEA, it was confirmed that "per available records of [its]
Office, CARMEN RITUALO, in her personal capacity is not licensed by
this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment" 22 ; and
that "[a]ny recruitment activity undertaken by [her] is deemed illegal." 23
To rebut the foregoing evidence presented by the prosecution, the
defense presented a diametrically opposed version of the facts of the
present case through the sole testimony of Ritualo.
In her testimony, Ritualo narrated that it was Libutan and Biacora who
asked her to introduce them to a certain Anita Seraspe, the person
responsible for sending petitioner Ritualo’s own sister to Australia; 24 that
she had no agreement with Biacora respecting the latter’s employment in
Australia; that any talk of money was made among Libutan, Biacora and
Seraspe only; that she received a total of ₱80,000.00 from Biacora, but
that the same was merely entrusted to her because Libutan and Biacora
had just met Seraspe,25 and that she turned over all the payments to
Seraspe who acknowledged receipt of the same by writing on pieces of
paper said acceptance; that she accompanied Biacora to Batasan Pambansa
at his request; that she did not earn any money out of her referral and
introduction of Libutan and Biacora to Seraspe; that even if she did not
earn any money out of the subject transaction, she returned ₱10,000.00
and ₱31,000.00, or a total of ₱41,000.00, to Biacora out of fear that the
latter would file charges against her; that she tried to find Seraspe, but
the latter could not be found at her last known address; and that she gave
Biacora an additional ₱6,000.000 to obviate any more scandal befalling her
family.26
On 1 December 2004, after trial, the RTC found the evidence presented
by the prosecution to be more credible and logical than that presented by
the defense and thus, convicted Ritualo for the crimes of Simple Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa, defined and penalized under the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 and the Revised Penal Code,
respectively. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s judgment stated:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused CARMEN
RITUALO y RAMOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of:
1. Simple Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case Number 01-0076)
under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known as
the ‘Migrant Workers Act of 1995,’ and sentences her to
suffer an Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6)
years and ONE (1) day, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) years, as
maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00.
2
2. In Criminal Case Number 01-0077 for Estafa, herein accused
is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
prison term of six (6) months and One (1) day of Prission (sic)
Correctional (sic), as minimum, to seven (7) years, eleven (11)
months and eleven (11) days of Prision Mayor, as maximum and
is ORDERED to indemnify Felix Biacora actual damages in the
amount of ₱66,000.00 which is minus the amount of ₱14,000.00
which the private complainant admitted to have been refunded
to him.
Cost de oficio.27
Ritualo’s Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s decision was
subsequently denied in an Order28 dated 21 January 2005.
In an Order29 dated 1 March 2005, the RTC granted and approved the
Notice of Appeal30 filed by Ritualo.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision promulgated on 23 April 2007,
affirmed the judgment of the RTC insofar as the conviction of Ritualo was
concerned. As reasoned by the Court of Appeals, "[a]s against the positive
and categorical testimony of the [Biacora], [Ritualo’s] denials cannot
prevail."31 Particularly, the appellate court held that Ritualo’s "acts of
promising and assuring employment overseas to [Biacora] [fell] squarely
within the ambit of recruitment and placement as defined by [The Migrant
Workers Act or Republic Act No. 8042]."32 With respect to the charge of
Estafa under the Revised Penal Code, the appellate court likewise found
that all the elements of said crime existed in the case at bar, i.e.,
"[Ritualo] misrepresented herself to the [Biacora] as the person who could
send him to Australia for employment, and by reason of
misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, [Biacora] was induced to
part with his money in payment of placement fees, thereby causing him
damage and prejudice."33
The penalties imposed on Ritualo by the trial court, however, were
modified by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the latter erred in
imposing in the Illegal Recruitment case, an indeterminate sentence
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years,
as maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00,"34 in view of the penalty
prescribed under Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 8042; and, in the Estafa case,
another indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) months and one (1)
day of prision correcional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eleven (11)
months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor, as maximum, contrary to the
wordings of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
The fallo of the Court of Appeals decision is restated:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THESE CASES, THUS, the appealed
decision finding the accused-appellant Carmen Ritualo y Ramos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Illegal Recruitment and Estafa is
AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS –
1. In Criminal Case No. 01-0076 (Simple Illegal Recruitment),
the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 01-0077 (Estafa), the accused-appellant
is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision correctional (sic), as minimum, to
twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to
indemnify the private complainant Felix Biacora the sum of
₱66,000.00 with the interest thereon at the legal rate from
September 21, 2000 until the same is fully paid.
Costs shall also be taxed against the accused-appellant.35
Hence, Ritualo filed the instant petition for review.
 3

In this petition, Ritualo prayed for the reversal of the decision of the
RTC, as affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, on the basis
of the following assignment of errors:
I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE
ON RECORD COULD NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION; and
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITIONER IS CULPABLE, THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MODIFYING THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE TERM
OF SENTENCE IN THE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT CASE.36
Essentially, she argues that there "was no proof beyond reasonable doubt
that x x x [she] gave Biacora a distinct impression that she had the power
or ability to send him abroad for work such that the latter was convinced
to part with his money."37 Petitioner Ritualo maintains that Biacora
transacted with Seraspe and not with her. Assuming for the sake of
argument that she and Biacora had any agreement with each other,
petitioner Ritualo insisted that it was merely to facilitate the latter’s
application for an Australian Visa. Particularly, she pointed out that the
prosecution failed to present other witnesses who could have
corroborated the claim of Biacora that she (Ritualo) promised him
employment abroad. Anent the penalty imposed by the courts, petitioner
disputed the appellate court’s reasoning and claimed that the same was
improper in view of the ruling of this Court in People v. Gallardo, 38 in which
therein respondent was also convicted of Simple Illegal Recruitment.
The Office of the Solicitor General, for the People of the Philippines, on
the other hand, asserted that the findings of the Court of Appeals were
supported by the records of the case, i.e., "Biacora was consistent in his
testimony that it was petitioner who illegally recruited him for work as a
farmhand in Australia." Thus, "[a]s against the positive and categorical
testimony of the private complainant (Biacora), petitioner’s denial cannot
prevail."
We find no merit in the petition.
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or
document in relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document
or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of
securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed
to quit his employment in order to offer him another unless the
transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive
terms and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity
not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment
through his agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in
jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of
the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized
representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment,
placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings,
separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or
information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker,
employment contracts approved and verified by the
Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual
signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of
the expiration of the same without the approval of the
Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement
agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any
corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly
or indirectly in the management of a travel agency;

(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant

Having weighed the evidence for the contending parties, there is no workers before departure for monetary or financial
cogent reason to reverse the findings and conclusion of the RTC as considerations other than those authorized under the Labor
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Code and its implementing rules and regulations;

The crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment is defined and penalized under (l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined
Sec. 6 of Republic Act. No. 8042, which reads: by the Department of Labor and Employment ; and

SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, connection with his documentation and processing for purposes
hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually
promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when
not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as an offense involving economic sabotage.
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
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or
(3) or more persons individually or as a group.
holder of authority:

The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers
greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to
make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually
received by him as a loan or advance;
 4

Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, been positively identified as the person who transacted with Biacora and
enumerates one of the modes of committing estafa, thus: promised the latter an overseas employment and who personally received
money from Biacora, all unhesitatingly point to petitioner Ritualo as the
xxxx culprit.

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts The following oral and documentary evidence are worth reproducing:
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
COURT:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary Q: How many times did you receive money from private
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. complainant?

Illegal recruitment is committed when two essential elements concur: WITNESS:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required Three (3) times, Your Honor.
by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers, and Q: The first time?

(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the A: My first time is Php40,000.00, Your Honor.
meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article
13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34
Q: The second time?
of the Labor Code.39

A: Php20,000.00, Your Honor.

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:

Q: Third time?
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, A: Php20,000.00, Your Honor.
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 Q: When you received these amounts of money, who issued the
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. (Emphasis private complainant a receipt?
supplied.)
A: I was the one, Your Honor.44
In this case, the first element is, indeed, present. The prosecution
established, through Belen Blones of the Licensing Branch of the POEA, The first Cash Voucher issued by petitioner Ritualo declares:
who identified and confirmed the two Certifications issued by the POEA
Licensing Branch, that "per available records of [its] Office, CARMEN
CASH VOUCHER
RITUALO, in her personal capacity is not licensed by this Administration
to recruit workers for overseas employment." 40
5-1-2000

As to the second element, it must be shown that the accused gave the
Payment for document Australia fourty (sic) thousand (sic) pesos (sic) only
private complainant the distinct impression that he/she had the power or
(₱40,000.00)
ability to send the private complainant abroad for work, such that the
latter was convinced to part with his/her money in order to be
employed.41 Thus, to be engaged in illegal recruitment, it is plain that RECEIVED from Felix Evangelista Biacora the amount of PESOS fourty
there must at least be a promise or an offer of employment from the thousand pesos (₱40,000.00) in full payment of amount described above.
person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.42 In the case at
bar, the second element is similarly present. As testified to by Biacora, By: (Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo45
petitioner Ritualo professed to have the ability to send him overseas to be
employed as a farm worker in Australia with a monthly salary of The second, on 4 May 2000, states:
US$700.00.43 To further wet Biacora’s appetite, petitioner Ritualo even
showed him purported travel documents of other people about to depart,
CASH VOUCHER
whose overseas employment she supposedly facilitated. That petitioner
Ritualo personally assisted Biacora in the completion of the alleged
requirements, i.e., securing a Letter of Request and Guarantee from the 5-4-2000
Representative of his Congressional District in Batangas to ensure the
approval of Biacora’s application for an Australian Visa, even accompanying Payment for document Australia twenty (sic) thousand (sic) pesos (sic)
Biacora to the Australian Embassy, all clearly point to her efforts to only (₱20,000.00)
convince Biacora that she (petitioner Ritualo) had, indeed, the ability and
influence to make Biacora’s dream of overseas employment come true. RECEIVED from Felix Biacora the amount of PESOS twenty
thousand (₱20,000.00) in full payment of amount described above.
The claim of petitioner Ritualo that it was Anita Seraspe who was really
the recruiter and the one who profited from the subject illegal By: (Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo46
transaction holds no water. Petitioner Ritualo’s act of receiving payment
from Biacora and issuing personal receipts therefor; of personally
And the third receipt reads:
assisting Biacora to complete the "necessary" documents; of failing to
present evidence to corroborate her testimony despite several
opportunities given her by the trial court; of petitioner Ritualo having RECEIPT

No. _____________ Date: 6-1-2000
RECEIVED from Felix Biacora the sum of Pesos Twenty
thousand (₱20,000.00) as payment for for Visa.
Partial _______ Cash _____√_____
Balance ______ Check No. _______
(Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo
Authorized Signature47
Petitioner Ritualo next tried to impress upon this Court that she received
nary a centavo from the subject illegal transaction; therefore, she should
not be held liable.
We reject this outright. In the first place, it has been abundantly shown
that she really received the monies from Biacora. Secondly, even without
consideration for her services, she still engaged in recruitment activities,
since it was satisfactorily shown that she promised overseas employment
to Biacora. And, more importantly, Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 does
not require that the illegal recruitment be done for profit.
Petitioner Ritualo boldly but vainly tried to inject reasonable doubt by
complaining that the RTC and the Court of Appeals affirmed her
conviction despite failure of the prosecution to present other vital
witness, i.e., Biacora’s wife, who accompanied her husband to the house of
petitioner Ritualo and, hence, witnessed what happened on the first
meeting between the latter and Biacora. Non-presentation of said witness,
according to petitioner Ritualo, raises the presumption that her testimony,
if presented, would be adverse to the prosecution.
The prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what
witnesses to call to support its charges.48The defense posture that the
non-presentation of the wife of Biacora constitutes suppression of
evidence favorable to petitioner Ritualo is fallacious. In fact, the same line
of reasoning can be used against petitioner Ritualo. If the defense felt
that the testimony of Biacora’s wife would support her defense, what she
could and should have done was to call her (Biacora’s wife) to the stand as
her own witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf." And, in the same vein, since
petitioner Ritualo is setting the cloak of liability on Seraspe’s shoulder,
she (petitioner Ritualo) could and should have had the former subpoenaed
as well.
As held by this Court, the adverse presumption of suppression of evidence
does not, moreover, apply where the evidence suppressed is merely
corroborative or cumulative in nature.49 If presented, Biacora’s wife would
merely corroborate Biacora’s account which, by itself, already detailed
what occurred on the day of the parties’ first meeting at the house of
petitioner Ritualo. Hence, the prosecution committed no fatal error in
dispensing with the testimony of Biacora’s wife.
Finally, Biacora, the private complainant in this case, did not harbor any ill
motive to testify falsely against petitioner Ritualo. The latter failed to
show any animosity or ill feeling on the part of Biacora that could have
motivated him to falsely accuse her of the crimes charged. It would be
against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse
another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt
feelings.50
The totality of the evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken
together, leads to no other conclusion than that petitioner Ritualo engaged
in recruiting and promising overseas employment to Felix Biacora under
the above-quoted Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 vis-à-vis Article 13(b)
of the Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now feign ignorance of the
consequences of her unlawful acts.
5
As to the sentence imposed upon petitioner Ritualo for the crime of simple
illegal recruitment, this Court clarifies that the penalty imposed by the
Court of Appeals – a sentence of 12 years imprisonment and a fine of
₱500,000.00 - is partly incorrect, as petitioner Ritualo is a non-
licensee.51 Under Sec. 7(a) of Republic Act No. 8042, simple illegal
recruitment is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years
and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less
than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱200,000.00) nor more than Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00). Applying the provisions of
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence law, however, the correct
penalty that should have been imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is
imprisonment for the period of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum.52 The imposition of a fine of
₱500,000.00 is also in order.
With respect to the criminal charge of estafa, this Court likewise affirms
the conviction of petitioner Ritualo for said crime. The same evidence
proving petitioner Ritualo’s criminal liability for illegal recruitment also
established her liability for estafa. It is settled that a person may be
charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic
Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Art. 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. As this Court held in People v.
Yabut53 :
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal
recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315
of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the
accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor
Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.
Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa will
not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale, and vice versa.1awphi1
The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
Ritualo was similarly guilty of estafa under Art. 315 (2)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code committed --
By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
Both elements of the crime were established in this case, namely, (a)
petitioner Ritualo defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and (b) complainant Biacora suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result.54 Biacora parted
with his money upon the prodding and enticement of petitioner Ritualo on
the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy him for
employment in Australia. In the end, Biacora was neither able to leave for
work overseas nor did he get his money back, thus causing him damage and
prejudice. Hence, the conviction of petitioner Ritualo of the crime of
estafa should be upheld.
While this Court affirms the conviction of the petitioner Ritualo for
estafa, we find, however, that both the trial court and the appellate court
erroneously computed the penalty of the crime. The amount of which the
private complainant, Biacora, was defrauded was Eighty Thousand Pesos
(₱80,000.00) and not merely Sixty Six Thousand Pesos (₱66,000.00).
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused found guilty of estafa shall be
sentenced to:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the
fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos,
and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but
the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty
years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos
but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over
200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount
does not exceed 200 pesos, x x x.
Computing the penalty for the crime of Estafa based on the above-quoted
provision, the proper penalty to be imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is the
maximum term of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum
as mandated by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. But considering
that the amount defrauded exceeded Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos
(₱22,000.00), per the same provision, the prescribed penalty is not only
imposed in its maximum period, but there is imposed an incremental
penalty of one (1) year imprisonment for every Ten Thousand Pesos
(₱10,000.00) in excess of the cap of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos
(₱22,000.00).55 As this Court held in People v. Gabres,56 "[t]he fact that
the amounts involved in the instant case exceed ₱22,000.00 should not be
considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty;
instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to modifying
circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full
indeterminate sentence."57And with respect to the computation of the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence, in this case, given that the
penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against petitioner Ritualo
is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty
next lower would then be prision correccional minimum to medium per Art.
64 in relation to Art. 65, both of the Revised Penal Code.
Preceding from the above discussion, thus, the prison term to be imposed
upon petitioner Ritualo vis-à-vis the crime of Estafa is as follows: the
minimum term should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional; while the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range
of six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8)
years of prision mayor considering that the amount involved exceeds
₱22,000.00, plus an added five (5) years, as there are five (5) increments
of ₱10,000.00 over the cap of ₱22,000.00.58
Lastly, regarding the award of indemnity due from petitioner Ritualo, both
the RTC and Court of Appeals ordered her to pay Biacora the amount of
Sixty-Six Thousand Pesos (₱66,000.00), instead of the original amount
defrauded, which is Eighty Thousand Pesos (₱80,000.00), in view of
petitioner Ritualo’s payment of Fourteen Thousand Pesos (₱14,000.00). A
thorough scrutiny of the record of the case, however, yields the finding
that as of the date of revival of the case before the RTC, or on 13
October 2003, only the amount of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos
(₱21,000.00) remains unpaid. The Motion to Revive Case dated 2 October
2003 filed by the prosecution attached the letter-request of private
complainant Biacora, elucidating thus:
6
I, MR. FELIX BIACORA, complainant against MRS. CARMEN RITUALO
with Case No. 01-0076-77. This case is temporary (sic) dismissed on May
26, 2003 in Branch 1999 (sic).
On May 26, 2003 MRS. CARMEN RITUALO made written promise that
she will pay the balance amounting ₱21,000.00 Twenty Thousand Pesos
after 3 months but she failed.
Due that (sic) her promise did not materialized (sic), I personally request
the Hon. Court to REVIVE this case.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) MR. FELIX BIACORA
With the foregoing submission of Biacora, out of the amount of Eighty
Thousand Pesos (₱80,000.00), only Twenty-One Thousand Pesos
(₱21,000.00) remains unpaid. Accordingly, the civil liability of petitioner
Ritualo is now merely Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (₱21,000.00).
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29393 promulgated on 23 April 2007 is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 01-0076, petitioner Carmen Ritualo is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple
Illegal Recruitment, and is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day as
minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. 01-0077, petitioner Carmen Ritualo is
also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Estafa and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term
of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eleven (11) years and eight (8) months and twenty-
one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.
Petitioner Carmen R. Ritualo is similarly ORDERED to indemnify Felix E.
Biacora the amount of ₱21,000.00. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 152642 November 13, 2012
HON. PATRICIA A. STO.TOMAS, ROSALINDA BALDOZ and LUCITA
LAZO, Petitioners,
vs.
REY SALAC, WILLIE D. ESPIRITU, MARIO MONTENEGRO, DODGIE
BELONIO, LOLIT SALINEL and BUDDY BONNEVIE, Respondents.
ABAD, J.:
These consolidated cases pertain to the constitutionality of certain
provisions of Republic Act 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
The Facts and the Case
On June 7, 1995 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.
G.R. 152642 and G.R. 152710

(Constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30, R.A. 8042)
Sections 29 and 30 of the Act1 commanded the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) to begin deregulating within one year of its passage
the business of handling the recruitment and migration of overseas
Filipino workers and phase out within five years the regulatory functions
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
On January 8, 2002 respondents Rey Salac, Willie D. Espiritu, Mario
Montenegro, Dodgie Belonio, Lolit Salinel, and Buddy Bonnevie (Salac, et
al.) filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary
injunction against petitioners, the DOLE Secretary, the POEA
Administrator, and the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA) Secretary-General before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 96.2
Salac, et al. sought to: 1) nullify DOLE Department Order 10 (DOLE DO
10) and POEA Memorandum Circular 15 (POEA MC 15); 2) 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 3) also enjoin them to
comply with the policy of deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and 30
of Republic Act 8042.
On March 20, 2002 the Quezon City RTC granted Salac, et al.’s petition
and ordered the government agencies mentioned to deregulate the
recruitment and placement of OFWs.3 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.
Prompted by the RTC’s above actions, the government officials concerned
filed the present petition in G.R. 152642 seeking to annul the RTC’s
decision and have the same enjoined pending action on the petition.
On April 17, 2002 the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.
intervened in the case before the Court, claiming that the RTC March 20,
2002 Decision gravely affected them since it paralyzed the deployment
abroad of OFWs and performing artists. The Confederated Association of
Licensed Entertainment Agencies, Incorporated (CALEA) intervened for
the same purpose.4
On May 23, 2002 the Court5 issued a TRO in the case, enjoining the
Quezon City RTC, Branch 96, from enforcing its decision.
In a parallel case, on February 12, 2002 respondents Asian Recruitment
Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. and others (Arcophil, et al.) filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition with application for TRO and preliminary
injunction against the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the
TESDA Director-General,6 before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 220,
to enjoin the latter from implementing the 2002 Rules and Regulations
Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Overseas Workers and to
cease and desist from issuing other orders, circulars, and policies that
tend to regulate the recruitment and placement of OFWs in violation of
the policy of deregulation provided in Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042.
On March 12, 2002 the Quezon City RTC rendered an Order, granting the
petition and enjoining the government agencies involved from exercising
regulatory functions over the recruitment and placement of OFWs. This
prompted the DOLE Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the TESDA
Director-General to file the present action in G.R. 152710. As in G.R.
152642, the Court issued on May 23, 2002 a TRO enjoining the Quezon
City RTC, Branch 220 from enforcing its decision.
On December 4, 2008, however, the Republic informed7 the Court that on
April 10, 2007 former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law
R.A. 94228 which expressly repealed Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 and
adopted the policy of close government regulation of the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs. R.A. 9422 pertinently provides:
xxxx
7
SEC. 1. Section 23, paragraph (b.1) of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise
known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(b.1) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration – The Administration
shall regulate private sector participation in the recruitment and overseas
placement of workers by setting up a licensing and registration system. It
shall also formulate and implement, in coordination with appropriate
entities concerned, when necessary, a system for promoting and
monitoring the overseas employment of Filipino workers taking into
consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower requirements.
In addition to its powers and functions, the administration shall inform
migrant workers not only of their rights as workers but also of their
rights as human beings, instruct and guide the workers how to assert their
rights and provide the available mechanism to redress violation of their
rights.
In the recruitment and placement of workers to service the requirements
for trained and competent Filipino workers of foreign governments and
their instrumentalities, and such other employers as public interests may
require, the administration shall deploy only to countries where the
Philippines has concluded bilateral labor agreements or arrangements:
Provided, That such countries shall guarantee to protect the rights of
Filipino migrant workers; and: Provided, further, That such countries shall
observe and/or comply with the international laws and standards for
migrant workers.
SEC. 2. Section 29 of the same law is hereby repealed.
SEC. 3. Section 30 of the same law is also hereby repealed.
xxxx
On August 20, 2009 respondents Salac, et al. told the Court in G.R.
152642 that they agree9 with the Republic’s view that the repeal of
Sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 renders the issues they raised by their
action moot and academic. The Court has no reason to disagree.
Consequently, the two cases, G.R. 152642 and 152710, should be dismissed
for being moot and academic.
G.R. 167590
(Constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042)
On August 21, 1995 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. (PASEI also sought to annul a
portion of Section 10 but the Court will take up this point later together
with a related case.)
Section 6 defines the crime of "illegal recruitment" and enumerates the
acts constituting the same. Section 7 provides the penalties for
prohibited acts. Thus:
SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall
mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or
not, when undertaken by a non-license 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 such non-license 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:

xxxx
SEC. 7. Penalties. –
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more
than twelve (12) years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand
pesos (₱200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five
hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos
(₱1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage as defined herein.
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or
committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.10
Finally, Section 9 of R.A. 8042 allowed the filing of criminal actions arising
from "illegal recruitment" before the RTC of the province or city where
the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides
at the time of the commission of the offense.
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 recruiters11 and for that
reason gives undue advantage to the non-licensed recruiters in violation of
the right to equal protection of those that operate with government
licenses or authorities.
But "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. By its terms, persons who engage in
"canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers" without the appropriate government license or
authority are guilty of illegal recruitment whether or not they commit the
wrongful acts enumerated in that section. On the other hand, recruiters
who engage in the canvassing, enlisting, etc. of OFWs, although with the
appropriate government license or authority, are guilty of illegal
recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in
Section 6.
The Manila RTC 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. As an example, said the trial
court, the mere failure to render a report under Section 6(h) or
obstructing the inspection by the Labor Department under Section 6(g)
are penalized by imprisonment for six years and one day and a minimum
fine of ₱200,000.00 but which could unreasonably go even as high as life
imprisonment if committed by at least three persons.
Apparently, the Manila RTC did not agree that the law can impose such
grave penalties upon what it believed were specific acts that were not as
condemnable as the others in the lists. But, in fixing uniform penalties for
each of the enumerated acts under Section 6, Congress was within its
prerogative to determine what individual acts are equally reprehensible,
consistent with the State policy of according full protection to labor, and
deserving of the same penalties. It is not within the power of the Court to
question the wisdom of this kind of choice. Notably, this legislative policy
has been further stressed in July 2010 with the enactment of R.A.
1002212 which increased even more the duration of the penalties of
imprisonment and the amounts of fine for the commission of the acts
listed under Section 7.
Obviously, in fixing such tough penalties, the law considered the unsettling
fact that OFWs must work outside the country’s borders and beyond its
immediate protection. The law must, therefore, make an effort to
somehow protect them from conscienceless individuals within its
jurisdiction who, fueled by greed, are willing to ship them out without
8
clear assurance that their contracted principals would treat such OFWs
fairly and humanely.
As the Court held in People v. Ventura,13 the State under its police power
"may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to
secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against the
consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and
fraud." Police power is "that inherent and plenary power of the State
which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
welfare of society."14
The Manila RTC 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. Venue, said the RTC, is jurisdictional in penal laws and, allowing
the filing of criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended
parties violates their right to due process. Section 9 provides:
SEC. 9. Venue. – A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as
defined herein shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province
or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided,
That the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: Provided, however, That the
aforestated provisions shall also apply to those criminal actions that have
already been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this Act.
But there is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an
alternative venue for violations of Section 6 of R.A. 8042 that differs
from the venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Indeed,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the latter Rules allows exceptions provided by
laws. Thus:
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.— (a) Subject to existing
laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any
of its essential ingredients occurred. (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the rule on venue of criminal
actions is, consistent with that law’s declared policy15 of providing a
criminal justice system that protects and serves the best interests of the
victims of illegal recruitment.
G.R. 167590, G.R. 182978-79,16 and G.R. 184298-9917
(Constitutionality of Section 10, last sentence of 2nd paragraph)
G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 are consolidated cases. Respondent
spouses Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas) filed a claim for
death and insurance benefits and damages against petitioners Becmen
Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc. (Becmen) and White Falcon Services,
Inc. (White Falcon) for the death of their daughter Jasmin Cuaresma
while working as staff nurse in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the claim on the ground that the
Cuaresmas had already received insurance benefits arising from their
daughter’s death from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA). The LA also gave due credence to the findings of the Saudi
Arabian authorities that Jasmin committed suicide.
On appeal, however, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
found Becmen and White Falcon jointly and severally liable for Jasmin’s
death and ordered them to pay the Cuaresmas the amount of
US$113,000.00 as actual damages. The NLRC relied on the Cabanatuan
City Health Office’s autopsy finding that Jasmin died of criminal violence
and rape.

Becmen and White Falcon appealed the NLRC Decision to the Court of
Appeals (CA).18 On June 28, 2006 the CA held Becmen and White Falcon
jointly and severally liable with their Saudi Arabian employer for actual
damages, with Becmen having a right of reimbursement from White
Falcon. Becmen and White Falcon appealed the CA Decision to this Court.
On April 7, 2009 the Court found Jasmin’s death not work-related or
work-connected since her rape and death did not occur while she was on
duty at the hospital or doing acts incidental to her employment. The Court
deleted the award of actual damages but ruled that Becmen’s corporate
directors and officers are solidarily liable with their company for its
failure to investigate the true nature of her death. Becmen and White
Falcon abandoned their legal, moral, and social duty to assist the
Cuaresmas in obtaining justice for their daughter. Consequently, the Court
held the foreign employer Rajab and Silsilah, White Falcon, Becmen, and
the latter’s corporate directors and officers jointly and severally liable to
the Cuaresmas for: 1) P2,500,000.00 as moral damages; 2) P2,500,000.00
as exemplary damages; 3) attorney’s fees of 10% of the total monetary
award; and 4) cost of suit.
On July 16, 2009 the corporate directors and officers of Becmen, namely,
Eufrocina Gumabay, Elvira Taguiam, Lourdes Bonifacio and Eddie De
Guzman (Gumabay, et al.) filed a motion for leave to Intervene. They
questioned the constitutionality of the last sentence of the second
paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042 which holds the corporate directors,
officers and partners jointly and solidarily liable with their company for
money claims filed by OFWs against their employers and the recruitment
firms. On September 9, 2009 the Court allowed the intervention and
admitted Gumabay, et al.’s motion for reconsideration.
The key issue that Gumabay, et al. present is whether or not the 2nd
paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042, which holds the corporate directors,
officers, and partners of recruitment and placement agencies jointly and
solidarily liable for money claims and damages that may be adjudged
against the latter agencies, is unconstitutional.
In G.R. 167590 (the PASEI case), the Quezon City RTC held as
unconstitutional the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Section 10 of
R.A. 8042. It pointed out that, absent sufficient proof that the corporate
officers and directors of the erring company had knowledge of and
allowed the illegal recruitment, making them automatically liable would
violate their right to due process of law.
The pertinent portion of Section 10 provides:
SEC. 10. Money Claims. – x x x
The 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 be 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.
(Emphasis supplied)
But the Court has already held, pending adjudication of this case, that the
liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make
them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a
finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company,
such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities.19 In the
case of Becmen and White Falcon,20 while there is evidence that these
companies were at fault in not investigating the cause of Jasmin’s death,
there is no mention of any evidence in the case against them that
intervenors Gumabay, et al., Becmen’s corporate officers and directors,
were personally involved in their company’s particular actions or omissions
in Jasmin’s case.
9
As a final note, 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 rule is settled that every statute has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality. The Court 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.
WHEREFORE, in G.R. 152642 and 152710, the Court DISMISSES the
petitions for having become moot and academic.1âwphi1
In G.R. 167590, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court ofManila dated December 8, 2004 and DECLARES Sections 6, 7, and
9 of Republic Act 8042 valid and constitutional.
In G.R. 182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 as well as in G.R. 167590, the Court
HOLDS the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of
Republic Act 8042 valid and constitutional. The Court, however,
RECONSIDERS and SETS ASIDE the portion of its Decision in G.R.
182978-79 and G.R. 184298-99 that held intervenors Eufrocina Gumabay,
Elvira Taguiam, Lourdes Bonifacio, and Eddie De Guzman jointly and
solidarily liable with respondent Becmen Services Exporter and Promotion,
Inc. to spouses Simplicia and Mila Cuaresma for lack of a finding in those
cases that such intervenors had a part in the act or omission imputed to
their corporation.
SO ORDERED.
BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER G.R. Nos. 182978-79
AND PROMOTION, INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J.(Chairperson),
- versus - Carpio Morales,*
hico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
eralta, JJ.
SPOUSES SIMPLICIO and MILA
CUARESMA (for and in behalf of
their daughter, Jasmin G. Cuaresma),
WHITE FALCON SERVICES, INC.
and JAIME ORTIZ (President,
White Falcon Services, Inc.),
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------------------ x
SPOUSES SIMPLICIO and MILA G.R. Nos. 184298-99
CUARESMA (for and in behalf of
their daughter, Jasmin G. Cuaresma),
Petitioners,
- versus -
WHITE FALCON SERVICES, INC. Promulgated:
and BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER
AND PROMOTION, INC.,
Respondents. April 7, 2009
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
These consolidated petitions assail the Amended Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated May 14, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80619 and CA-
G.R. SP No. 81030 finding White Falcon Services, Inc. and Becmen Service

Exporter and Promotion, Inc. solidarily liable to indemnify spouses
Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma the amount of US$4,686.73 in actual
damages with interest.
On January 6, 1997, Jasmin Cuaresma (Jasmin) was deployed by
Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc.[2] (Becmen) to serve as
assistant nurse in Al-Birk Hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA),
for a contract duration of three years, with a corresponding salary of
US$247.00 per month.
Over a year later, she died allegedly of poisoning.
Jessie Fajardo, a co-worker of Jasmin, narrated that on June
21, 1998, Jasmin was found dead by a female cleaner lying on the floor
inside her dormitory room with her mouth foaming and smelling of
poison.[3]
Based on the police report and the medical report of the
examining physician of the Al-Birk Hospital, who conducted an autopsy of
Jasmins body, the likely cause of her death was poisoning. Thus:
According to letter No. 199, dated
27.2.1419H, issued by Al-Birk Police Station, for
examining the corpse of Jasmin Cuaresma, 12.20
P.M. 27.2.1419H, Sunday, at Al-Birk Hospital.
1. The Police Report on the Death
2. The Medical Diagnosis
Sex: Female Age: 25 years Relg:
Christian
The said person was brought to the
Emergency Room of the hospital; time
12.20 P.M. and she was unconscious, blue,
no pulse, no respiration and the first aid
esd undertaken but without success.
3. Diagnosis and Opinion: Halt in blood
circulation respiratory system and brain
damage due to an apparent poisoning
which is under investigation.[4]
Name: Jasmin Cuaresma
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Single Nationality:
Philipino (sic)
Religion: Christian Profession: Nurse
Address: Al-Birk Genrl. Hospital Birth
Place: The Philippines
On 27.2.1419H, Dr. Tariq Abdulminnem
and Dr. Ashoki Komar, both have
examined the dead body of Jasmin
Cuaresma, at 12.20 P.M., Sunday,
22.2.14189H, and the result was:
1. Report of the Police on the death
2. Medical Examination: Blue skin and
paleness on the Extrimes (sic), total halt
to blood circulation and respiratory
system and brain damage. There were no
external injuries. Likelypoisoning by
taking poisonous substance, yet not
determined. There was a bad smell in the
mouth and unknown to us.[5] (Emphasis
supplied)
Jasmins body was repatriated to Manila on September 3,
1998. The following day, the City Health Officer of Cabanatuan City
conducted an autopsy and the resulting medical report indicated that
10
Jasmin died under violent circumstances, and not poisoning as originally
found by the KSA examining physician. The City Health Officer found that
Jasmin had abrasions at her inner lip and gums; lacerated wounds and
abrasions on her left and right ears; lacerated wounds and hematoma
(contusions) on her elbows; abrasions and hematoma on her thigh and legs;
intra-muscular hemorrhage at the anterior chest; rib fracture; puncture
wounds; and abrasions on the labia minora of the vaginal area. [6]
On March 11, 1999, Jasmins remains were exhumed and
examined by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The toxicology
report of the NBI, however, tested negative for non-volatile, metallic
poison and insecticides.[7]
Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas), Jasmins parents
and her surviving heirs, received from the Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) the following amounts: P50,000.00 for death
benefits; P50,000.00 for loss of life; P20,000.00 for funeral expenses;
and P10,000.00 for medical reimbursement.
On November 22, 1999, the Cuaresmas filed a complaint against
Becmen and its principal in the KSA, Rajab & Silsilah Company (Rajab),
claiming death and insurance benefits, as well as moral and exemplary
damages for Jasmins death.[8]
In their complaint, the Cuaresmas claim that Jasmins death was
work-related, having occurred at the employers premises;[9] that under
Jasmins contract with Becmen, she is entitled to iqama insurance
coverage; that Jasmin is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount
of US$103,740.00, which is the sum total of her monthly salary of
US$247.00 per month under her employment contract, multiplied by 35
years (or the remaining years of her productive life had death not
supervened at age 25, assuming that she lived and would have retired at
age 60).
The Cuaresmas assert that as a result of Jasmins death under
mysterious circumstances, they suffered sleepless nights and mental
anguish. The situation, they claim, was aggravated by findings in the
autopsy and exhumation reports which evidently show that a grave
injustice has been committed against them and their daughter, for which
those responsible should likewise be made to pay moral and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees.
In their position paper, Becmen and Rajab insist that Jasmin
committed suicide, citing a prior unsuccessful suicide attempt sometime in
March or April 1998 and relying on the medical report of the examining
physician of the Al-Birk Hospital. They likewise deny liability because the
Cuaresmas already recovered death and other benefits totaling
P130,000.00 from the OWWA. They insist that the Cuaresmas are not
entitled to iqama insurance because this refers to the issuance not
insurance of iqama, or residency/work permit required in the KSA. On the
issue of moral and exemplary damages, they claim that the Cuaresmas are
not entitled to the same because they have not acted with fraud, nor have
they been in bad faith in handling Jasmins case.
While the case was pending, Becmen filed a manifestation and
motion for substitution alleging that Rajab terminated their agency
relationship and had appointed White Falcon Services, Inc. (White Falcon)
as its new recruitment agent in the Philippines. Thus, White Falcon was
impleaded as respondent as well, and it adopted and reiterated Becmens
arguments in the position paper it subsequently filed.
On February 28, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
Decision[10] dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Giving weight to the
medical report of the Al-Birk Hospital finding that Jasmin died of
poisoning, the Labor Arbiter concluded that Jasmin committed suicide. In
any case, Jasmins death was not service-connected, nor was it shown that
it occurred while she was on duty; besides, her parents have received all
corresponding benefits they were entitled to under the law. In regard to
damages, the Labor Arbiter found no legal basis to warrant a grant
thereof.
 11

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission Becmen filed the instant petition for review on certiorari (G.R.
(Commission) reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Relying on the Nos. 182978-79). The Cuaresmas, on the other hand, moved for a
findings of the City Health Officer of Cabanatuan City and the NBI as reconsideration of the amended decision, but it was denied. They are now
contained in their autopsy and toxicology report, respectively, the before us via G.R. Nos. 184298-99.
Commission, via its November 22, 2002 Resolution[11] declared that, based
on substantial evidence adduced, Jasmin was the victim of compensable On October 6, 2008, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R.
work-connected criminal aggression. It disregarded the Al-Birk Hospital Nos. 184298-99 with G.R. Nos. 182978-79.
attending physicians report as well as the KSA police report, finding the
same to be inconclusive. It declared that Jasmins death was the result of In G.R. Nos. 182978-79, Becmen raises the following issues for
an accident occurring within the employers premises that is attributable our resolution:
to her employment, or to the conditions under which she lived, and thus
arose out of and in the course of her employment as nurse. Thus, the (THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
Cuaresmas are entitled to actual damages in the form of Jasmins lost ERRED WHEN IT GAVE MORE CREDENCE AND
earnings, including future earnings, in the total amount of WEIGHT TO THE AUTOPSY REPORT CONDUCTED
US$113,000.00. The Commission, however, dismissed all other claims in BY THE CABANATUAN CITY HEALTH OFFICE
the complaint. THAN THE MEDICAL AND POLICE REPORTS
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH OF
Becmen, Rajab and White Falcon moved for reconsideration, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND AL-BIRK
whereupon the Commission issued its October 9, 2003 HOSPITAL.
Resolution[12] reducing the award of US$113,000.00 as actual damages to
US$80,000.00.[13] The NLRC likewise declared Becmen and White Falcon (THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
as solidarily liable for payment of the award. ERRED WHEN ON THE BASIS OF THE POSITION
PAPERS AND ANNEXES THERETO INCLUDING
Becmen and White Falcon brought separate petitions for THE AUTOPSY REPORT, IT CONCLUDED THAT
certiorari to the Court of Appeals.[14] On June 28, 2006, the appellate THE DEATH OF JASMIN CUARESMA WAS
court rendered its Decision,[15] the dispositive portion of which reads, as CAUSED BY CRIMINAL AGGRESSION.
follows:
(THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
WHEREFORE, the subject petitions are ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DEATH OF
DENIED but in the execution of the decision, it JASMIN CUARESMA WAS COMPENSABLE
should first be enforced against White Falcon PURSUANT TO THE RULING OF THE SUPREME
Services and then against Becmen Services when it COURT IN TALLER VS. YNCHAUSTI, G.R. NO.
is already impossible, impractical and futile to go 35741, DECEMBER 20, 1932, WHICH IT FOUND
against it (White Falcon). TO BE STILL GOOD LAW.

SO ORDERED.[16] (THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY

ERRED WHEN IT HELD BECMEN LIABLE FOR THE
The appellate court affirmed the NLRCs findings that Jasmins DEATH OF JASMIN CUARESMA
death was compensable, the same having occurred at the dormitory, which NOTWITHSTANDING ITS ADMISSIONS THAT
was contractually provided by the employer. Thus her death should be IQAMA INSURANCE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL
considered to have occurred within the employers premises, arising out of ERROR SINCE IQAMA IS NOT AN INSURANCE.
and in the course of her employment.
(THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
Becmen and White Falcon moved for reconsideration. On May ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE DEATH
14, 2008, the appellate court rendered the assailed Amended Decision, OF JASMIN WAS WORK RELATED.
the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
(THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
WHEREFORE, the motions for ERRED WHEN IT HELD BECMEN LIABLE TO
reconsideration are GRANTED. Accordingly, the JASMINS BENEFICIARIES FOR THE
award of US$80,000.00 in actual damages is hereby REMAINDER OF HER 36-MONTH CONTRACT
reduced to US$4,686.73 plus interest at the legal COMPUTED IN THIS MANNER: MONTHLY
rate computed from the time it became due until SALARY OF US$246.67 MULTIPLIED BY 19
fully paid. Petitioners are hereby adjudged jointly MONTHS, THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM OF
and solidarily liable with the employer for the JASMINS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, IS EQUAL
monetary awards with Becmen Service Exporter and TO US$4,686.73.
Promotions, Inc. having a right of reimbursement
from White Falcon Services, Inc. (THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
ERRED WHEN IT HELD BECMEN LIABLE TO PAY
SO ORDERED.[17] INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE FROM THE TIME
IT WAS DUE UNTIL FULLY PAID.
In the Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals found that
although Jasmins death was compensable, however, there is no evidentiary (THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
basis to support an award of actual damages in the amount of ERRED WHEN IT HELD BECMEN AND WHITE
US$80,000.00. Nor may lost earnings be collected, because the same may FALCON JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE
be charged only against the perpetrator of the crime or quasi- WITH THE EMPLOYER NOTWITHSTANDING THE
delict. Instead, the appellate court held that Jasmins beneficiaries should ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY EXECUTED BY
be entitled only to the sum equivalent of the remainder of her 36-month WHITE FALCON IN FAVOR OF BECMEN.
employment contract, or her monthly salary of US$247.00 multiplied by
nineteen (19) months, with legal interest. On the other hand, in G.R. Nos. 184298-99, the Cuaresmas
raise the following issues:

(THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CIVIL CODE CONSIDERED GENERAL LAW
DESPITE THE CASE BEING COVERED BY E.O. 247,
R.A. 8042 AND LABOR CODE CONSIDERED AS
SPECIAL LAWS.
(THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE DECEASEDS
FUTURE EARNINGS WHICH IS (AN) INHERENT
FACTOR IN THE COMPUTATION OF DEATH
BENEFITS OF OVERSEAS FILIPINO CONTRACT
WORKERS.
(THE COURT OF APPEALS) GRAVELY
ERRED IN REDUCING THE DEATH BENEFITS
AWARDED BY NLRC CONSIDERED FINDINGS OF
FACT THAT CANNOT BE DISTURBED THROUGH
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF
COURT.
The issue for resolution is whether the Cuaresmas are entitled
to monetary claims, by way of benefits and damages, for the death of
their daughter Jasmin.
The terms and conditions of Jasmins 1996 Employment
Agreement which she and her employer Rajab freely entered into
constitute the law between them. As a rule, stipulations in an employment
contract not contrary to statutes, public policy, public order or morals
have the force of law between the contracting parties. [18] An examination
of said employment agreement shows that it provides for no other
monetary or other benefits/privileges than the following:
1. 1,300 rials (or US$247.00) monthly
salary;
2. Free air tickets to KSA at the start of
her contract and to the Philippines at the
end thereof, as well as for her vacation
at the end of each twenty four-month
service;
3. Transportation to and from work;
4. Free living accommodations;
5. Free medical treatment, except for
optical and dental operations, plastic
surgery charges and lenses, and medical
treatment obtained outside of KSA;
6. Entry visa fees will be shared equally
between her and her employer, but the
exit/re-entry visa fees, fees for Iqama
issuance, renewal, replacement, passport
renewal, sponsorship transfer and other
liabilities shall be borne by her;
7. Thirty days paid vacation leave with
round trip tickets to Manila after twenty
four-months of continuous service;
8. Eight days public holidays per year;
9. The indemnity benefit due her at the
end of her service will be calculated as
per labor laws of KSA.
Thus, the agreement does not include provisions for insurance,
or for accident, death or other benefits that the Cuaresmas seek to
12
recover, and which the labor tribunals and appellate court granted variably
in the guise of compensatory damages.
However, the absence of provisions for social security and
other benefits does not make Jasmins employment contract infirm. Under
KSA law, her foreign employer is not obliged to provide her these
benefits; and neither is Jasmin entitled to minimum wage unless of course
the KSA labor laws have been amended to the opposite effect, or that a
bilateral wage agreement has been entered into.
Our next inquiry is, should Jasmins death be considered as
work-connected and thus compensable? The evidence indicates that it is
not. At the time of her death, she was not on duty, or else evidence to the
contrary would have been adduced. Neither was she within hospital
premises at the time. Instead, she was at her dormitory room on personal
time when she died. Neither has it been shown, nor does the evidence
suggest, that at the time she died, Jasmin was performing an act
reasonably necessary or incidental to her employment as nurse, because
she was at her dormitory room. It is reasonable to suppose that all her
work is performed at the Al-birk Hospital, and not at her dormitory room.
We cannot expect that the foreign employer should ensure her
safety even while she is not on duty. It is not fair to require employers to
answer even for their employees personal time away from work, which the
latter are free to spend of their own choosing. Whether they choose to
spend their free time in the pursuit of safe or perilous undertakings, in
the company of friends or strangers, lovers or enemies, this is not one
area which their employers should be made accountable for. While we have
emphasized the need to observe official work time strictly, [19] what an
employee does on free time is beyond the employers sphere of inquiry.
While the employers premises may be defined very broadly not
only to include premises owned by it, but also premises it leases, hires,
supplies or uses,[20] we are not prepared to rule that the dormitory
wherein Jasmin stayed should constitute employers premises as would
allow a finding that death or injury therein is considered to have been
incurred or sustained in the course of or arose out of her
employment. There are certainly exceptions,[21] but they do not appear to
apply here. Moreover, a complete determination would have to depend on
the unique circumstances obtaining and the overall factual environment of
the case, which are here lacking.
But, did Jasmin commit suicide? Rajab, Becmen and White
Falcon vehemently insist that she did; thus, her heirs may not claim
benefits or damages based on criminal aggression. On the other hand, the
Cuaresmas do not believe so.
The Court cannot subscribe to the idea that Jasmin committed
suicide while halfway into her employment contract. It is beyond human
comprehension that a 25-year old Filipina, in the prime of her life and
working abroad with a chance at making a decent living with a high-paying
job which she could not find in her own country, would simply commit
suicide for no compelling reason.
The Saudi police and autopsy reports which state that Jasmin
is a likely/or apparent victim of poisoning are patently inconclusive. They
are thus unreliable as evidence.
On the contrary, the autopsy report of the Cabanatuan City
Health Officer and the exhumation report of the NBI categorically and
unqualifiedly show that Jasmin sustained external and internal injuries,
specifically abrasions at her inner lip and gums; lacerated wounds and
abrasions on her left and right ears; lacerated wounds and hematoma
(contusions) on her elbows; abrasions and hematoma on her thigh and
legs; intra-muscular hemorrhage at the anterior chest; a fractured
rib; puncture wounds; and abrasions on the labia minora of the vaginal
area. The NBI toxicology report came up negative on the presence of
poison.
All these show that Jasmin was manhandled and possibly raped
prior to her death.

Even if we were to agree with the Saudi police and autopsy
reports that indicate Jasmin was poisoned to death, we do not believe that
it was self-induced. If ever Jasmin was poisoned, the assailants who beat
her up and possibly raped her are certainly responsible therefor.
We are not exactly ignorant of what goes on with our
OFWs. Nor is the rest of the world blind to the realities of life being
suffered by migrant workers in the hands of some foreign employers. It is
inconceivable that our Filipina women would seek employment abroad and
face uncertainty in a foreign land, only to commit suicide for unexplained
reasons. Deciding to leave their family, loved ones, and the comfort and
safety of home, to work in a strange land requires unrivaled strength and
courage. Indeed, many of our women OFWs who are unfortunate to end up
with undesirable employers have been there more times than they care to,
beaten up and broken in body yet they have remained strong in mind,
refusing to give up the will to live. Raped, burned with cigarettes, kicked in
the chest with sharp high-heeled shoes, starved for days or even weeks,
stabbed, slaved with incessant work, locked in their rooms, forced to
serve their masters naked, grossly debased, dehumanized and insulted,
their spirits fought on and they lived for the day that they would once
again be reunited with their families and loved ones. Their bodies
surrendered, but their will to survive remained strong.
It is surprising, therefore, that Rajab, Becmen and White
Falcon should insist on suicide, without even lifting a finger to help solve
the mystery of Jasmins death. Being in the business of sending OFWs to
work abroad, Becmen and White Falcon should know what happens to some
of our OFWs. It is impossible for them to be completely unaware that
cruelties and inhumanities are inflicted on OFWs who are unfortunate to
be employed by vicious employers, or upon those who work in communities
or environments where they are liable to become victims of crime. By now
they should know that our women OFWs do not readily succumb to the
temptation of killing themselves even when assaulted, abused, starved,
debased and, worst, raped.
Indeed, what we have seen is Rajab and Becmens revolting
scheme of conveniently avoiding responsibility by clinging to the absurd
theory that Jasmin took her own life. Abandoning their legal, moral and
social obligation (as employer and recruiter) to assist Jasmins family in
obtaining justice for her death, they immediately gave up on Jasmins case,
which has remained under investigation as the autopsy and police reports
themselves indicate. Instead of taking the cudgels for Jasmin, who had no
relative or representative in the KSA who would naturally demand and
seek an investigation of her case, Rajab and Becmen chose to take the
most convenient route to avoiding and denying liability, by casting Jasmins
fate to oblivion. It appears from the record that to this date, no follow up
of Jasmins case was ever made at all by them, and they seem to have
expediently treated Jasmins death as a closed case. Despite being given
the lead via the autopsy and toxicology reports of the Philippine
authorities, they failed and refused to act and pursue justice for Jasmins
sake and to restore honor to her name.
Indeed, their nonchalant and uncaring attitude may be seen
from how Jasmins remains were repatriated. No official representative
from Rajab or Becmen was kind enough to make personal representations
with Jasmins parents, if only to extend their condolences or sympathies;
instead, a mere colleague, nurse Jessie Fajardo, was designated to
accompany Jasmins body home.
Of all lifes tragedies, the death of ones own child must be the
most painful for a parent. Not knowing why or how Jasmins life was
snuffed out makes the pain doubly unbearable for Jasmins parents, and
further aggravated by Rajab, Becmen, and White Falcons baseless
insistence and accusation that it was a self-inflicted death, a mortal sin by
any religious standard.
Thus we categorically hold, based on the evidence; the actual
experiences of our OFWs; and the resilient and courageous spirit of the
Filipina that transcends the vilest desecration of her physical self, that
Jasmin did not commit suicide but a victim of murderous aggression.
13
Rajab, Becmen, and White Falcons indifference to Jasmins case
has caused unfathomable pain and suffering upon her parents. They have
turned away from their moral obligation, as employer and recruiter and as
entities laden with social and civic obligations in society, to pursue justice
for and in behalf of Jasmin, her parents and those she left
behind. Possessed with the resources to determine the truth and to
pursue justice, they chose to stand idly for the sake of convenience and in
order that they may avoid pecuniary liability, turning a blind eye to the
Philippine authorities autopsy and toxicology reports instead of taking
action upon them as leads in pursuing justice for Jasmins death. They have
placed their own financial and corporate interests above their moral and
social obligations, and chose to secure and insulate themselves from the
perceived responsibility of having to answer for and indemnify Jasmins
heirs for her death.
Under Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A. 8042), or the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,[22] the State shall, at all
times, uphold the dignity of its citizens whether in country or overseas, in
general, and Filipino migrant workers, in particular.[23] The State shall
provide adequate and timely social, economic and legal services to Filipino
migrant workers.[24] The rights and interest of distressed[25] overseas
Filipinos, in general, and Filipino migrant workers, in particular,
documented or undocumented, are adequately protected and
safeguarded.[26]
Becmen and White Falcon, as licensed local recruitment
agencies, miserably failed to abide by the provisions of R.A. 8042.
Recruitment agencies are expected to extend assistance to their deployed
OFWs, especially those in distress. Instead, they abandoned Jasmins case
and allowed it to remain unsolved to further their interests and avoid
anticipated liability which parents or relatives of Jasmin would certainly
exact from them. They willfully refused to protect and tend to the
welfare of the deceased Jasmin, treating her case as just one of those
unsolved crimes that is not worth wasting their time and resources on. The
evidence does not even show that Becmen and Rajab lifted a finger to
provide legal representation and seek an investigation of Jasmins
case. Worst of all, they unnecessarily trampled upon the person and
dignity of Jasmin by standing pat on the argument that Jasmin committed
suicide, which is a grave accusation given its un-Christian nature.
We cannot reasonably expect that Jasmins parents should be
the ones to actively pursue a just resolution of her case in the KSA, unless
they are provided with the finances to undertake this herculean
task. Sadly, Becmen and Rajab did not lend any assistance at all in this
respect. The most Jasmins parents can do is to coordinate with Philippine
authorities as mandated under R.A. 8042, obtain free legal assistance and
secure the aid of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of
Labor and Employment, the POEA and the OWWA in trying to solve the
case or obtain relief, in accordance with Section 23 [27] of R.A. 8042. To
our mind, the Cuaresmas did all that was within their power, short of
actually flying to the KSA. Indeed, the Cuaresmas went even further. To
the best of their abilities and capacities, they ventured to investigate
Jasmins case on their own: they caused another autopsy on Jasmins
remains as soon as it arrived to inquire into the true cause of her
death. Beyond that, they subjected themselves to the painful and
distressful experience of exhuming Jasmins remains in order to obtain
another autopsy for the sole purpose of determining whether or not their
daughter was poisoned. Their quest for the truth and justice is equally to
be expected of all loving parents. All this time, Rajab and Becmen instead
of extending their full cooperation to the Cuaresma family merely sat on
their laurels in seeming unconcern.
In Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC,[28] a seaman
who was being repatriated after his employment contract expired, failed
to make his Bangkok to Manila connecting flight as he began to wander the
streets of Bangkok aimlessly. He was shot to death by Thai police four
days after, on account of running amuck with a knife in hand and
threatening to harm anybody within sight. The employer, sued for death
and other benefits as well as damages, interposed as defense the provision
in the seafarer agreement which provides that no compensation shall be

payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death resulting
from a willful act on his own life by the seaman. The Court rejected the
defense on the view, among others, that the recruitment agency should
have observed some precautionary measures and should not have allowed
the seaman, who was later on found to be mentally ill, to travel home alone,
and its failure to do so rendered it liable for the seamans death. We ruled
therein that
The foreign employer may not have been
obligated by its contract to provide a companion for
a returning employee, but it cannot deny that it was
expressly tasked by its agreement to assure the
safe return of said worker. The uncaring attitude
displayed by petitioners who, knowing fully well
that its employee had been suffering from some
mental disorder, nevertheless still allowed him to
travel home alone, is appalling to say the
least. Such attitude harks back to another time
when the landed gentry practically owned the
serfs, and disposed of them when the latter had
grown old, sick or otherwise lost their
usefulness.[29] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, more than just recruiting and deploying OFWs to their
foreign principals, recruitment agencies have equally significant
responsibilities. In a foreign land where OFWs are likely to encounter
uneven if not discriminatory treatment from the foreign government, and
certainly a delayed access to language interpretation, legal aid, and the
Philippine consulate, the recruitment agencies should be the first to come
to the rescue of our distressed OFWs since they know the employers and
the addresses where they are deployed or stationed. Upon them lies the
primary obligation to protect the rights and ensure the welfare of our
OFWs, whether distressed or not. Who else is in a better position, if not
these recruitment agencies, to render immediate aid to their deployed
OFWs abroad?
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person must, in
the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Article
21 of the Code states that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. And, lastly, Article 24
requires that in all contractual, property or other relations, when one of
the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the
courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Clearly, Rajab, Becmen and White Falcons acts and omissions
are against public policy because they undermine and subvert the interest
and general welfare of our OFWs abroad, who are entitled to full
protection under the law. They set an awful example of how foreign
employers and recruitment agencies should treat and act with respect to
their distressed employees and workers abroad. Their shabby and callous
treatment of Jasmins case; their uncaring attitude; their unjustified
failure and refusal to assist in the determination of the true
circumstances surrounding her mysterious death, and instead finding
satisfaction in the unreasonable insistence that she committed suicide
just so they can conveniently avoid pecuniary liability; placing their own
corporate interests above of the welfare of their employees all these are
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy, and constitute taking
advantage of the poor employee and her familys ignorance, helplessness,
indigence and lack of power and resources to seek the truth and obtain
justice for the death of a loved one.
Giving in handily to the idea that Jasmin committed suicide, and
adamantly insisting on it just to protect Rajab and Becmens material
interest despite evidence to the contrary is against the moral law and runs
contrary to the good custom of not denouncing ones fellowmen for alleged
grave wrongdoings that undermine their good name and honor. [30]
14
Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers
enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation,
contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement
is in keeping with the basic public policy of the State to afford protection
to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between
workers and employers. This ruling is likewise rendered imperative by
Article 17 of the Civil Code which states that laws which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.[31]
The relations between capital and labor are so impressed with
public interest,[32] and neither shall act oppressively against the other, or
impair the interest or convenience of the public.[33] In case of doubt, all
labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the
safety and decent living for the laborer.[34]
The grant of moral damages to the employee by reason of
misconduct on the part of the employer is sanctioned by Article 2219
(10)[35] of the Civil Code, which allows recovery of such damages in actions
referred to in Article 21.[36]
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the
Cuaresmas are entitled to moral damages, which Becmen and White Falcon
are jointly and solidarily liable to pay, together with exemplary damages
for wanton and oppressive behavior, and by way of example for the public
good.
Private employment agencies are held jointly and severally
liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the
recruitment agreement or contract of employment. This joint and solidary
liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign
employers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and
sufficient payment of what is due him.[37] 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.[38]
White Falcons assumption of Becmens liability does not
automatically result in Becmens freedom or release from liability. This has
been ruled in ABD Overseas Manpower Corporation v. NLRC.[39] Instead,
both Becmen and White Falcon should be held liable solidarily, without
prejudice to each having the right to be reimbursed under the provision of
the Civil Code that whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor
what he has paid.[40]
WHEREFORE, the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated May 14, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80619 and CA-G.R. SP No. 81030
is SET ASIDE. Rajab & Silsilah Company, White Falcon Services,
Inc., Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc., and their corporate
directors and officers are found jointly and solidarily liable
and ORDERED to indemnify the heirs of Jasmin Cuaresma, spouses
Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma, the following amounts:
1) TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P2,500,000.00) as moral damages;
2) TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P2,500,000.00) as exemplary damages;
3) Attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total
monetary award; and,
4) Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.