Labor New- Cheng

7/27/2019 Labor New- Cheng

1/93

1

G.R. No. 98443 August 30, 1993

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.PAULINO NAPARAN, JR. Y NACAR, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

ROMERO, J.:

Accused Paulino Naparan, Jr. y Nacar interposes the present appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 104, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-89-4696 finding him guilty beyondreasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale.

On June 21, 1989, accused-appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in an information which reads:

The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses PAULINO NAPARAN JR. Y NACAR of the crimeof ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (Sec. 39 PD 442 as amended by PD 2018), committed as follows:

That during the period from May 26, 1989 to June 9, 1989, in Quezon City, Philippines and within thejurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully andfeloniously canvas, enlist, contract and promise employment to the following persons to wit:

1. Dalton Dizon y Arida P4,500.002. Eduardo Cortez y Paner P3,000.00

3. Pedro Enipto Jr. y Santiago P7,000.004. Teresita Santiago y Factor P13,000.00

as recruitment fees, such recruitment activities being done without the required license or authority fromthe Department of Labor; and committed in a large scale against said victims, individually or as a group,an offense involving economic sabotage.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 1

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 2

During trial, the prosecution presented the four complainants and one Angelita Cawili who corroborated the testimonyof complainant Teresita Santiago.

Complainant Eduardo Cortez 3testified that, in the course of his employment as bellboy at Monte Carlo Hotel, Sta. Cruz,Manila, he met accused-appellant sometime in March 1989 while the latter was billeted therein. During one of theirconversations, accused-appellant offered him an overseas job in the United States of America as a "boy by washingairplanes" with a salary of $100.00 a day. He decided to accept the offer which he perceived as "an opportunity to workabroad."

On May 31, 1989, he went to see accused-appellant at his new place in Room 304, PM Apartelle, 4Matalino Street,Quezon City and gave the latter P3,000.00 for his visa and plane ticket. No receipt was issued and he did not insist onone because accused-appellant threatened that he would not be able to go abroad if he insists. In connection with his

departure, he underwent a medical examination5

at the Protacio Hospital for which he paid P270.00.

Accused-appellant disappeared after complainant was not able to leave as promised. He saw the accused two days laterat the latter's apartelle where he explained that the delay was due to a "need for money." Later, complainants discoveredsome tapes in the attache case of accused-appellant. While playing these, they heard accused-appellant's mother advisinghis son to reform as he had already swindled a lot of people in Ilocos. It was then that they decided to report the matterto the police.

Complainant Pedro Enipto, Jr. 6narrated that it was through Eduardo Cortez and one Roger Salvatierra that he came toknow accused-appellant. During their initial meeting, accused-appellant talked about his projects at Fort Ilocandia ofwhich, according to him, he was part owner. It was in this conversation that he encouraged them to work in Washington,


2/93

2

D.C. as aircraft maintenance crew with a salary of about hundred dollars. He assured them that he was in a position topetition for them to work there because he was a "balikbayan" and his deceased father was a retired colonel inWashington.

Enipto gave accused-appellant P4,000.00 on May 30, 1989 and another P3,000.00 on June 2, 1989 at PM Apartelle atthe back of Quezon City Hall. He did not ask for a receipt because accused-appellant told him that if he asked for one hewould be left behind. His aunt, complainant Teresita Santiago, was present when he gave the money.

Accused-appellant accompanied them in procuring their passport and undergoing medical examination at ProtacioHospital. 7For these services, Enipto incurred additional expenses of P550.00 and P270.00, respectively.

When they were unable to leave on June 15, 1989 for Washington, D.C., accused-appellant disappeared. Later, he calledthem up to explain that he was the victim of a holdup. They waited again to find out when they could leave. On hissecond call, he asked them to fetch him in Intramuros which they did. He likewise asked them to get his things at PMApartelle. One of their companions, Dalton Dizon, discovered a tape where accused-appellant's parents were advisinghim not to go back to Laoag because many people were looking for him. Thereafter, they agreed to report the matter tothe police to whom they gave their statements and the tape.

Complainant Teresita Santiago 8met accused-appellant through her nephew Pedro Enipto, Jr. who brought him to herresidence at Novaliches. Accused-appellant encouraged her to work abroad as baby sitter for $750.00 a month. He toldher that he would take care of the expenses that would be incurred except for the plane ticket but even this would berefunded later. She believed him as he introduced himself as a millionaire who owns Fort Ilocandia, Benguet MiningCorp. and Contrex Industrial Corporation. He also mentioned a certain Atty. Efren Ramos from Laoag whom shehappened to know personally. He even said that he was a "pamangkin ni Marcos." Subsequently, he asked for P8,000.00for the plane ticket which she gave on May 30, 1989. Later, he asked for an additional P5,000.00 which she gave onJune 5, 1989. Both amounts were delivered to accused-appellant at Room 304, PM Apartelle, Quezon City. She receivedno receipt for these amounts although these transactions were witnessed by Angelita Cawili who corroborated hertestimony on these points. 9

On cross-examination, she stated further that she entertained no doubt about the accused-appellant who assured her thathe could get jobs even for twelve persons abroad. Moreover he was driving a car when he came to her house and wasstaying in an apartelle. That he gave his office address in Washington, D.C. and impressed on her that he was a son of aretired US Air Force officer convinced her of his capability in sending them abroad. Accused-appellant evenaccompanied them in securing their passports. 10 However, the promised trip did not materialize. Accused-appellantwould disappear intermittently and upon surfacing, would promise to withdraw some money at PNB. Another time, hecalled up to inform them that he was kidnapped for ransom. When she asked him to return her money, accused-appellantfailed to do so.

Complainant Dalton Dizon 11testified that accused-appellant was introduced to him by his friend Cesar Angeles onDecember 1988. After this meeting, they did not see each other again until May 1989 when accused-appellant went toDizon's house at 157 Alley 2, Project 6, Quezon City asking for his help to look for a place to stay in. Later, they met

again at PM Apartelle where accused-appellant offered him employment in Washington, D.C. as a hospital aide. Inconsideration of the promise for employment, he gave the accused P4,500.00 in the latter's apartelle. No receipt wasgiven for the payment although his mother, Candelaria Dizon, was with him when he paid said recruitment fee. He wasasked to secure a passport while the accused would take care of everything else. Later, he underwent a medicalexamination at Protacio Clinic to determine his physical fitness to work abroad. 12

When accused-appellant failed to make good his promise, he reported the matter to the Quezon City police.

The lower court dispensed with the taking of the testimony of Ruben de Castro, Jr. of the Philippine OverseasEmployment Administration (POEA) after the parties stipulated that he would testify to the fact that the accused-appellant was not authorized to recruit workers for abroad. 13The corresponding certification issued by the POEA wasmarked as Exh. "E."

Counsel for accused-appellant offered his testimony as the lone evidence for the defense.

Accused-appellant 14denied the charge of engaging in the recruitment of complainants for overseas employment and ofreceiving money from them. According to him, he used to reside in Laoag City but came to Quezon City when he wascalled by Dalton Dizon. He first stayed for one whole afternoon, at Dalton's parlor in Tandang Sora. Then, he moved toPM Apartelle, the rent of which was paid by Dalton's brother, Daniel. Accused-appellant met the three othercomplainants during the "despedida" party of Daniel held at PM Apartelle. He went to Teresita Santiago's house inNovaliches upon the latter's invitation for him to eat there. He admitted receiving P5,000.00 from her as a loan. Hedenied ever claiming that he was a multi-millionaire and that former Pres. Marcos was his grandfather.


3/93

3

The lower court, 15on April 3, 1991, promulgated its judgment finding that:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused PAULITO NAPARAN, JR. Y NACAR, guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT committed in a large scale, an offense involvingECONOMIC SABOTAGE, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and afine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000,.00) and to pay the following persons:

a) Dalton Dizon y Arida P4,500.00b) Eduardo Cortez y Paner P3,270.00;c) Pedro Enipto, Jr. y Santiago P7,820.00; andd) Teresita Santiago y Factor P13,000.00

without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 16

Hence, this appeal on the ground that the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant for Illegal Recruitment despite

the absence of evidence required to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant points out that the prosecution evidence consists merely of the testimonies of complainants and theletter he allegedly wrote addressed to Dalton Dizon where he acknowledged the complaint filed against him by TeresitaSantiago. These evidence, according to him, do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he illegally recruitedcomplainants. For one, the testimonies are nothing but self-serving allegations unsupported by concrete evidence. Ifaccused-appellant did transact with them and receive sums of money as recruitment fees, he would not have hesitated togive them the corresponding receipts; on the other hand, complainants should have demanded receipts from him. In hisopinion, it was very unusual for complainants as overseas applicants to neglect investigating whether the recruiter islicensed or authorized by the POEA, or has an office address and can issue official receipts. For another thing, the letterwas not shown to him for his identification; hence, it cannot be given any evidentiary value. Granting that the letter waswritten by him, its contents acknowledging the receipt of money from Teresita Santiago refer only to her and the loan

she gave him as he testified. Having transacted with Teresita Santiago only and never with the three other complainants,he cannot possibly be convicted under PD 2018, that is, illegal recruitment committed in large scale and considered anoffense involving economic sabotage.

The evidence of the prosecution consists mainly of the testimonies of the four complainants. The fact that only thetestimony of Teresita Santiago was corroborated by Angelita Cawili does not water down the weight of their combinedtestimonies. It is not necessary that the testimony of each of the four complainants be corroborated by other witnesses.Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified thetruth or that his observations are inaccurate. 17In this case, complainants positively identified accused-appellant as theone who recruited them for work abroad, employing the same modus operandi for all. They were one in stating that heassured them that he could find jobs for them in the United States and on several occasions, inveigled them into givinghim money in his apartelle. Against their clear and positive testimonies, accused-appellant's defense was merely a denial

which the lower court found to be weak as against the hard evidence built by the prosecution. Accused-appellant's attackis ultimately directed against the credibility of complainants, the best judge of which is the trial court. In the matter ofweighing the evidence of the prosecution against that of the defense through an assessment of their respective merits, "itis firmly settled that the findings of the trial court are given weight and the highest degree of respect by the appellatecourt, and may be disregarded only where substantial errors have been committed or determinative facts have beenoverlooked and which otherwise would have dictated a different conclusion or verdict." 18No reason appears to us todeny great weight to the trial court's evaluation of complainants' testimonies.

Accused-appellant stresses the absence of receipts evidencing complainants' payment and argues that he would not havehesitated to issue the same if it were true that he did transact with them. This argument, being purely hypothetical, doesnot strengthen his denial nor weaken the complainants' testimonies. That there were no receipts does not mean that hedid not transact with them. Moreover, he questions complainants' failure to insist on a receipt after they allegedly paid

their recruitment fees. Complainants have satisfactorily explained that they did not insist on one because accused-appellant threatened that they would not be able to depart if they insisted. Who can fault them for giving up a measlyreceipt in return for a golden opportunity to fulfill their dreams of earning easy money abroad? The Court in an earliercase had observed that "poor laborers, seamen, domestics, and other workers (who) see employment abroad as the onlyway out of their grinding poverty." 19

Moreover, there is nothing unusual in complainants' failure to investigate the truth of appellant's representations asregards his personal and business background for, being inexperienced and titillated by the prospect of traveling to theproverbial land of milk and honey, they fell easy prey to appellant's glibness and roseate promises. Even TeresitaSantiago, the eldest complainant, endowed though she was with a college degree, fell for his suave ways and could not


4/93

4

help but be impressed when she saw him driving a car and learned that he was staying in an apartelle. What clinched hiscredentials, in her eyes, was his acquaintance with a certain Atty. Efren Ramos whom she knew.

Another evidence presented by the prosecution was the letter of accused-appellant addressed to Dalton Dizon. A portionstates:

. . . kung iurong nila Ate Tess ang demanda makakagawa ako ng paraan para maybalik ang wala sakanila within 20 days basta nasa laya ako . . . 20

When this was formally offered in evidence, accused-appellant did not object to its admissibility. He cannot now denyits authorship and assert that it should not be given evidentiary value. While the quoted portion mentions only TeresitaSantiago, it does not support accused-appellant's alternative theory that if he should be found guilty of having committedillegal recruitment, it should be limited only to Teresita Santiago whose name was mentioned in his letter. A carefulreading shows that accused-appellant promises to return to Teresita Santiago and company ("nila" Ate Tess) the moneyhe got from them ("kanila") in connection with his representations that he can send them abroad.

The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements. First, the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to

lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and second, the offender undertakes either any recruitmentactivity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. 21Thatthe offender is not authorized by the POEA to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers is evidenced by thecertification 22of the POEA. In fact, the parties stipulated on the testimony of Mr. Ruben de Castro. Jr. regarding hislack of authority. The testimonies of complainants unerringly pointed to accused-appellant as the one who enlisted,contracted and promised employment to them. Accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions ofcomplainants to whom we can hardly ascribe any motive to testify falsely against him. 23Undoubtedly, accused-appellant's dealings with the four complainants constitute illegal recruitment committed on a large scale.

Nitong mga nakaraang buwan, ang pansin ng sambayanan ay natuon sa mga krimen na karumaldumal na katulad ngpagpatay at pagsasamantala sa ating mga kababaihan. Wari ay nakaligtaan natin ang mga salarin na di nahuhuli sa mgamamamatay tao. Sila rin ay nagsasamantala sa mga inosente at walang malay. Ang kaibhan nga lamang ay ang kanilang

biktima ay yaong ating mga kababayan na nangangarap na mangibang bayan upang sila ay mahango sa karalitaan sampung kanilang pamilya.

Sa masidbi nilang hangarin, halos hindi, nagdadalawang-isip kapag may balanang nangangako na ipadadala sila sa mgabayang nakaririwasa kung sila ay magbabayad ng sapat na salapi. Upang mapaniwala sila, ang mga may masasamangtangka ay nagpapanggap na sila ay malakas at may koneksyon sa mga Embahada ng mga bayang ito. Hindi lamangmadudulas ang kanilang dila. Umaasta silang maykaya. Naroong sabihin na nakatira sila sa otel o pook ng mayayaman.Kapag nakikipagkita sa kanilang kliyente ay magara ang suot at nakakotse. Anupat ang mga pobreng nangangarap aygagawin ang lahat ng makakaya upang makapagbayad ng hinihinging pamasahe sa eroplano.

Kadalasan ay nangungutang sila o ang mga magulang nila sa "sinco-seis;" o dili kaya'y nagsasangla ng lupain onagbibili ng mga ari-ariang gaya ng kalabaw. Kanila namang nahihimok ang kamaganakan nila na tumulong sapagkat

nangangakong magpapadala ng higit na maraming kuwarta na pambayad sa kanilang utang o dili kaya ay pampaaral samga nakababatang kapatid.

Sa oras na nakapagbitiw ng salapi ang biktima, ang manlilinlang ay dagling nawawala na parang bula. Sapagkatkaramihan sa kanila ay "illegal recruiter" at walang lisensya sa Philippine Overseas Employment Administration(POEA), hindi na matutunton ang kanilang bakas.

Totoong napakarami na ang ating kaawa-awang kababayan na napagsamantalahan na ng gayon. Nakalulungkot na kahitna magbabala ang pamahalaan at ang mga opisinang kinauukulan, hindi rin dinidinggin ng mga nais na mapabuti angkalagayan nila sa buhay sa pamamagitan ng pangingibang bayan.

Napapanahon nang iparating sa mga salarin na iyan na hindi pahihintulutan ng pamahalaan ang gayong malawakang

pangloloko sa mga maralita na masasabing ang kasalanan lamang ay "naghangad ng kagitna, isang salop ang nawala."Kami ay maaasahang magpataw ng akma at nauukol na parusa na bilanggo habang buhay at multa sa halagang IsangDaang Daang Libong Piso (P100,000.00) sa katulad ng nasasakdal sa kasong itong nakasalang sa KataastaasangHukuman ngayon. 24Umaasa kaming ito ay magsisilbing halimbawa sa mga walang awa nating kababayan na patuloyang gawang panlilinlang sa kanilang kapwa Pilipino.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court dated April 3, 1991 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.


5/93

5

G.R. No. 97028 May 21, 1993

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ALICIA B. GAOAT, accused-appellant.


6/93

6

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Mauricio C. Ulep for accused-appellant.

NARVASA, C.J.:

On September 22, 1987, the appellant, Alicia B. Gaoat, and two (2) others Magdalena AbenirIrons and Domingo B. Babol were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with thecrime of violation of Article 38 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1412 in relation to Article 13 (b) (c) ofthe New Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended . . . " The case was docketed as Criminal CaseNo. 87-57826.

The acts allegedly constituting the crime are set out in the information as follows:

That in or about and during the period comprised between June, 1986 and February, 1987, inclusive, inthe City of Manila, . . . the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping oneanother, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud LUCIA BERNARDO, FROILAN BRIONES ANDREYNALDO VALIDOR, who are applicants for Stewardess, Utility Galley and Utility Man in Miami,Florida, U.S.A., by then and there collecting the sum of P15,300.00, P19,300.00 and P15,500.00,respectively, which are P10,300, P14,300.00 and P10,000.00, respectively, more than the maximumplacement and documentation fees of P5,000.00 to cover all costs and services relative to theirrecruitment pursuant to M.C. No. 5, Series of 1985 which is allowed by the POEA for them to collectfrom said LUCIA BERNARDO, FROILAN BRIONES AND REYNALDO VALIDOR, to the damage andprejudice of the said complainants inn the aforesaid amount of P10,300.00, P14,300.00 andP10,000.00, respectively.

On the same day, September 22, 1987, three (3) other informations were separately filed against

the aforenamed individuals, Gaoat, Irons and Babol. These were docketed as Criminal casesNumbered 87-57827, 87-57828, and 87-57829. The indictments basically accused them of receivingmoney from the same persons already named, Lucia Bernardo, Froilan Briones and ReynaldoValidor in the amounts stated in the information just quoted upon the "false and fraudulent"representations and assurances that "they had the power and capacity to recruit and employsaid . . . (said persons) and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers in connectiontherewith," which money they did thereafter "misappropriate, misapply and convert to their ownpersonal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of . . . (their victims) . . . ."

And in October, 1987, three (3) more informations were filed against Alicia B. Gaoat, charging herwith estafa, allegedly committed in conspiracy "with others whose true names, identities and present

whereabouts are still unknown." Specifically, she was charged with having, on different occasions in1986, obtained money from Pricilla de Leon y Lautrizo, Reynaldo Singuya y Gabriel, and JohnFortes y Co thru "false manifestations and fraudulent representations that she had the power andcapacity to recruit and employ . . . (persons applying therefor) and could facilitate the processing ofthe pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof," but once inpossession of the money, she "feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted (it) to her ownpersonal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of . . . (her victims)." The cases wererespectively docketed as criminal cases Numbered 87-58151, 87-58085, 87-58086.

Only Alicia B. Gaoat was arrested in connection with these seven (7) indictments. None of her co-accused was ever apprehended or brought to trial. As far as is known, her co-defendants have

remained at large to this day.

On being arraigned, Alicia Gaoat entered a plea of not guilty in relation to all the seven (7) casesagainst her, with the assistance of counsel de parte. the cases were subsequently consolidatedbefore Branch 49 of the regional Trial Court of Manila 1 and, by agreement of the parties, a joint trialwas conducted.

On February 3, 1989, the trial Court rendered judgment the dispositive portion of which reads asfollows: 2

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the aforementioned cases, as follows:


7/93

7

1. In Criminal Case No. 87-57826, the Court finds the accused Alicia Gaoat guilty beyond reasonabledoubt, as principal, for the crime of illegal recruitment, in a large scale, defined in Article 39 in relation to

Articles 32, 34 and 38 of the Labor code, as amended, and in relation to memorandum Order No. 5,series of 1985 and Book I, Rule II, Section 1 (cc) of the rules of the Philippines Overseas Employment

Administration and hereby imposes on her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT with all the accessorypenalties of the law and to pay a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of

insolvency.

2. Criminal Cases Nos. 87-57827 to 87-57829 are hereby dismissed only as against the Accused AliciaGaoat.

3. The Accused Alicia Gaoat is hereby acquitted of the crime charged in Criminal Cases No. 87-58158,87-58036 and 87-58085for failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyondreasonable doubt for said crime.

The Court cannot render judgment on the civil liability of the Accused in favor of the PrivateComplainants because the Department of Labor and Employment has already ordered RoanPhilippines, Inc. and First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc., to pay, jointly and severally,the Private Complainants their monetary claims against the said corporations (Exhibit "D").

Gaoat filed a motion for reconsideration of the verdict on February 20, 1989. The motion wasdenied. hence, the appeal at bar, "only with respect to the order of conviction," as her counsel iscareful to point out. to gain acquittal, she strives to make the following points, to wit: 3

1) she was "only obeying and acting [on] the orders of her superiors (in Roan Philippines, Inc.);"indeed, "she wanted to resign from the company but was overtaken by events beyond their control;"

2) being a mere cashier, she was never informed of the circular allegedly violated: "MemorandumCircular No. 5 of the POEA (Re: Overcharging of Placement Fees)," and insofar as it is made toapply to her, "the law is oppressive and unjust;"

3) assuming she is responsible for the crime charged, the milder form of responsibility should havebeen imposed on her.

Alicia Gaoat was the cashier of Roan Philippines, Inc., 4 a recruitment or manning agency. thelatter's operations were suspended by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration in thefirst quarter of 1987. 5At that time, Gaoat was receiving a salary of P1,150.00 a month, as cashier. 6Her superiors later indicted with her as allegedly her co-conspirators were Magdalena AbenirIrons, the President of the Company, 7 and Domingo B. Babol, the General Manager. 8

Although no less than seven (7) crimes were attributed to her one for illegal recruitment, and six

(6) forestafa she was, to repeat, convicted of only one, the first, that for illegal recruitment.

Now, the information under which she was convicted, accused her of having, willfully, unlawfully andfeloniously and in conspiracy with her superiors, Irons (president of the corporation) and Babol(general manager), collected from LUCIA BERNARDO, FROILAN BRIONES and REYNALDOVALIDOR applicant's for stewardess, Utility Galley and Utility Man in Miami, Florida, U.S.A. the sums of P15,300.00, P19,300.00 and P15,000.00, respectively, which amount are more than themaximum placement and documentation fees of P5,000.00 allowed by the POEA pursuant to itsMemorandum Circle No. 5, Series of 1985 to cover all costs and services relative to theirrecruitment.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, its evidence does not adequately show that Gaoat had anyknowing and wilfull participation in dealing with, and fixing and collecting fees from, the complainingwitnesses. There is no proof that she knew that the fees being collected were in excess of thoseallowed by law or regulation or that she knew or had been advised of any such limits. There is noproof that she had talked with any of the complainants about the amounts they would have to pay toRoan Philippines, Inc.; in fact, she was absolved from the six (6) other accusations leveled againsther, that she had made "false and fraudulent" representations and assurances to the complainingwitnesses that she and her co-accused "had the power and capacity to recruit and employ said . . .(said complainants) and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers in connectiontherewith." 9 Neither is there any proof that she had converted or misappropriated any part of the


8/93

8

money coming into her hands as cashier. All that the State's evidence does show is that after Ironsor Babol had fixed the fees payable by complainants, they had turned over the money collected toGaoat or instructed her to receive the money directly from said complainants for recording (inindex cards) and subsequent deposit in the bank, as were her duties as company cashier, in linewith normal practice and usage. 10

The paucity of the prosecution evidence as regards the appellant's complicity in the crime charged isevident, for instance, from the testimony of Lucia Bernardo, one of the complainants. LuciaBernardo testified pertinently as follows: 11

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you went there in May, 1986, to whom did you talked with?

WITNESS:

To Mrs. Magdalena Iron, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What did she tell you?

WITNESS:

I was told to fill up an application form, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What else did she tell you?

WITNESS:

I was told to come back after a few days for my interview, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you went there for the first time, were you able to talk to Mr. Babol?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

And what did Babol tell you?

WITNESS:

He told me that if I pass the interview I would be able to leave in a period of six months,sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Upon the filing of your application what were the requirement (sic) asked of you?

WITNESS:

The Seaman's book, Medical certificate and the NBI Clearance, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Were you able to accomplish these requirements?

WITNESS:


9/93

9

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

To whom did you submit?

WITNESS:

To Mr. Babol, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

After that what did he tell you?

WITNESS:

I was asked to give them cash bond, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you submitted those requirements to Babol, what did he tell you?

WITNESS:

He told me to give a cash bond, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Were you able to give?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

How much?

WITNESS:

P15,300.00, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What else?

WITNESS:

Fee for the plane ticket, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

By the way, how much was the total amount that you were obliged to pay in order thatyou could leave?

WITNESS:

P30,000.00 all in all, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

And out of this P30,000.00, you were only able to pay P15,300.00?

WITNESS:


10/93

10

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

To whom did you give this P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

I was informed by Mrs. Iron to give the money to Mrs. Alicia Gaoat, their cashier, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you delivered the P15,300.00 were the persons present?

WITNESS :

My companions who made payments also, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Now, was Mr. Babol present when you gave the P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What did he tell you, if any?

WITNESS:

That I would also give the money to Mrs. Alicia Gaoat, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Did you actually give the P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Lucia Bernardo made clear that it was Babol and Irons who had assured her she would be able toleave for her projected employment in Miami, Florida, U.S.A., and instructed her to pay the feesrequired of her to Alicia Gaoat; 12 and that she had spoken to the latter only after paying the amountfixed by Irons and Babol. 13

Much the same thing may be said of the evidence given by other complainant, Froilan Briones. 14Froilan Briones' testimony is that it was only Ms. Irons, Mr. Babol, and a certain Ms. Robinson whointerviewed him and other applicants; that it was the first two, Irons and Babol, who asked that heput up a cash bond; and that all that Gaoat did was to receive the money that he (Briones) was told

by Irons and Babol to pay. 15

Nor is there any evidence satisfactorily establishing that Gaoat had "conspired and confederated"with her co-accused, apart from the implausibility on its face of the theory of conspiracy between amere clerk or cashier, on the one hand, and her superiors, the president and the general manager ofthe company, on the other, because of the patent disparity in their status or rank. On this point, andas regards Gaoat's failure to issue official receipts to the complainants, the Office of the solicitorgeneral makes the following persuasive observations: 16

. . . (T)he evidence thus far adduced is bereft of any showing of conspiracy among the three (3)accused. Neither could it be inferred from the act of appellant in receiving or accepting the money paid


11/93

11

by private complainants since indubitably, she was merely complying with the orders of her superiors.As established by the evidence, appellant received said sums of money in her capacity as cashier of theRoan Philippines, Inc. All transactions, insofar as she is concerned, were above board. She had noinkling that the corporation would in the future, without her knowledge, simply fold-up, leaving her andother co-employees to the wayside, so to speak.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish a finding of criminal conspiracy (Castaneda vs.Sandiganbayan, 171 SCRA 263).

Granting that appellant was negligent in failing to issue receipts to private complainants, such failurewas sufficiently explained as having been omitted per specific instruction of the president, Mrs.. Ironand/or the general manager, Mr. Babol. There was, therefore, no concurrence by herein appellant withher superiors in withholding issuance of receipts.

In analogy, "the concurrence of accused's negligence with the defalcation perpetrated by his co-accused will not suffice to make him a co-conspirator" (Valdez vs. People, 173 SCRA 1163).

The prosecution has thus failed to prove that appellant conspired with the other accused in this case,clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself (Valdez vs. People, supra). The acts of

appellant in receiving money from private complainants far exceeding that required by law, in her officialcapacity as cashier is not among acts enumerated in law as "recruitment and placement".

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court a quo in Criminal Case No. 87-57826, subject of thisappeal, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the appellant, Alicia B. Gaoat, ACQUITTED, with costsde officio.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 120835-40. April 10, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN TIONG MENG alias "TOMMY TAN",accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA,J.:


12/93

12

Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias "Tommy Tan" was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scaleand six (6) counts of estafa.

The information for large scale illegal recruitment reads:

"That on or about the period comprising June 1993 to August, 1993, in the City of Cavite, Republic of thePhilippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, using a businessname RAINBOW SIM FACTORY, a private employment recruiting agency, and misrepresenting himself tohave the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad with the ability tofacilitate the issuance and approval of the necessary papers in connection therewith, when in fact he did notpossess the authority or license from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to do so, did, thenand there, wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly for a fee, recruit in a large scale and promise employment inTaiwan to the following persons, to wit:

Ernesto Orcullo y Nicolas - P15,000.00Manuel Latina y Nicanor - P15,000.00

Neil Mascardo y Guiraldo - P15,000.00Librado C. Pozas - P15,000.00Edgardo Tolentino y Vasquez - P15,000.00

Gavino Asiman - P15,000.00

as in fact, the said persons gave and delivered the abovestated amount, respectively, to the herein accused whoknow fully well that the aforesaid persons could not be sent to Taiwan, to the damage and prejudice of saidaforementioned private complainants."i[1]

The informations for estafa aver substantially the same allegations as follows:

"In Criminal Case No. 277-93:

That on or about June 7, 1993, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of false representations that he can secure anemployment in Taiwan for Ernesto Orcullo y Nicolas as a factory worker induced the latter to entrust to himthe amount of P15,000.00, in consideration of the promised employment, but the herein accused, once inpossession of the amount, with intent to defraud, with grave abuse of confidence and without fulfilling hispromise, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly, misapply, misappropriate and convert thesame to his own personal use and benefit and notwithstanding repeated demands made upon him for the returnof the amount, accused herein failed and refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Ernesto Orcullo yNicolas in the amount of P15,000.00, Philippine Currency."ii[2]

The other informations for estafa involve the following complainants and amounts.

1) Neil Mascardo- P15,000.00

2) Manuel Latina - P15,000.00

3) Ricardo Grepo- P20,000.00

4) Librado Pozas - P15,000.00

5) Gavino Asiman - P15,000.00

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the informations and all seven (7) cases were tried jointly.

On 12 May 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City rendered a decision* the dispositive part ofwhich reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

*


13/93

13

1. In Criminal Case No. 278-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of illegal recruitment in large scale defined and penalized under Article 38 of the Labor Code, asamended in relation to Article 39 thereof, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of life imprisonment, and topay a fine of P100,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;

2. In Criminal Case No. 277-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and herebysentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as the maximum;and to pay ERNESTO ORCULLO the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as moral andexemplary damages;

3. In Criminal Case No. 279-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and herebysentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as the maximum,and to pay NEIL MASCARDO the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as moral and exemplarydamages;

4. In Criminal Case No. 280-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and herebysentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and topay MANUEL LATINA the sum of P15,000 as actual damages, and P15,000 as moral and exemplarydamages;

5. In Criminal Case No. 343-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and herebysentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and topay RICARDO GREPO the sum of P20,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral and exemplary damages;

6. In Criminal Case No. 365-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and herebysentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum and topay LIBRADO POZAS the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as moral and exemplary damages;

7. In Criminal Case No. 371-93, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and herebysentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and topay GAVINO ASIMAN the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and P15,000 as moral and exemplarydamages.

In addition to the foregoing penalties, the accused being an alien, shall be deported without furtherproceedings after service of sentence.

In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time during which he underwentpreventive imprisonment, provided he voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rulesimposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof (Article29, RPC, as amended by RA No. 6127 and BP Blg. 85).

SO ORDERED."iii[3]

On appeal to this Court, accused-appellant assigns a single error allegedly committed by the trial court, thus:

"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYONDREASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN A LARGE SCALEUNDER CRIMINAL CASE NO. 278-93 AND ESTAFA IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 277-93, 279-93, 280-93, 343-93, 365-93, AND 371-93." iv[4]

The case for the prosecution averred the following facts:

Gavino Asiman testified that a certain Jose Percival Borja who was a friend of his relative informed him that ajob recruiter would be at Borja's house at Capt. Villareal St., Cavite City, in case anyone was interested in an


14/93

14

overseas job in Taiwan. Asiman further recalled that on 18 August 1993, he and his friend, Librado Pozaswent to Borja's house where they met the accused-appellant who told them he could get them jobs as factoryworkers in Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20,000.00. Accused-appellant required them to submit theirpassport, bio-data and their high school diploma as well as to pay P15,000.00 each for placement andprocessing fees. The former issued two (2) receipts which he signed in the presence of Asiman and Pozas.v[5]

Accused-appellant assured them that they could leave for Taiwan twelve (12) days later. Asiman stated thatthey filed the complaints for illegal recruitment when they learned that accused-appellant was arrested forillegal recruitment activities.

Librado Pozas corroborated the testimony of Asiman. He added that Borja had no participation in the offenseas his house was merely used as a meeting place by accused-appellant.

Neil Mascardo testified that he met accused-appellant through a friend and also through Jose Borja. Mascardonarrated that on 7 July 1993, he went to Borja's house to meet accused-appellant who assured him of gettinghim an employment in Taiwan at the Rainbow Ship Co., a marble and handicraft factory with a monthly salaryof P20,000.00. He further testified that he paid P15,000.00 to accused-appellant for placement and processing

fees as shown by a receipt signed by accused-appellant.vi[6]

Accused-appellant first told him he could leave on15 July 1993. When he later inquired about his departure date, accused-appellant told him he could leave bythe end of July 1993. After July, accused-appellant told him he would leave on 15 August 1993 together withhis uncle Manuel Latina. When he failed to leave on the last mentioned date and accused-appellant told himhe would leave on 28 August 1993, Mascardo told accused-appellant he wanted his money back. Accused-appellant told him that a refund was not possible since he had already sent the money to his brother-in-law inTaiwan. Mascardo decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment on 28 August 1993. On 31 August 1993,he, Manuel Latina and Ernesto Orcullo went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)where they found out that accused-appellant was not a licensed or authorized overseas recruiter.

Ricardo Grepo testified that on 11 August 1993, he went to Borja's house where he met with accused-appellant

who received from him P15,000.00 for placement and processing fees. Accused-appellant told him he couldget a job as a factory worker in Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20,000.00. Accused-appellant gave him asigned typewritten receiptvii[7]and assured him he could leave for Taiwan on 28 August 1993. Accused-appellant later told him that his visa was not yet ready and he thereafter learned from Jose Borja that accused-appellant had been arrested for illegal recruitment activities. Grepo filed his complaint on 30 August 1993.

Lucita Mascardo-Orcullo testified that she is the wife of Ernesto Orcullo, one of the complainants. She statedthat on 7 June 1993, she went with her husband to Borja's house where they gave Ernesto's passport and otherpapers to accused-appellant who assured them that Ernesto could get a job as a factory worker in Taiwan.Lucita further averred that they paid P15,000.00 to accused-appellant for placement and processing fees asshown by a receipt signed by accused-appellant.viii[8]

Dionisa Latina testified that she is the wife of complainant Manuel Latina. She stated that on 9 June 1993, sheand her husband went to Borja's house to meet accused-appellant who told them that Manuel could get a job ata toy factory in Taiwan. They paid P15,000.00 to accused-appellant who issued a receiptix[9] and assured themManuel could leave on 30 June 1993. After said date, accused-appellant kept on promising them that Manuelwould be able to leave for Taiwan. The promises were never fulfilled.

Angelina de Luna, a Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, testified that their office received asubpoena from the trial court requiring the issuance of a certification stating whether or not Tan Tiong Mengalias Tommy Tan was authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. De Lunapresented a certification signed by Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, Chief, Licensing Branch of the POEA dated 7

July 1994 stating that accused-appellant is neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers foroverseas employment.x[10]

Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias Tommy Tan was the only witness for the defense. He testified thathe is a Singaporean national married to Estelita Oribiana, a Filipino-Chinese. He added that he works as asales representative for Oribiana Laboratory Supplies, a company owned by his brother-in-law which sellslaboratory equipment to various schools in Cavite.

Tan alleged that Jose Percival Borja was introduced to him by a certain Malou Lorenzo at the office of theirlaboratory supplies in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Lorenzo allegedly told him that Borja needed his help in processingjob applications for abroad. When he talked to Borja, the latter told him that he could help in convincing


15/93

15

applicants that they could work in Taiwan. Borja offered him a P1,000.00 commission from the amount paidby each applicant.

Tan admitted having received money from all the complainants but he said that all the money was turned overto Borja after deducting his commission. Tan likewise admitted that he and his wife are respondents in about

seventy (70) cases of estafa and illegal recruitment but that it was Lorenzo who was the main recruiter.

The prosecution presented Jose Percival Borja as a rebuttal witness. Borja testified that Tan was introduced tohim by Malou Lorenzo. Accused-appellant told him that they were direct recruiters for jobs in Taiwan andthat he has relatives there. Tan's offer was attractive considering that he charged only P15,000.00 while theprevailing rate for job placements was P45,000.00-P

60,000.00. Borja added that he even told his friends andrelatives to apply with accused-appellant. Tan had told him that he sometimes comes to Cavite to deliverlaboratory equipment. When Tan called him up to tell him he was in the area, Borja told him to come to hishouse. It was at his house where Tan accepted money from several job applicants most of whom he (Borja)did not know. When Borja realized that Tan had cheated the applicants, he helped set up a trap and had Tanarrested by his neighbor Tony Guinto, a Cavite City policeman. Borja later learned that Tan had victimized

several people in Batangas and Metro Manila.

In the present appeal, accused-appellant would have the Court believe that he merely acted as a collector ofmoney for the principal recruiter Borja who made the representations that he (Tan) could give the applicantsjobs in Taiwan. He maintains that he merely received commissions from the transactions and that the deceitwas employed not by him but by Borja who introduced him as a job recruiter.

The Court is not impressed by such bizarre pretensions.

Several revealing circumstances belie the version for the defense, namely:

1. Neil Mascardo testified that accused-appellant told him he could no longer return his money becausehe had already sent it to his brother-in-law Lee Shut Kua in Taiwan;

2. All the receipts issued to complainants were signed by accused-appellant;

3. Tan admitted that he and his wife are respondents in about seventy (70) cases for estafa and illegalrecruitment in Batangas; xi[11]

4. Tan executed a sworn statement dated 13 September 1993 before SPO2 Eduardo G. Nover, Jr. in thepresence of his lawyer Atty. Florendo C. Medina wherein he admitted receiving P15,000.00 from GavinoAsiman;xii[12]

5. The complainants all pointed to Tan and not Borja as the one who had represented to them that hecould give them jobs in Taiwan.

There is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives against Tan other than to bring him to the barof justice. The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were straight-forward, credible andconvincing. The constitutional presumption of innocence in Tan's favor has been overcome by proof beyondreasonable doubt and we affirm his convictions.

The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement thus:

"(A)ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, andincludes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether forprofit or not; Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a feeemployment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement." xiii[13]

It is clear that accused-appellant's acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and representing tosaid applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement under the aboveprovision of the Labor Code.

The Labor Code prohibits any person or entity, not authorized by the POEA, from engaging in recruitment andplacement activities thus:


16/93

16

"(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code,to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable underArticle 39 of this Code x x x x

(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense

involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more personsconspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterpriseor scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale ifcommitted against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group." xiv[14]

The POEA having certified that accused-appellant is not authorized to recruit workers for overseasemployment, it is clear that the offense committed against the six (6) complainants in this case is illegalrecruitment in large scale punishable under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code with life imprisonment and a fineof One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

Accused-appellant's guilt of six (6) separate crimes of estafa has likewise been proven.

The argument that the deceit was employed by Jose Percival Borja and not by accused-appellant is specious,even ridiculous. All the complainants agreed that it was accused-appellant Tan who assured them of jobs inTaiwan. The assurances were made intentionally to deceive the would-be job applicants to part with theirmoney.

InPeople v. Calonzo,xv[15] the Court reiterated the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under theLabor Code can be convicted for violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa provided theelements of the crime are present. InPeople v. Romeroxvi[16]the elements of the crime were stated thus:

a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and

b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or thirdperson.

Both elements have been proven in this case.

One final point. The names of a certain Malou Lorenzo and Chit Paulino have been mentioned by accused-appellant as being illegal recruiters whom he contends are either the main recruiters or their agents. It alsoappears that accused-appellant's wife Estelita Oribiana who is a co-accused in the other illegal recruitment

complaints may be a part of a large syndicate operating in Batangas, Cavite and Metro Manila. There isnothing on the record to show that attempts were made to investigate these three (3) people.

The campaign and drive against illegal recruiters should be continuous and unrelenting. Government shouldnot be content with bringing to justice but a number of these diabolic denizens of society who thrive on thedreams of our countrymen of having a better life. Only when the last of their tribe has been convicted andpunished can the government rightfully claim that it has fulfilled the constitutional mandate to protect therights and promote the welfare of workers.xvii[17]

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias "Tommy Tan"guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against

accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.


17/93

17


18/93

i[G.R. No. 119076. March 25, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER SEGUN and JOSEPHINE CLAM,accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

KAPUNAN,J.:

Appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofIligan City with violating Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, in an information reading:

That on or about the 3rd day of March, 1993 and for sometime thereafter, at Linamon, Lanao del Norte,Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslycanvass, enlist, contract, transport and recruit for employment the following 13 persons, namely:

Without any license and/or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers from theDepartment of Labor and Employment.[1]

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty to the above charges.

The prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses, namely, Francita L. Manequis, Conchita Tambacan,Josephine Aba, Melecio Ababa, Rogelio Collantes, Loreta Caban, Christine Collantes and ElenaAraas.

Manequis, Employment Officer III and Administrative Officer of the Department of Labor andEmployment (DOLE), identified two certifications issued by Allan Macaraya, then DOLE Director forRegion XII.[2] The first Certification,[3] dated October 7, 1993, stated that per records available in thisOffice appellants were neither licensed nor authorized by this Department to recruit workers foroverseas employment. The second,[4] dated May 17, 1993, was issued upon the request of [the]Honorable Mayor of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, Mayor Alejandro C. Alfeche. It stated that appellants,per records of this Office, were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and overseasemployment.

Conchita Tambacan, 50, married, a tobacco vendor and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Nortetestified that her son Mario, then 17, was recruited by appellants on March 6, 1993 and brought toManila. She knew that he was recruited only because many told [her]. Her son did not consult herregarding the recruitment. At the time of her testimony, her son had sent her only two letters fromCabanatuan City but had not returned home to Linamon, Lanao del Norte.

After learning of her sons recruitment, Mrs. Tambacan went to the Mayor of Linamon who, in turn,verified from DOLE whether appellants had any authority to undertake recruitment. Subsequently, themayor handed Mrs. Tambacan the certification dated May 17, 1993.[5]

Josephine Ozarraga Aba, 28, married, a housekeeper, and a resident of Linamon, is the aunt of twinsPedro and Pablo Ozarraga. Pedro and Pablo, then 18, are the sons of her deceased sister. Mrs. Abatestified that sometime in March or April 1993 her nephews told her that they wanted to go to Manilaand that they were recruited. Her nephews were then jobless and were looking for work. Mrs. Abawent to appellants house to inquire from appellants, who were her neighbors, if what her nephews toldher was true. In appellants house, she saw appellants, her nephews, among others. Appellants told her

that her nephews would be given free fare to Manila, free meals and good wages. These they alsopromised her nephews. Mrs. Aba claimed that appellants brought one of the twins to Cabanatuan andthe other to Bulacan. When she testified, her nephews had not yet returned to Linamon.[6]

Melecio Ababa, 64, married, a fish vendor, and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is thegrandfather of Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo. Sometime in April 1992, Ababa learned that appellantshad recruited his grandsons. Ababa asked his grandsons, Why will you work there [in CabanatuanCity] [when] in fact you can find jobs here? Ababa went to the house of appellants who assured him


19/93

that the transportation to Manila was free, and that his grandsons were to be provided free meals andpaid good wages. Because of these promises, he acquiesced to the recruitment. At the time of histestimony, Ababas grandsons had not returned to Linamon. All he received from them were twoletters but no money.[7]

Another complainant, Rogelio Collantes, 44, jobless and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is thehusband of Victoria Collantes and the father of Christine, then 13, and Rogelio, Jr., then 6. Sometimein April 1993, Rogelio learned that appellants had recruited Victoria, Christine and Roger. Rogeliotalked to appellants who promised that his wife and childrens transportation to Manila and meals willbe free and that they will receive good wages. Victoria, Christine and Rogelio, Jr., who were thenlooking for jobs, were then brought to Cabanatuan City.

At the time of his testimony, Rogelios children had already returned to Linamon, traveling home withappellant Josephine Clam. Collantes wife, though, was still in Nueva Ecija. She had sent letters toRogelio thrice, and money twice, once in the amount of P1,000.00 and the other time P800.00.[8]

The prosecution also presented Rogelios daughter Christine, who was among those allegedly recruitedby appellants. Christine said her parents were jobless during the months of March and April 1993 andwere looking for work. Upon the invitation of appellants, she and her mother went to the house ofappellants on March 26, 1993. Appellants offered her mother a job. Christine went with her mother toCabanatuan City where her mother forced her to work. According to Christine, those recruitedtotaled thirteen, including her mother and her brother. She and the others took a boat to Manila andCabanatuan City. Appellants shouldered the transportation expenses.

In Cabanatuan, Christine did housework for a certain Engr. Sy for seven (7) months. She was paidP500.00 a month. She returned home in Linamon on December 4, 1993. Neri Clam, Josephinessister, paid for her fare to Manila.

Like Christine, her mother Victoria also performed housework in Cabanatuan City for a certain MabiniLlanera. Her brother, Rogelio, Jr., was not able to find work because he was still a child.[9]

Loreta Cavan,* 14, and also a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, testified that sometime in March1993, she was recruited by appellants and brought to Manila then to Cabanatuan City. She relatedthat she met appellants in the house of Josephine Clam, where she was recruited. Appellants told herthat Cabanatuan City was a good place because the salary [was] big. Loreta agreed to go. Loretafurther stated that those recruited by the couple totaled thirteen, including the twin brothers Pedroand Pablo, a certain woman named Pasbel, a certain Johnny, and Loretas sister Luther.

At Cabanatuan City, Loreta was able to work for a certain Barangay Captain Centioco for three (3)months for P600.00 a month. Loreta purportedly was not paid for her services since her two monthssalary was supposed to pay for her fare to Manila.

Loreta denied that she went to the house of appellants to seek their help. Rather, appellants allegedlyoffered her a job. Appellants invited her to go to their house on March 27, 1993. Loreta learned fromher sister Luther that appellants were recruiting.

Loretas sister Luther, who was among those listed in the information as having been recruited byappellants, went to Manila to work but her job was not provided by appellants.[10]

The prosecution also offered the testimony of Ester Cavan, the mother of Loreta Cavan, to corroboratethe latters testimony. The same was dispensed with, however, the corroborative nature thereof havingbeen admitted by counsel for the defense.[11]

Finally, Elena Araas, mother of Richard Araas, related that on March 6, 1993 appellants brought herson, then 19, to Cabanatuan City. Her son, who was then looking for work, was promised that hewould be given a good salary. She learned of the promise when she went to appellants house whereshe saw appellants, her son, among others. Elena claimed that she was present when appellantsapproached her son and offered him work in Cabanatuan City. Elena agreed to the recruitment of her


20/93

son because of the promise of a good salary. However, she has not heard from her son since he left norhad she received any money from him.[12]

Appellants defense was predicated on denial. They presented five witnesses to support their case.

Myrna Sasil, 35, married, a housekeeper and a resident of Iligan City, testified that in March 1993 shewent to the appellants residence to ask them to find a job in Manila for her daughter Margie. Prior tothat, Myrna had known appellants for almost a year. She knew that appellants could help theirdaughter find work in Manila because they just came from Manila themselves. She said that before shewent to appellants house, she did not know that appellants were sending people to Manila for work.As Myrnas family was then suffering from financial difficulties, Josephine agreed to find work forMyrnas daughter.

According to Myrna, Margie left with the thirteen persons listed in the information as having beenrecruited by appellants. Appellants paid for Margies fare to Manila, which she reimbursed from hersalary. At the time of Myrnas testimony, Margie was still working in Cabanatuan City and was

sending Myrna money from her salary.[13]

Losendo Servano, 50, married, a farmer and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is a neighbor ofappellants as well as those of the thirteen persons they allegedly recruited. Losendo had knownJosephine Clam since she was born, and Roger Segun when the latter and Josephine got married.

Losendo testified that his son Ruel did not have work in Linamon. If Ruel stayed in Linamon, Losendosaid he would become a hoodlum or a delinquent. His son thus requested appellants to take him withthem to Manila and find work for him, saying Manang, Manong, I just go with you to Manila.

In April 1993, Ruel, appellants and thirteen others left for Manila by boat. Appellants shoulderedRuels expenses in going to Manila. When Ruel was able to find work, he paid appellants byinstallment. Losendo claims that his son found work through the help of appellants.[14]

Virgincita Ozarraga, 30, a housekeeper and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is the sister ofappellant Josephine Clam. She is also the aunt of the twins Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga and a neighborof the thirteen persons allegedly recruited by appellants.

According to Virgincita, Josephine Clam went to Nueva Ecija in 1991 but transferred in 1992 toDagupan City. In both places, Josephine worked as a house helper. Roger Segun, on the other hand,worked as liaison officer for Rolmar Employment Services.

Virgincita disputed Conchita Tambacans testimony that appellants recruited the latters son Mario.She said that Mario went to appellants house. Josephine did not promise him a job because they werenot recruiters although appellants assured him they would help him find a job.

Virgincita further testified that in March 1993 Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga also went to the house ofVirgincitas mother to ask appellants to help them find work because there were times they could noteat. Josephine allegedly told the twins that she was not a recruiter but she would help them find work.She purportedly said the same thing to Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo, Victoria and Christine Collantes,and Loreta and Luther Cavan. Josephine also told them that she was not promising them anything.

Appellants and the thirteen persons they purportedly recruited left for Manila by boat. Appellants paidfor their fare and were able to find work for them in Manila, Cabanatuan and other places in Luzon.Thereafter, appellants returned to Linamon. To Virgincitas knowledge, no people sought their help tofind them jobs after the couple returned from Manila.[15]

Appellant Roger Segun, 34, single, is an employee of the Rolmar Employment Services. As the liaisonofficer of the agency, appellant undertakes the processing of the papers for the agencys license.

According to appellant, around April and May of 1993, the thirteen persons listed in the informationwent to the house of Josephine Clam to ask her to help them find jobs in Cabanatuan City. Their


21/93

neighbors knew that Josephine used to work in Cabanatuan City, Pangasinan and Dagupan City.Josephine told them that she was not a recruiter although she would help them find work.

Appellants accompanied the thirteen to Manila as they (appellants) were going there anyway.Appellants shouldered their neighbors transportation and other expenses from Linamon to Cabanatuan

City upon the promise that they (appellants) would be paid back. Eventually, some paid while othersdid not. Roger did not bother to ask for payment from those who did not pay. He claimed he was ableto help find jobs for their neighbors by recommending them to friends who needed helpers andworkers. Until they were able to find jobs, the thirteen stayed in Rogers house in Cabanatuan City.

Roger admitted that neither he nor Josephine Clam had a license to recruit. He said he was not arecruiter. He also revealed that after he brought the thirteen to Manila, he tried to secure a license torecruit but his application was disapproved.[16]

Appellant Josephine Clam, 28, single, and residing at Linamon, Lanao del Norte, used to work as ahouse helper in Pangasinan and Bulacan for a year after which she returned to Linamon.

Around March and April 1993, the thirteen persons listed in the information went to her house to askher help to find them work. They knew that Josephine used to work in Pangasinan and Dagupan. Shetold them she would try her best to help them but informed them that she was not a recruiter.

Roger and Josephine shouldered their neighbors transportation and food expenses on the condition thattheir neighbors reimburse appellants once they found jobs. Some of them eventually paid them backalthough others did not. Appellants were able to find jobs for the thirteen since Roger had manyfriends.

Josephine admitted that she did not have any license to recruit since she was not a recruiter. She andRoger helped their neighbors find jobs because she took pity on them when they begged her to helpthem find jobs. She even spent her and Rogers joint savings to answer for her neighbors expenses.[17]

Based on the foregoing evidence, the Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for violating Article 38 ofthe Labor Code, as amended:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment of the 13persons mentioned in the information, namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane Cantil, Richard Aranas,Victoria Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta Caban, JonardGenemilo, Jhonely Genemilo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico Villaver in a large scale,the accused are hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment for each of them and to pay a

fine of P100,000.00 each. The bail bond put up by the accused is hereby ordered cancelled, in view ofthe penalty imposed by this Court of life imprisonment, which is a nonbailable offense.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Appellants contend that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They maintain that it wastheir neighbors who approached them in the house of Josephine Clams mother and solicited theirassistance in their (the neighbors) desire to go to Manila. Josephine Clam had a history ofemployment in Luzon and had just returned to Linamon. In Josephine, the neighbors saw anopportunity to taste economic progress and escape poverty and stagnation. Appellants took pity onthem and helped them find jobs, even defraying their neighbors travel expenses. They submit,

therefore, that they were not engaged in the recruitment of persons for employment but in pursuit of alawful and noble endeavor for the benefit of the less fortunate. They neither collected nor received anyconsideration for their efforts. Appellants point out that of the 13 allegedly recruited only ChristineCollantes and Loreta Cavan testified against them. Considering these circumstances, appellants submitthat the evidence against them is at most ambiguous and inconclusive.[19]

The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur. First, theoffender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in


22/93

recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within themeaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practicesenumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Third, the offender commits said acts against three ormore persons, individually or as a group.[20]

There is no dispute that the first element is present in this case. The certification dated May 17, 1993and issued by DOLE Region XII Director Allen Macaraya, states that appellants were not authorizedto conduct recruitment for local and overseas employment. Both appellants conceded they have nolicense to recruit.[21]

The next question is whether appellants undertook any activity constituting recruitment and placementas defined by Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, which states:

Recruitment and Placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertisingfor employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which,

in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemedengaged in recruitment and placement.

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants canvassed, enlisted, contractedand transported the thirteen persons listed in the information? In examining the prosecutionsevidence, we bear in mind that a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on afinding in each case of illegal recruitment of three (3) or more persons whether individually or as agroup.[22] While the law does not require that at least three (3) victims testify at the trial, it is necessarythat there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three (3) or morepersons.[23]

There is no evidence that appellant undertook the recruitment of Mary Jane Cantil and PacificoVillaver. Neither Cantil nor Villaver testified in court. No witness testified as to the fact of theirrecruitment.

Christines testimony establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants recruited Christinesmother Victoria. Christine explicitly stated that appellants offered her mother a job and told them thatthey would be given work. Victoria thus agreed to appellants proposal that she would be given ajob in Cabanatuan City.

However, there is reasonable doubt whether appellants actually recruited Christine herself sinceChristine said that she was forced by [her] mother to work in Cabanatuan City.

The Court also entertains grave doubts regarding the alleged recruitment of Christines brother Rogelio,Jr., who, according to Christine, went with their mother and was not able to work because, at 6, he wasstill a child. Did Rogelio, Jr. go to Cabanatuan City to work or did he just go together with hismother so she could look after him? The former is unlikely while the latter is not farfetched since thechild was too young to work and still needed looking after.

The prosecution, however, succeeded in proving that appellants recruited Loreta Cavan. Loretatestified that appellants told her that the salary in Cabanatuan City was good, that she agreed to theirproposal for her to work there, and that they brought her to Manila then to Cabanatuan City:

As we held earlier, recruit is a legal conclusion. The witness must testify as to thefacts that wouldprove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state that the accused recruited thevictim. Hence, the testimony of Josephine Aba that appellants recruited her nephews is, by itself,insufficient to convict appellants for the recruitment of Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga.

That appellants allegedly told Josephine Aba that her nephews would be given free fare and meals isnot inconsistent with appellants account that they paid for their neighbors expenses. The same holdstrue for the claim that appellants brought the twins to Cabanatuan and Bulacan. According toappellants, they accompanied the thirteen persons to help them find work. The reference to good


23/93

wages could mean that the rates of compensation in Cabanatuan or Bulacan are relatively highcompared to those in Lanao del Norte. These circumstances do not necessarily mean that appellantsrecruited Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga.

We cannot give much credence to Josephines statement that appellants also promised free fare and

meals, and good wages to hernephews since the prosecution did not show that Josephine was presentwhen appellants made this supposed promise to her nephews.

Neither did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants recruited Jhonely and JonardGenemelo. Melecio Ababa, grandfather of Jhonely and Jonard testified on direct examination:

Note again the use of the term recruit, a defect present in the testimonies of Rogelio Collantes, LoretaCavan and Josephine Aba. While Melecio Aba said that appellants promised his grandsons freetransportation and meals, and good wages, these promises, as we have observed in analyzing JosephineAbas testimony, are not incongruent with appellants version.

Lastly, Elena Araas testimony on her son Richards alleged recruitment is insufficient to proveappellants guilt. Elena testified on direct examination:

Elenas testimony fails to state the specific act constituting the recruitment. Elena merely declared thather son was recruited a legal conclusion. Appellants also supposedly said that they have work inCabanatuan City and that they will help [her] son to find a job. Elena did not state the context andthe circumstances under which these statements were made. Moreover, the statements attributed toappellants are ambiguous and hardly incongruous with appellants claim that they assisted theirneighbors find work, which assistance does not necessarily translate to an act of recruitment. Thatthere was a supposed promise of a good salary is also ambiguous for, as noted earlier, the reference togood wages could mean that the rates of compensation in Cabanatuan City are higher compared tothose in Lanao del Norte.

In sum, the prosecution failed to elicit from many of its witnesses the specific acts constituting therecruitment of the other alleged victims. The prosecution was able to prove that appellants performedrecruitment activities only in the cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan. The third element ofillegal recruitment, i.e., that the offender commits the acts of recruitment against three or more personsis, therefore, absent. Consequently, appellants can be convicted only of two counts of simple illegalrecruitment.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. Appellants are foundGUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of illegal recruitment, as defined and punished byArticle 38 (a) of the Labor Code, in relation to Articles 13 (b) and 39 thereof. They are each sentencedto suffer for each count imprisonment of four (4) to five (5) years.

SO ORDERED.


24/93


25/93

ii

iiiBROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ZAMORA147 SCRA 49GUTIERREZ, J.

FACTS

1.On July 11, 1969, Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines (BLUMP),filed acomplaint against San Miguel Corporation.2.It alleged that respondents ordered the individualcompla inants to disaff ili ate from the complainant union, the management then dismissed the individualcomplainantswhen they insisted on their union membership.3.Pet itioners are worker s who have beenemployed at the San Miguel Parola GlassFactory for nearly 7 years prior to their dismissal. They worked

as cargadores orpahinantes at the SMC plant loading, unloading, piling or palleting empty bottles andwoodedshells to and from company trucks and warehouses.4.Respondents alleged that the complainants havenever been the ir employees and were employees of an independent contractor, Camahort.5.Peti tio nersfirst reported for work to Camahort who signs their gate passes and therespondent companyprovided them with tools, equipment and paraphernalia used inloading, unloading, piling and haulingoperations.6.Job orders came from Camahort. The orders are then transmitted to an assistant-officer-in-charge. In turn, the assistant informs the warehouseman and checkersregarding the same. The latter,thereafter, relays said orders to the capatazes orgroup leaders who then give orders to the workers as to where,when and what toload, unload, pile, pallet or clean.7.Pe tit ioners were pain eve ry 10 days on piece rate.The group leader notes down thenumber or volume of work that each individual worker has accomplished.Camahortapproves the final report.8.Peti tioner s also worked exclu sively for SMC plnt, never havin gbe en as si gned to other companies or departments of SMC plant, even when the volume of work isminimum.

ISSUE

Are the petitioners employees of private respondent, San Miguel Corporation?

HELD

YES. In determining the existence of employee-employer relationship, the elements that aregenerally consideredare the following:1 . t h e s e l e c t i o n an d en g ag em en t o f t h e emp l o y ee 2 . t h e p a y m e n t o f w a g e s 3 . t h e p o w e r o f d i s m i s s a l 4 .t he emp lo ye r s p ow er to con trol t he empl oyee wi threspect to the means andmethods by which the work is to be accomplished.It is the so-calledcontrol testthat is the most important element.Applying the above criteria, the evidence strongly indicates the existence of

an employer,employee relationship between the petitioner workers and respondent San MiguelCorporation. The

respondent asserts that the petitioners are employees of the GuaranteedLabor Contractor, an independent labor

contracting firm.The facts and evidence on record negate respondent SMC's claim.The existence of an

independent contractor relationship is generally established by thefollowing criteria: "whether or not the

contractor is carrying on an independent business; thenature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term

and duration of the relationship;the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and

supervisionof the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the

contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises tools,appliances, materials and

labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment."None of the above criteria exists in the case at bar.Highly

unusual and suspect is the absence of a written contract to specify the performanceof a specified piece of work,

the nature and extent of the work and the term and duration ofthe relationship. The records fail to show that alarge commercial outfit, such as the SanMiguel Corporation, entered into mere oral agreements of employment

or labor contractingwhere the same would involve considerable expenses and dealings with a large number

ofworkers over a long period of time. Despite respondent company's allegations not an iota ofevidence was

offered to prove the same or its particulars. Such failure makes respondentSMC's stand subject to serious

doubts.Uncontroverted is the fact that for an average of seven (7) years, each of the petitioners hadworked

continuously and exclusively for the respondent company's shipping andwarehousing department. Considering

the length of time that the petitioners have workedwith the respondent company, there is justification to conclude


26/93

that they were engaged toperform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

respondent,and the petitioners are, therefore regular employees.

iv

v

vi

vii

viiiCONTINENTAL MARBLE V. NLRC161 SCRA 151PADILLA, J.

FACTS

1.Rodito Nasayao claimed that sometime in May 1974, he was appointed plant manager of

Continental Marble with an alleged compensation of P3,000.00 a monthor 25% of the monthly net income of thecompany, whichever is greater.2.When the company failed to pay his salary for the months of May,June and July1974, Nasayao filed a complaint with NLRC.3.Cont inenta l Mar ble den ied tha t Rod itoNasay ao was it s emp lo yee. Th ey cl ai me dthat the undertaking agreed by the parties was a joint venture, asort of partnership,wherein Nasayao was to keep the machinery in good working condition and in return,hewould get the contracts from end-users for the installation of marble products, inwhich the company would notinterfere.4.In addition, Nasayao was to receive an amount equivalent to 25% of the net profitsthatthe petitioner corporation would realize, should there be any. Since there hadbeen no profits during said period,private respondent was not entitled to anyamount.

ISSUEWhether or not the private respondent Nasayao was employed as plant manager of petitioner Continental Marble Corporation.

HELD

NO. There was nothing in the record which would support the claim of Rodito Nasayao thathe was an employeeof the petitioner corporation. He was not included in the companypayroll nor in the list of company employeesfurnished by the Social Security System.Most of all the element of control is lacking.It appears that the petitionerhad no control over the conduct of Rodito Nasayao in theperformance of his work. He decided for himself onwhat was to be done and worked at hisown pleasure. He was not subject to indefinite hours or conditions ofwork and in turn wascompensated according to the results of his on effort. He has a free hand in runningthecompany and its business, so much so, that the petitioner did not know until very later thatNasayao collectedold accounts receivables, not covered by their agreement, which heconverted to his personal use


27/93

ix

xSEVILLA V. COURT OF APPEALS160 SCRA 171SARMIENTO, J.

FACTS

1.Mrs. Segundina Noguera leased her premises located at Ermita, Manila to TouristWorld Service,Inc. (TWSI), represented by Eliseo Canilao, for the latters use asbranch office. In the said contract Mrs. LinaSevilla held herself solidarily liable withTWSI for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on.2.Whenthe branch office was opened, the same was run by petitioner Mrs. Sevilla,who was designated asbranch manager by TWSI. For any fare bought in on theefforts of Mrs. Sevilla,, 4% was to go her and 3% was tobe withheld by TWSI3.I n No vember 19 61 , TW SI was al legedl y in formed th at Mr s. Se vi ll a was

connectedwith a rival travel firm. Since the branch office was losing, TWSI considered closing itdown. Thefirms board of directors issued two resolutions; the first abolishing theoffice of manager of the Ermita BranchOffice and the second, authorizing thecorporate secretary to receive the property of TWSI in said branch.4 .InJanua ry 1 962, the lease contr act to u se t he pr emises as branch of fice was terminated. In June 1962,the Corporate Secretary went over to the office to complywith the mandate of the resolutions. Finding thepremises locked and unable tocontact Mrs. Sevilla, he padlocked the premises to protect the interests ofTWSI5.As such, petitioner s Spouses Sevilla filed a complaint against responde nts TWSI, Canilaoand Noguera, praying for mandatory preliminary injunction. Petitioners claimthat Mrs. Sevillas relationshipwith TWSI was one of joint business venture and notone of employment.6.In its answer, TWSI contendthat Mrs. Sevilla was its employee and as such wasdesignated manager.7.The trial court held forthe pri vate r esp onde nts . I t ruled tha t T WSI, bei ng the true lessee, has the privilege to terminate thelease and padlock the premises. It alsoheld that Mrs. Sevilla was a mere employee of TWSI and that she was

bound by theact of her employer.8. Th e Co ur t of Appe al s af fi rm ed sa id deci si on , Hence , th e in st antpe ti ti on.

ISSUE

Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between TWSI and Mrs. Sevilla.

HEL

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cherry-ann-layugan
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Labor New- Cheng

Documents