ADAN, RAFAEL III Z.

LABOR STANDARDS-SPL
2017400260 FILCRO-ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
CASES

SECOND DIVISION
(G.R. Nos. 124443-46, June 6, 2002)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPENES, plaintiff-appellee vs. NIMFA REMULLO, accused-appellant

QUISUMBING, J:
FACTS: Jenelyn Quinsaat, Rosario Cadacio, and Honorina Mejia testified that appellant Nimfa
Remullo told them she was recruiting factory workers in Malaysia. Appellant told them to fill up
application forms and go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where the appellant
worked. Appellant also required each applicant to submit a passport, pictures, and clearance from the
NBI and to undergo medical examination. Appellant asked them to pay, as in fact she received an
amount, as placement fee. On the day of their departure, an immigration officer told private
complainants that they lacked a requirement imposed by the POEA. They were not able to leave because
their visas were for tourist only. Mejia inquired from Jamila regarding their application papers. In
response, Evelyn Landrito, vice-president and general manager of Jamila, denied any knowledge of such
papers and that appellant Remulla did not submit any document to Jamila. She certified that appellant
was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of Jamila.

ISSUE: Is appellant Remullo guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale?

LAW: Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

CASE HISTORY: The appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 132, is
hereby affirmed. In Criminal Case No. 95-653, for illegal recruitment in large scale, appellant Remullo
is found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000; and in Criminal Cases
Nos. 95-654, 95-655 and 95-656 for estafa, she is declared guilty sentenced in each case to two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day
of  prision mayor, and to pay by way of restitution P15,000 to each of the private complainants, together
with the costs.

RULING: Yes. For a charge of illegal recruitment to prosper, the following elements must concur: 1)
the accused was engaged in recruitment activity defined under Art. 13(b), or any prohibited practice
under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; 2) he or she lacks the requisite license or authority to lawfully engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers; and 3) he or she committed such acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group. Private complainants were enticed by appellant to apply for jobs
abroad. However, she acted without license or lawful authority to conduct recruitment of workers for
overseas placement. The POEA’s licensing branch issued a certification that appellant, in her personal
capacity, was not authorized to engage in recruitment activities. The general manager of the placement
fees. Such lack of authority to recruit is also apparent from a reading of the job description of a
marketing consultant.

OPINION: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. In here, the accused was engaged in
recruitment activity defined under Art. 13(b), or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor
Code. She lacked the requisite authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment or placement of workers
as testified by Landrito, vice-president and general manager of Jamila and committed such acts against
three individuals: Quinsaat, Cadacio and Mejia. Appellant asked them to pay, as in fact she received an
amount, as placement fee in which she did not have the authority to do so. Therefore I agree with the
Supreme Court in holding Remulla liable to the private complainants.
ADAN, RAFAEL III Z. LABOR STANDARDS-SPL
2017400260 FILCRO-ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
CASES

FIRST DIVISION
(G.R. No. 132376, April 11, 2002)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. SAMINA ANGELES y CALMA, accused-appellant

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J:
FACTS: Maria Tolosa de Sardeña y Tablada was working on Saudi Arabia when she received a call
from her sister, Priscilla Agoncillo, who was in Paris. Agoncillo advised Tolosa de Sardeña to return to
the Philippines and await the arrival of her friend, accused Samina Angeles, who would assist in
processing her travel and employment documents to Paris. Tolosa de Sardeña returned to the
Philippines. Marceliano Tolosa likewise received and followed the same instructions from his sister
Agoncillo. They eventually met the accused to whom they gave the money required for the processing
of their documents. Precila Olpindo and Vilma Brina also received the same instructions from Olpindo’s
sister who met the accused in Belgium. Olpindo’s sister told her that the accused could help process her
documents for employment in Canada. The accused told Olpindo and Brina that it was easier to
complete the processing of their papers if they would start from Jakarta rather than from Manila. So
Olpinda, Brina and accused Angeles flew to Jakarta. However, accused returned to the Philippines after
two days, leaving the two behind. Olpindo tried to get in touch with the accused but she could not reach
her. Tolosa de Sardeña and Tolosa also began looking for her after she disappeared with their money.
The POEA presented a certification to the effect that accused Angeles was not duly licensed to recruit
workers here and abroad. Accused contended that she never represented to the complainants that she
could provide them with work abroad. She pointed out that none of the complainants testified on what
kind of jobs were promised to them, how much they would earn, the length of their employment and
even the names of their employers, which are basic subjects a prospective employee would first
determine.

ISSUE: Is accused Angeles guilty of illegal recruitment?

LAW: Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

CASE HISTORY: The appealed Decision is MODIFIED as follows:

RULING: No. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the
latter were convince to part with their money in order to be employed. To be engaged in the practive of
recruitment and placement. It is plain that there must be at least be a promise or offer of an employment
from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. In the case at bar, none of the
complainants testified that the accused lured them to part their money with promises of jobs abroad. On
the contrary, they were all consistent in saying that their relatives abroad were the ones who contacted
them and urged them to meet the accused who would assist them in processing their travel documents.
The accused did not have to make promises of employment as these were already done by complainants’
relatives.

OPINION: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. In here, the accused was not engaged in
recruitment activity defined under Art. 13(b), or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor
Code. Accused Angeles did not gave an impression on the complainants that she had the power or
ability to send complainants abroad for work and that she convinced such complainants to part with their
money in order to be employed. As testified by the complainants, accused did not lure them to part with
their money with promises of jobs abroad. They were all consistent in saying that their relatives were the
ones who contacted them and urged them to meet the accused who would allegedly assist them in
processing their travel documents. The accused was not the one who made promises of employment but
their relatives. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court in acquitting accused Angeles in the case of
illegal recruitment against her.