ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137988.November 17, 1999]

SANTOS, et al.. vs. HON. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 17, 1999.

G.R. No. 137988(Yolanda Santos, et al. vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines.)

Petitioners were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 21 for illegal recruitment and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum, and to pay the offended party jointly and severally, the amount of P37,000.00.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC decision.

Hence, this petition.

Assailing the CA decision, petitioners raise the following issues:

a)Is the offense of "illegal recruitment" a transitory or continuing offense as declared by the Honorable Court of Appeals?

b)Is there a legal justification for the Honorable Court of Appeals to stretch and expand the meaning of "referral" in relation to the offense of "illegal recruitment"?;

c)Are duly licensed recruitment agencies and their duly authorized personnel made liable for "illegal recruitment" while in the performance of their legitimate function and work?

There is no merit in the petition.

Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded great respect and will not be disturbed by this Court unless there are certain facts overlooked which may affect the outcome of the case. We find no cogent reason to disturb this established maxim.

The two (2) courts below found that petitioners, Yolanda Santos and Josephine Ramirez conspired with each other to recruit private respondent, Grace Dorado for alleged employment abroad and took from her the sum of P37,000 for fees and expenses. Dorado's departure to work in Saudi Arabia on April 5, 1992, on May 23, 1992 and on June 5, 1992 never materialized. It turned out that both Santos and Ramirez were "neither licensed nor authorized by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment." ¹ Rollo, p. 28

Anent the issue of jurisdiction, we find no reversible error with the ruling that it is the RTC, Cavite City which has jurisdiction over the case considering that while the invitation for recruitment occurred in the house of a friend in Taguig, Rizal, the final consent and agreement to pay the required placement fee took place in the residence of the private respondent in Cavite City. This is in pursuance to the rule that in all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality, city or province where the offense was committed. It is sufficient that some of the essential ingredients thereof occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court. ² See Sec. 10, Rule 10, Criminal Procedure

Petitioners contend that there was nothing illegal in what they were doing since they were merely liaison officers, referring and accompanying prospective clients to E.J. Placement Agency, a duly licensed recruitment agency.

Article 13 of the Labor Code provides:

ART. 13. Definitions. - (a) xxx

(b)������� "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

(c)������� xxx.

In conjunction, Art 38 of the Labor Code provides:

ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. (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 under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment, or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

x x x

There is evidence to show that Santos and Ramirez acted together in recruiting private respondent, promising her employment abroad for a fee but without authority to do so. The claim that petitioner Santos never promised overseas employment to anybody is belied by her admission that on previous occasions, she had endorsed to Ramirez eleven (11) applicants for work abroad. ³ Rollo, p. 28 We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the fact of making eleven referrals is an act of canvassing or procuring workers falling within the ambit of recruitment and placement under the labor code. ⁴ Id., at 45If it were true that they were liaison officers of E.J. Placement Agency, a licensed office to recruit, itwould have been easy for their employer to show that they were connected with said office and were authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.Unfortunately, all they presented in court were mere alibis and denials which can not be given evidentiary weight as against the positive and convincing evidence of the prosecution.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE