Bernardo et al v. NLRC & FEBTCGR No.

122917, 12 July 1999Facts:The dismissed

complainants, numbering 43, are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from
1988 to 1993 by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sortersand
Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract
for Handicapped
Workers".
Disclaiming
that
complainants
were
regular
employees,respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company maintained that
complainants were hiredtemporarily under a special employment arrangement which
was a result of overturesmade by some civic and political personalities to the
respondent Bank; thatcomplainant[s] were hired due to "pakiusap"; that the tellers
themselves already did thesorting and counting chore as a regular feature and integral
part of their duties; thatthrough the "pakiusap" of Arturo Borjal, the tellers were relieved
of this task of countingand sorting bills in favor of deaf-mutes without creating new
positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in any other bank in the
Philippines which deals with purely counting and sorting of bills in banking operations.
The LA &, on appeal, the NLRC ruled against petitioners, holding that they could not be
deemed regular employeessince they were hired as an accommodation to the
recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employments were covered by
Employment Contracts w/ special provisions on duration of contract as specified under
Art. 80. Hence, the terms of thecontract shall be the law between the
parties.Issue:Whether petitioners have become regular employeesHeld:Only the
employees, who worked for more than six months and whose contracts
wererenewed are deemed regular. Hence, their dismissal from employment
was illegal. Thef a c t s , v i e w e d i n l i g h t o f t h e L a b o r C o d e a n d t h e
M a g n a C a r t a f o r D i s a b l e d P e r s o n s , indubitably show that the
petitioners,
except
sixteen
of
them,
should
be
deemed
regular employees.The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that
they shall be trainedfor a period of one month, after which the employer shall determine
whether or not theyshould be allowed to finish the 6-month term of the contract.
Furthermore, the employer may terminate the contract at any time for a just and
reasonable cause. Unless renewed inwriting by the employer, the contract shall
automatically expire at the end of the term.The stipulations in the employment
contracts indubitably conform with Art. 80 LC w/c provides for the requisites in
the employment agreement between an employer whoemploys handicapped
workers. Succeeding events and the enactment of RA No. 7277 (the Magna
Carta for Disabled Persons),
13
however, justify the application of Article 280of the Labor Code.R e s p o n d e n t b a n k
entered into the aforesaid contract with a total of 56 handicapped

ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSE DUJUA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 149014-16. February 5, 2004
Facts: Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle,
Guillermo Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. Only Ramon
was arrested. Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All of them were promised work
abroad upon payment of fees but they were not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded
not guilty and denied the allegations that he was a recruiter.
Issue: Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was committed by Raon
Dujua, et al.
Held: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: 1)
The accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined
under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor
Code; 2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary
of Labor and Employment particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an
authority to recruit and deploy workers either locally or overseas; and 3) the
accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons individually or as
a group.
All three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved that Dujua
promised them employment and assured them of placement overseas. All of them
identified Dujua as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. As
against the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujuas
mere denials cannot prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough
credible testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal recruitment , a
conviction for the offense can very well be justified.
Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas
work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer,
World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority.
Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the recruitment of more
than three persons.