CASE 80: People vs.

Melissa Chua aka Clarita Ng Chua

Author: Karla Rose Gutierrez
Topic: Ilegal Recruitment, page 10
DOCTRINE: Any recruitment activity to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of
contracts, or as in the present case, an agency with an expired license, shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. And illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group. Thus for illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper,
the prosecution has to prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the accused undertook
a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the
Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal
activity against three or more persons individually or as a group.
FACTS:
Private complainants Alberto A. Aglanao, Rey P. Tajadao, Billy R. Danan and Roylan
Ursulum filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in large scale against Melissa Chua
alleging that the latter offered them a job as factory workers in Taiwan for deployment
within a month. She required each of them on separate occasions to undergo medical
examination and pay a placement fee of P 80,000 each. Chua assured each of them that
whoever pays the application fee the earliest can leave sooner. After completing
payment, they followed-up their applications. However, they learned that Chua was not
licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. Chua denied having recruited
private complainants for overseas employment and interposed the defense that she was
only a cashier at Golden Gate Office and that she has no knowledge of whether the
agency was licensed to recruit workers during her tenure as it has been de-listed from
the licensed agencies.The RTC of Manila found Chua guilty of illegal recruitment in large
scale, which was affirmed by the CA. The Court of Appeals, as stated early on, affirmed
the trial courts decision holding that appellants defense that, as temporary cashier of
Golden Gate, she received the money which was ultimately remitted to Marilyn Calueng
is immaterial, she having failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship
between her and Marilyn, as well as the legitimacy of the operations of Golden Gate and
the extent of her involvement therein. She was also indicted for five counts of Estafa but
was convicted only for three.
ISSUE: Is Melissa Chua liable for illegal recruitment in large scale?
.
RULING: Yes. Melissa Chua is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale, as stipulated in
Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act R.A. No. 8042.
In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must
concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of
"recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042); and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by
law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.

In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the
offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.
All three elements are present in the case at bar. Chua engaged in recruitment when she
represented to private complainants that she could send them to Taiwan as factory
workers upon submission of the required documents and payment of the placement fee.
The four private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who promised
them employment as factory workers in Taiwan. Chua cannot escape liability by
conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier of Golden Gate. The provisions of
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 are unequivocal that
illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is immaterial, therefore, whether Chua
remitted the placement fees to "the agencys treasurer" or appropriated them. The same
provision likewise provides that the persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are
the principals, accomplices and accessories. Just the same, therefore, appellant can be
held liable as a principal by direct participation since she personally undertook the
recruitment of private complainants without a license or authority to do so.
DISPOSITIVE: Appeal of Respondent Chua is DENIED.