10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

G.R.No.170834

Present:

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,*and

REYES,JJ.

ANTONIONOGRA,

Promulgated:
AccusedAppellant.

August29,2008
xx

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

[1]
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision dated August 31, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals(CA)inCAG.R.C.R.No.00244affirmingtheJudgmentoftheRegionalTrialCourt
(RTC), Branch 19, Naga City in Criminal Case No. 987182, convicting Antonio Nogra
(appellant) of large scale illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) in relation to Section 7(b) of
[2]
Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A. No. 8042), otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and
[3]
OverseasFilipinosActof1995.
The inculpatory portion of the Information charging one Lorna G. Orciga and appellant with
largescaleillegalrecruitmentreadsasfollows:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

1/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

That sometime during the period of March 1997 to November, 1997 in the City of Naga,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,being
the General Manager and Operations Manager of LORAN INTERNATIONAL OVERSEAS
RECRUITMENT CO., LTD., with office at Concepcion Grande, Naga City, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping each other, representing themselves to have the
capacitytocontract,enlist,hireandtransportFilipinoworkersforemploymentabroad,didthen
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job
placementtothehereincomplainingwitnessesRENATOALDEN,OLIVERSARMIENTO,FE
ZABALLA, TEOFILA LUALHATI, PILIPINA MENDOZA and KERWIN DONACAO, but
failedtoactuallydeploythemwithoutvalidreason,aswellastoreimbursetheirdocumentation,
placementandprocessingexpensesforpurposesofdeploymentdespitetheirrepeateddemands
for the return of the same, to their damage and prejudice in the amounts as may be proven in
court.

[4]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

OnlyappellantwasbroughttothejurisdictionofthetrialcourtsinceLornaG.Orcigawasthen
andstillisatlarge.Arraignedwiththeassistanceofcounsel,appellantenteredapleaofNOT
GUILTYtothecrimecharged.Thereafter,trialofthecaseensued.

Of the six complainants, the prosecution was able to present five of them, namely: Renato
Alden, Fe Zaballa, Teofila Lualhati, Filipina Mendoza and Kerwin Donacao. Anaielyn
Sarmiento,wifeofcomplainantOliverSarmiento,alsotestifiedfortheprosecution.

Thefacts,asestablishedbytheprosecution,areaptlysummarizedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitor
General(OSG),asfollows:

Appellant held office at Loran International Overseas Recruitment Co., (Loran) in Concepcion
Grande, Naga City (p. 4, TSN, October 19, 1998). A nameplate on his table prominently
displayedhisnameandpositionasoperationsmanager(p.11,TSN,November17,1998p.4,
TSN, January 12, 1999 p. 21, TSN, November 19, 1998).The license of Loran also indicated
appellantastheoperationsmanager(p.5,TSN,February10,1999).ThePOEAfilesalsoreflect
his position as operations manager of Loran (Exhibit L to L4, pp. 59, TSN, November 19,
1998).

SometimeinDecember1996,RenatoAldenwenttoLorantoapplyforajobashotelworkerfor
Saipan.He was interviewed by appellant, who requiredAlden to submit an NBI clearance and
medical certificate and to pay the placement fee. Alden paid the amount of P31,000.00. The
additional amount of P4,000.00 was to be paid prior to his departure to Saipan (pp. 56, TSN,
November17,1998).AppellantpromisedAldenthathewouldleavewithinaperiodofthreeto
fourmonths.AfteroneyearofwaitingAldenwasnotabletoleave.Aldenfiledacomplaintwith
theNBIwhenhewasnotabletorecovertheamountandcouldnolongertalkwithappellant(p.
6,TSN,November17,1998).

On April 18, 1997, Teofila Lualhati applied for employment as hotel worker for Saipan with
Loran (pp. 13, 10, TSN, November 19, 1998). Appellant required her to submit an NBI
clearanceandmedicalcertificateandtopaytheprocessingfeeintheamountofP35,000.00 so
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

2/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

she could leave immediately. She paid the amount of P35,000.00 to Loran's secretary in the
presenceofappellant.Shewaspromisedthatwithin120daysor4monthsshewouldbeableto
leave(pp.1113,TSN,November19,1998).Despiterepeatedfollowups,Lualhatiwasunableto
work in Saipan. She demanded the refund of the processing fee. When the amount was not
returnedtoher,shefiledacomplaintwiththeNBI(pp.1415,TSN,November19,1998).

Sometime in April 1998, Filipina Mendoza went to Loran to apply for employment as hotel
worker(p.4,TSN,July12,1999).ShepaidtheamountofP35,000.00asplacementfee. When
she was not able to work abroad, she went to Loran and sought the return of P35,000.00from
appellant(p.7,TSN,January21,1999).

Sometime in October 1997, Kerwin Donacao went to Loran to apply for employment as
purchaserinSaipan(p.4,TSN,February10,1999).He was required to submit NBI clearance,
policeclearance,previousemploymentcertificateandhispassport.Hepaidtheplacementfeeof
P35,000.00(pp.45,TSN,February10,1999).Afterpayingtheamount,hewastoldtowaitfor
twotothreemonths.WhenhewasnotabletoleaveforSaipan,hedemandedthereturnofthe
placementfee,whichwasnotrefunded(pp.67,TSN,February10,1999).

DuringthefirstweekofNovember1997,AnnelynSarmientoandherhusband,OliverSarmiento,
applied for overseas employment. For the application of Oliver Sarmiento, they submitted his
medical certificate and certification of previous employment. They were also made to pay the
amountofP27,000.00asprocessingfee.OliverSarmientowaspromisedthatwithin1month,he
wouldbeabletoleave.Initially,OliverSarmientowastoldthatallegedlyhisvisawasyettobe
obtained.Whenhewasnotabletoleaveandwhathepaidwasnotrefunded,hefiledacomplaint
withtheNBI(pp.46,TSN,April23,1999).

SometimeinMay1997,FeZaballaappliedforoverseasemploymentinSaipanwithLoran(p.4,
TSN, May 21, 1999). She was required to submit her medical certificate, original copy of her
birthcertificate,NBIclearanceandpoliceclearance.Shewasalsorequiredtopaytheamountof
P35,000.00asplacementfee.Whenshecouldnotbedeployed,shesoughttorecovertheamount
[5]
shepaid,whichwasnotreturned(pp.78,TSN,May2,1999).

Ontheotherhand,appellantpresentedthefollowingevidence:

Thedefensepresented[appellant]AntonioNograandtheagency'ssecretaryandcashier,Maritess
Mesina.

From their testimonies it was established that LORAN INTERNATIONAL OVERSEAS

RECRUITMENT CO., LTD., (LORAN, for brevity) was owned by accused Lorna Orciga and
Japanese national Kataru Tanaka (TSN, September 30, 2000, p. 7). Sometime in July 1994,
[appellant]AntonioNograreadfromoutsidetheagency'smainofficeatLibertad,Mandaluyong
Citythatitwasinneedofaliaisonofficer.Heappliedfortheposition.Thepartownerandco
accused,LornaOrciga,hiredhiminsteadasOperationsManagerastheagencywasthenstillin
theprocessofcompletingthelistofpersonneltobesubmittedtothePOEA.(TSN,January31,
2001,p.5).

[Appellant]NograstartedworkingwithLORANinOctober1994.In1995,hewastransferredto
NagaCitywhentheagencyopenedabranchofficethereat.Although he was designated as the
OperationsManager,[appellant]Nograwasamereemployeeoftheagency.Hewasreceivinga
monthlysalaryofP5,000.00andadditionalP2,000.00monthlymealallowance.Hewasincharge
oftheadvertisementofthecompany.Healsodroveforthecompany.Hefetchedfromtheairport
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

3/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

theagency'svisitorsandguestsanddrovethemtohotelsandotherplaces.(TSN,May3,2000,
pp.29).

AlthoughpartownerLornaOrcigawasstationedinManila,she,however,actuallyremainedin
controlofthebranchofficeinNagaCity.Sheconductedthefinalinterviewoftheapplicantsand
transactedwiththeforeignemployers.Shealsocontrolledthefinancialmattersandassessment
fees of the agency in Naga City (TSN, September 20, 2000, pp. 89). The placement and
processingfeescollectedbytheagencyinNagaCitywerealldepositedinthebankaccountof
LornaOrcigaandnotasinglecentavowenttothebenefitof[appellant]Nogra(TSN,January10,
[6]
2000,pp.1422).

[7]
OnMarch26,2003,theRTCrenderedJudgment findingappellantguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofthecrimecharged.Thefalloofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,theCourtfindstheaccusedANTONIONOGRAguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
ofthecrimeofIllegalRecruitmentCommittedinLargeScaledefinedunderSections6(m)and
7(b)ofRA8042,otherwiseknownasTheMigrantWorkersandOverseasFilipinosActof1995
and,accordingly,herebyimposesuponhimthepenaltyoflifeimprisonmentandafineofFive
hundredthousandpesos(P500,000.00).

[8]
SOORDERED.

[9]
OnApril10,2003,appellantfiledaNoticeofAppeal. TheRTCorderedthetransmittalofthe
entirerecordsofthecasetothisCourt.

[10]
Conformably to the ruling in People v. Mateo,
the case was referred to the CA for
[11]
intermediatereview.

[12]
OnAugust 31, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision
affirming the decision of the RTC. The
CA held that being an employee is not a valid defense since employees who have knowledge
and active participation in the recruitment activities may be criminally liable for illegal
[13]
recruitmentactivities,baseduponthisCourt'srulinginPeoplev.Chowdury
and People v.
[14]
Corpuz
that appellant had knowledge of and active participation in the recruitment
activitiessincealltheprosecutionwitnessespinpointedappellantastheonewhomtheyinitially
approachedregardingtheirplansofworkingoverseasandhewastheonewhotoldthemabout
thefeestheyhadtopay,aswellasthepapersthattheyhadtosubmitthatthemerefactthat
appellant was not issued special authority to recruit does not exculpate him from any liability
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

4/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

butratherstronglysuggestshisguiltthatappellant'sinvocationofnonflightcannotbeweighed
inhisfavorsincethereisnoestablishedrulethatnonflightis,ineveryinstance,anindicationof
innocence.
ANoticeofAppeal

[15]
havingbeentimelyfiledbyappellant,theCAforwardedtherecordsof

thecasetothisCourtforfurtherreview.

InhisBrief,appellantassignsaserrorsthefollowing:

I
THETRIALCOURTERREDINNOTFINDINGTHATTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTWAS
A MERE EMPLOYEE OF THE RECRUITMENT AGENCY DESPITE HIS DESIGNATION
ASITSOPERATIONSMANAGER.

II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT OF THE
OFFENSECHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT UNDER THE LAW, HE WAS NOT
CRIMINALYLIABLEFORHISAGENCY'STRANSACTIONS.

[16]

AppellantarguesthattheagencywasunderthemanagementandcontrolofOrciga,andthathe
wasamereemployeethathecouldnotbeheldpersonallyliableforillegalrecruitmentinthe
absence of any showing that he was validly issued special authority to recruit workers, which
was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that his non
flightisindicativeofhisinnocence.

Appellee,throughtheOSG,countersthatappellantisnotamereclerkorsecretaryofLoran,but
its Operations Manager who directly participated in the recruitment scheme by promising
private complainants work abroad, but failed to deploy them and refused to reimburse the
applicants'placementfeeswhendemanded.

Theappealfails.TheCAdidnotcommitanyerrorinaffirmingthedecisionoftheRTC.

R.A.No.8042broadenedtheconceptofillegalrecruitmentunderthe
[17]
Labor Code
and provided stiffer penalties, especially those that constitute economic
sabotage, i.e., Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a
Syndicate.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

5/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

Section6ofR.A.No.8042definedwhenrecruitmentisillegal:

SEC.6.Definition.ForpurposesofthisAct,illegalrecruitmentshallmeananyactofcanvassing,
enlisting,contracting,transporting,utilizing,hiring,orprocuringworkersandincludesreferring,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not,
whenundertakenbyanonlicenseeornonholderofauthoritycontemplatedunderArticle13(f)
of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines: Provided, That any such nonlicensee or nonholder who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It
shalllikewiseincludethefollowingacts,whethercommittedbyanyperson,whetheranon
licensee,nonholder,licenseeorholderofauthority:

xxxx

(l)FailuretoactuallydeploywithoutvalidreasonasdeterminedbytheDepartment
ofLaborandEmploymentand

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his
documentationandprocessingforpurposesofdeployment,incaseswherethedeployment
doesnotactuallytakeplacewithouttheworker'sfault.Illegalrecruitment when committed
byasyndicateorinlargescaleshallbeconsideredasoffenseinvolvingeconomicsabotage.

Illegalrecruitmentisdeemedcommittedbyasyndicatecarriedoutbyagroupofthree(3)
ormorepersonsconspiringorconfederatingwithoneanother.Itisdeemedcommittedinlarge
scaleifcommittedagainstthree(3)ormorepersonsindividuallyorasagroup.

Thepersonscriminallyliablefortheaboveoffensesaretheprincipals,accomplices,
and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or
directionoftheirbusinessshallbeliable.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

Inthepresentcase,evidencefortheprosecutionshowedthatLoran
International Overseas Recruitment Co., Ltd. is a duly licensed recruitment agency with
authoritytoestablishabranchoffice.However,underR.A.No.8042,evenalicenseeorholder
ofauthoritycanbeheldliableforillegalrecruitment,shouldhecommitoromittodoanyofthe
actsenumeratedinSection6.

AppellantwaschargedwithillegalrecruitmentinlargescaleunderSection6(l)and(m)ofR.A.
No. 8042. Section 6 (l) refers to the failure to actually deploy without valid reason, as
determinedbytheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment(DOLE).Section6(m)involvesthe
failuretoreimburseexpensesincurredbytheworkerinconnectionwithhisdocumentationand
processingforpurposesofdeployment,incasesinwhichthedeploymentdoesnotactuallytake
placewithouttheworkersfault.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

6/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

A thorough scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence reveals that it failed to prove appellant's
liability under Section 6 (l) of R.A. No. 8042. The law requires not only that the failure to
deploybewithoutvalidreason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment.
ThelawenvisionsthattherebeindependentevidencefromtheDOLEtoestablishthereasonfor
nondeployment,suchastheabsenceofaproperjoborder.NodocumentfromtheDOLEwas
presentedinthepresentcasetoestablishthereasonfortheaccused'sfailuretoactuallydeploy
privatecomplainants.Thus,appellantcannotbeheldliableunderSection6(l)ofR.A.No.8042.

AstoSection6(m)ofR.A.No.8042,theprosecutionhasprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtthat
private complainants made payments to Loran, and appellant failed to reimburse the amounts
paid by private complainants when they were not deployed. The prosecution presented the
receiptsissuedbyLorantoprivatecomplainantsevidencingpaymentofplacementfeesranging
fromP27,000.00toP35,000.00.
Appellantdoesnotdisputethatprivatecomplainantswerenotdeployedforoverseaswork,and
thattheplacementfeestheypaidwerenotreturnedtothemdespitedemand.However,heseeks
toexculpatehimselfonthegroundthatheisamereemployeeofLoran.

TheCourtisunswayedbyappellant'scontention.

ThepenultimateparagraphofSection6ofR.A.No.8042explicitlystatesthatthosecriminally
liablearetheprincipals,accomplices,andaccessories.Incaseofjuridicalpersons,theofficers
havingcontrol,managementordirectionoftheirbusinessshallbeliable.Contrarytoappellant's
claim, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses and the documentary evidence for the
prosecution clearly established that he was not a mere employee of Loran, but its Operations
Manager.ThelicenseofLoran,thefilesofthePOEAandthenameplateprominentlydisplayed
on his office desk reflected his position as Operations Manager. As such, he received private
complainants'jobapplicationsandinterviewedandinformedthemoftheagencysrequirements
priortotheirdeployment,suchasNBIclearance,policeclearance,medicalcertificate,previous
employmentcertificateandthepaymentofplacementfee.Hewasalsoresponsiblefortheradio
advertisementsandleaflets,whichenticedcomplainingwitnessestoapplyforemploymentwith
theagency.Clearly,asOperationsManager,hewasintheforefrontoftherecruitmentactivities.

Thedefenseofbeingamereemployeeisnotashieldagainsthisconvictionforlargescale
[18]
[19]
illegalrecruitment.InPeoplev.Gasacao
andPeoplev.Sagayaga,
the Court reiterated
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

7/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

[20]
[21]
[22]
the ruling in People v. Cabais,
People v. Chowdury
and People v. Corpuz
that an
employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as
principalbydirectparticipation,togetherwithitsemployer,ifitisshownthatheactivelyand
consciouslyparticipatedintherecruitmentprocess.

Inthepresentcase,itwasclearlyestablishedthatappellantdealtdirectlywiththeprivate
complainants. He interviewed and informed them of the documentary requirements and
placementfee.Hepromiseddeploymentwithinathreeorfourmonthperioduponpaymentof
thefee,butfailedtodeploythemandtoreimburse,upondemand,theplacementfeespaid.

TheCourtisnotpersuadedbyappellant'sargumentthathisnonflightisindicativeofhis
innocence.Unliketheflightofanaccused,whichiscompetentevidenceagainsthimtendingto
establishhisguilt,nonflightissimplyinaction,whichmaybeduetoseveralfactors.Itmaynot
[23]
beconstruedasanindicationofinnocence.

Ofmarkedrelevanceistheabsenceofanyshowingthattheprivatecomplainantshadany
illmotiveagainstappellantotherthantobringhimtothebarofjusticetoanswerforthecrime
ofillegalrecruitment.Besides,forstrangerstoconspireandaccuseanotherstrangerofamost
serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings would certainly be against human nature and
[24]
experience.
Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were
actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand
[25]
underthesolemnityofanoathdeservefullfaithandcredence.

Itisasettledrulethatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourts,includingtheirassessmentofthe
witnessescredibility,areentitledtogreatweightandrespectbytheSupremeCourt,particularly
when the CA affirmed such findings.

[26]
After all, the trial court is in the best position to

[27]
determinethevalueandweightofthetestimoniesofwitnesses.
Theabsenceofanyshowing
that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered,
mightaffecttheresultofthecase,orthatitsassessmentwasarbitrary,impelstheCourttodefer
tothetrialcourtsdeterminationaccordingcredibilitytotheprosecutionevidence.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

8/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment shall be
consideredanoffenseinvolvingeconomicsabotageifcommittedinlargescale,viz,committed
againstthreeormorepersonsindividuallyorasagroup.Inthepresentcase,fivecomplainants
testifiedagainstappellantsactsofillegalrecruitment,therebyrenderinghisactstantamountto
economicsabotage.UnderSection7(b)ofR.A.No.8042,thepenaltyoflifeimprisonmentand
a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000.000.00 shall be imposed if illegal
recruitmentconstituteseconomicsabotage.

Thus,theRTCandtheCAcorrectlyfoundappellantguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtof
largescaleillegalrecruitment.

WHEREFORE,theappealisDISMISSED.TheDecisiondatedAugust31,2995oftheCourt
of Appeals affirming the conviction of appellant Antonio Nogra for large scale illegal
recruitmentunderSections6(m)and7(b)ofRepublicActNo.8042isAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

9/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,
itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*JusticePresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.asadditionalmemberpertheJuly30,2008DivisionRaffle,viceJusticeAntonioEduardoB.
Nachura.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEugenioS.Labitoria(nowretired)andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesEliezerR.delos Santos
(nowdeceased)andArturoD.Brion(nowamemberofthisCourt),CArollo,p.123.
[2]
AnActtoInstitutethePoliciesofOverseasEmploymentandEstablishaHigherStandardofProtectionandPromotionofthe
WelfareofMigrantWorkers,TheirFamiliesandOverseasFilipinosinDistressandforOtherPurposes.
[3]
NowoftenreferredtoastheMagnaCartaforOverseasFilipinoWorkers.
[4]
CArollo,p.17.
[5]
Rollo,pp.2730.
[6]
BriefforAppellant,CArollo,pp.5859.
[7]
Id.at33.
[8]
CArollo,pp.3839.
[9]
Id.at40.
[10]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[11]
Id.at50a.
[12]
Id.at123.
[13]
582Phil.459(2000).
[14]
459Phil.100(2003).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

10/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.170834

[15]
CArollo,p.137.
[16]
Id.at5960.
[17]
Article13(b)oftheLaborCodeofthePhilippinesdefinesrecruitmentandplacementasfollows:
(b) Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers,andincludesreferrals,contractservices,promisingoradvertisingforemployment,locallyorabroad,whetherfor
profitornot.Provided,Thatanypersonorentitywhich,inanymanner,offersorpromisesforafeeemploymenttotwoor
morepersonsshallbedeemedengagedinrecruitmentandplacement.
[18]
G.R.No.16445,November11,2005,474SCRA812,822.
[19]
467Phil.961,971(2004).
[20]
407Phil.37(2001).
[21]
Supranote14.
[22]
Supranote15.
[23]
Peoplev.Omar,383Phil.979,987(2000).
[24]
Peoplev.Logan,414Phil.113,124(2001).
[25]
Peoplev.Cabbab,Jr.,G.R.No.173479,July12,2007,527SCRA589,602.
[26]
Peoplev.Aguila,G.R.No.171017,December6,2006,510SCRA642.
[27]
Abarquezv.People,G.R.No.150762,January20,2006,479SCRA225,233.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/170834.htm

11/11