G.R. No. 180926 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LOURDES VALENCIANO y DACUBA, accused-appellant.FACTS Valenciano, claiming to be an employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc. recruited private complainants for overseas employment. She received the payments made by the complainants of their placement fees to the alleged owners of the recruitment agency. Due to the failure of private complainants to be deployed, they filed a case for large scale illegal recruitment against the appellant and the Imperials. The Imperials remained at large. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime imputed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts findings.ISSUE Whether or not appellant guilty of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment despite the claim that she is just a mere employee of the recruitment agency?HELD The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other co-accused does not relieve her of liability. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that the employee actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. The accused appellant must he held accountable for her acts. The Court did not err in convicting her of Illegal Recruitment. Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. It is a legal maxim that Ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, thus, intent is immaterial. It is also a well settled rule that it is immaterial whether the accused profit or not from the illegal acts. Likewise, to allow the accused to use a defense of good faith would be a circumvention of the law. Good faith cannot be used as a defense since it will only warrant the illegal recruiters to use it as cloak of their illegal acts.

G.R. No. 173198 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.DOLORES OCDEN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:During the period from May to December, 1998, in Baguio City, Dolores Ocden recruited and promised employment as factory workers in Italy to more than three (3) persons including, but not limited to the following: Jeffries Golidan, Howard C. Golidan, Karen M. Simeon, Jean S. Maximo, Norma Pedro, Marlyn Mana-a, Rizalina Ferrer, and Milan Daring without having first secured the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. None of the applicants were able to work in Italy. They asked Ocden to refund their hard-earned money but Ocden failed to return. The RTC found Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and suffer life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000 and was erroneously filed before CA, but the latter correctly submitted to SC.

ISSUE: Is Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment?RULING:The Supreme Court found Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa; and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even by a licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal recruitment as described in said provision by receiving placement fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard, evidenced by receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not able to leave for Italy, through no fault of their own.

G.R. No. 173792 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.ROSARIO "ROSE" OCHOA, Accused-Appellant.FACTS:That on or about the period covering the months of February 1997 up to April 1998 in Quezon City, Rosario Ochoa recruited Robert Gubat, Junior Agustin, Cesar Aquino, Richard Luciano, Fernando Rivera, Mariano R. Mislang, Helen B. Palogo, Joebert Decolongon, Corazon S. Austria, Cristopher A. Bermejo, Letecia D. Londonio, Alma Borromeo, Francisco Pascual, Raymundo A. Bermejo and Rosemarie A. Bermejo as overseas workers in Saudi Arabia and Taiwan for a consideration ranging from P2,000.00 to P32,000.00 or a total amount of P124,000.00 as placement fee which the complainants paid to herein accused without the accused having secured the necessary license from the Department of Labor and Employment.ISSUE:Is Ochoa guilty of illegal recruitment?RULING:Ochoa was charged with violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042. Said provision broadens the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provides stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., illegal recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. All eight private complainants herein consistently declared that Ochoa offered and promised them employment overseas. Ochoa required private complainants to submit their bio-data, birth certificates, and passports, which private complainants did. Private complainants also gave various amounts to Ochoa as payment for placement and medical fees as evidenced by the receipts Ochoa issued to Gubat, Cesar, and Agustin. Despite private complainants compliance with all the requirements Ochoa specified, they were not able to leave for work abroad. Private complainants pleaded that Ochoa return their hard-earned money, but Ochoa failed to do so.

G.R. Nos. 182978-79 April 7, 2009BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER AND PROMOTION, INC., Petitioner, vs.SPOUSES SIMPLICIO and MILA CUARESMA (for and in behalf of their daughter, Jasmin G. Cuaresma), WHITE FALCON SERVICES, INC. and JAIME ORTIZ (President,White Falcon Services, Inc.), Respondents.G.R. Nos. 184298-99 April 7, 2009SPOUSES SIMPLICIO and MILA CUARESMA (for and in behalf of their daughter, Jasmin G. Cuaresma), Petitioners, vs.WHITE FALCON SERVICES, INC. and BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER AND PROMOTION, INC., Respondents.FACTS

In this case, Jasmin Cuaresma, a nurse working in Saudi Arabia was found dead. Her parents received insurance benefits from the OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare Administration). But when they found out based on an autopsy conducted in the Philippines that Jasmin was raped and thereafter killed.

Her parents (Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma) filed for death and insurance benefits with damages from the recruitment and placement agency which handled Jasmin (Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc.).

The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court ruled that since Becmen was negligent in investigating the true cause of death of Jasmin ( a violation of RA 8042), it shall be liable for damages.

The Supreme Court also ruled that pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042, the directors and officers of Becmen are themselves jointly and solidarily liable with Becmen.

Eufrocina Gumabay and the other officers of Becmen filed a motion for leave to intervene.

They aver that Section 10 is invalid.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 10 of RA 8042 is invalid and will not apply in Jasmine case?

HELD:

No. As earlier discussed, Section 10 is valid. The liability of Gumabay et al is not automatic. However, the SC reconsidered its earlier ruling that Gumabay et al are solidarily and jointly liable with Becmen there being no evidence on record which shows that they were personally involved in their companys particular actions or omissions in Jasmins case. The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers.If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.

But the Court has already held, pending adjudication of this case, that the liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities.19In the case of Becmen and White Falcon,20while there is evidence that these companies were at fault in not investigating the cause of Jasmins death, there is no mention of any evidence in the case against them that intervenors Gumabay,et al., Becmens corporate officers and directors, were personally involved in their companys particular actions or omissions in Jasmins case.As a final note, R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. The Court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, the Court must uphold its validity.

G.R. No. 168651 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.EDITH RAMOS ABAT, Accused-Appellant.

FACTSEDITH RAMOS ABAT the accused not being a licensee or holder of authority, did then and there, wilfully , unlawfully and feloniously undertake and perform recruitment activities in large scale by recruiting MARIA CORAZON AGAS GARCIA, JOCELYN GEMINIANO FLORES, SONNY YABOT y ANTONIO, BALTAZAR ARGEL y VALLEDOR, LETECIA RINONOS MARCELO, PABLITO S. GALUMAN, TARCILA M. UMAGAT, CAROLINE U. CALIX, PERCY C. FUERTES, to a supposed job abroad, particularly in Taiwan, for a fee, without first securing the necessary license or permit to do the same.The accused denies having any participation in the recruitment of the nine named complainants for employment in Taiwan, asserting that the CA erred in thus affirming her conviction despite the totality of evidence pointing to no other conclusion than her innocence. ISSUE Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment under defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 43 of the Labor CodeHELD Yes The acts committed by the accused constituted illegal recruitment in large scale, whose essential elements are the following:(a) The accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 43 of the Labor Code;(b) The accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and(c) The accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons individually or as a group.It is the lack of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal. To prove illegal recruitment, therefore, the State must show that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end.