Employees Overview An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his

is employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may be. The terms control, management or direction used in the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 broadly cover all phases of business operation. They include the aspects of administration, marketing and finances, among others. Section 11, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment requires the prior approval of the POEA of the appointment of representatives or agents. Section 1, Rule X of the same Book, in turn, provides that recruitment and placement activities of agents or representatives appointed by a licensee, whose appointments were not authorized by the Administration shall likewise constitute illegal recruitment.

People v Corpuz (2003) Ynares-Santiago, J.: The Facts In June 1998, private complainants Belinda Cabantog, Concepcion San Diego, Erlinda Pascual and Restian Surio went to Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation to apply for employment as factory workers in Taiwan. Private complainants returned to the agency to pay the processing fees but since the agencys President and General Manager Mrs. Evelyn Gloria H. Reyes was not around, appellant Elizabeth Corpuz was the one who received the processing fees. Two months later, nothing happened to their applications. Thus, private complainants decided to ask for the refund of their money from appellant but no money was returned. Thus, a case was filed against Corpuz for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale constituting economic sabotage under Sec. 6 (l) and (m) in relation to Sec. 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of l995. Corpuz denied having a hand in the illegal recruitment and claimed that she merely received the money on behalf of Mrs. Reyes. She claim that she was only the secretary and in compliance with the order of her employer and since the cashier was absent, she received the processing fees. She had no knowledge that the agencys license was suspended by the POEA. TC found her guilty, thus, appeal.

The Ruling of the Court : Corpuz is not guilty of illegal recruitment. 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 he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may be. All appellant did was receive the processing fees upon instruction of Mrs. Reyes. She neither convinced the private complainants to give their money nor promised them employment abroad. As secretary of the agency, she was only in charge of the custody and documentation of the overseas contracts. As stated in the last sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable. Prosecution failed to establish that appellant, as secretary, had control, management or direction of the recruitment agency.

-ML Bejemino People v Sagayaga (2004) Callejo, Sr., J.: The Facts Somewhere between September to November 1997, private complainants Elmer Janer, Eric Farol and Elmer Ramos went to Alvis Placement Service Corporation to apply for overseas employment as factory worker in Taiwan. Appellant Leticia Sagayaga, personally received their and required them to submit the necessary documents and pay P75,000.00 as placement fee. The promised employement didnt materialized. Complainants asked for reimbursement but they were only partially refunded. Thus, a case was filed against Sagayaga for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale as defined in R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of l995. Sagayaga asserts that she had no knowledge of the recruitment activities of APSC and had no participation whatsoever in its operation. In dealing with the private complainants, she was merely performing routinary office work as a mere employee. TC found her guilty, thus, appeal. The Ruling of the Court : Sagayaga is guilty of illegal recruitment. The terms control, management or direction used in the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 broadly cover all phases of business

operation. They include the aspects of administration, marketing and finances, among others. The appellant, as shown by the records of the POEA, was both the APSC VicePresident-Treasurer and the Assistant General Manager. She was a high corporate officer who had direct participation in the management, administration, direction and control of the business of the corporation. Undoubtedly, the positions of vice-president, treasurer, and assistant general manager are high ranking corporate positions in any corporate body. These positions invest on the incumbent the authority of managing, controlling and directing the corporate affairs.

-ML Bejemino People v Gutierrez (2004) Tinga, J.: The Facts In the different months of the year 1994, private complainants Rosemarie Tugade, Rosalyn Sumayo, Generosa Asuncion and Evelyn Ramos went to Sarifudin Manpower and General Services to apply for employment in Dubai. The accused Flor Gutierrez processed their application documents and collected fees of various amount raging from P10,000 to P15,000. With the promise of jobs abroad unfulfilled, a case was filed against Gutierrez for Illegal Recruitment in Large as defined in R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of l995 . In her defense, the accused claimed that as an employee of a duly licensed agency who was tasked to recruit and offer job placements abroad, she could not be held liable for illegal recruitment. She admitted that she had no authority to recruit in her personal capacity, but that her authority emanated from a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Certification issued by a licensed agency. Edwin Cristobal, POEA Labor Employment Officer, confirmed that Sarifudin was duly licensed to engage in recruitment activities. But Cristobal explained that the POEA, Never had a letter from Sarifudin registering or authorizing Flor Gutierrez... rather, [what] we received [was a] revocation of her appointment. He also revealed that the name of the accused does not appear in the records of the POEA as being employed by the agency from the assumption of its license. TC found her guilty, thus, appeal. The Ruling of the Court : Gutierrez guilty of illegal recruitment. Section 11, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment requires the prior approval of the POEA of the appointment of representatives or agents. Section 1, Rule X of the same Book, in turn, provides that recruitment and placement activities of agents or representatives appointed by a licensee, whose appointments were not authorized by the Administration shall likewise constitute illegal recruitment. Although POEA received from Serafudin a revocation of appellants appointment, but still is of no consequence since Serafudin in the first place did not submit her appointment to the POEA, and so the POEA has nothing to approve.

The evidence on record, notably appellants own version, indicates that she was running her own labor recruitment business, thus, she was guilty 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. Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense.

-ML Bejemino