Santa Pola
CAPÍTULO 14. LOS SISTEMAS DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA USOS URBANO-TURÍSTICOS EN EL LITORAL DE ALICANTE
14.2. Los sistemas de abastecimiento en alta y la demanda de agua urbano-turística en el litoral de Alicante
14.2.2. El sistema de explotación de la Marina Baja
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as: any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
On the basis of this definition – and contrary to what C.F. Sharp wants to portray - the conduct of preparatory interviews is a recruitment activity. The fact that C.F. Sharp did not receive any payment during the interviews is of no moment. From the language of Article 13(b), the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." Notably, it is the lack of the necessary license or authority, not the fact of payment that renders the recruitment activity of LCL unlawful.
Large Scale Cases
People v. Buli-e (404 SCRA 105): case cannot be located People v. Dujua (422 SCRA 169)
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 Art. 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.
People v. Reyes (242 SCRA 264)
In any event the testimonies of the two complainants could not be the basis for a finding of illegal recruitment on a large scale and for imposing the penalty of life imprisonment on her. The Labor Code prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment for illegal recruitment when committed on a "large scale." Art. 38 (b) of the Code provides:
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
And Art. 39 (a) provides:
Art. 39. Penalties. — (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein. Referrals
Cases
People v. Meris (329 SCRA 33)
Although accused-appellant was not an employee of the alleged illegal recruiter Julie Micua, the evidence show that she was the one who approached complainants and prodded them to seek employment abroad. It was through her that they met Julia Micua. This is clearly an act of referral. Worse, accused-appellant declared that she was capable of placing them in jobs overseas. Suffice it to say that complainants' recruitment would not have been consummated were it not for the direct participation of accused- appellant in the recruitment process.
People v. Fortuna (395 SCRA 354)
The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a
person who, without being duly authorized according to law, represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom the impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment.
Employees Cases
People v. Corpuz (412 SCRA 479)
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. Settled is the rule that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. The corporation obviously acts, and can act, only by and through its human agents, and it is their conduct which the law must deter. The 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 law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application in criminal cases, and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.
People v. Sagayaga (423 SCRA 468)
At any rate, the accused has expressly admitted in the course of her testimony that she was at the time the Treasurer of their recruitment agency. As such she was in charge of the management and control of the financial affairs and resources of the corporation. She was in charge of collecting all its receivables, safely keeping them, and disbursing them. She testified that it was part of her duties to receive and collect the monies paid by applicants (TSN, Mar. 13, 2000, p. 5). Her disbursing authority has been clearly demonstrated by her co-signing the checks Exhibits D-2 and G. The appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment as a principal by direct participation, having dealt directly with the private complainants. In fact, she received their placement fees and even signed, in her capacity as the Assistant General Manager of the APSC, the promissory note on May 6, 1998 in favor of private complainant Elmer Janer, obliging the APSC to pay to him the amount of P75,000.00.
People v. Gutierrez (422 SCRA 32)
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 11. Appointment of Representatives. Every appointment of