G.R. No.

124439 February 5, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. FLOR GUTIERREZ Y TIMOD, appellant.

DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES:

Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license
or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers;
and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined
under Art. 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.

Art. 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."

The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the two elements concur, with the addition
of a third element: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a
group.

FACTS:

Accused FLOR GUTIERREZ Y TIMOD conspiring and confederating with CECILIA BAUTISTA, ESTHER
GAMILDE, LINDA RABAINO and MARILYN GARCIA and mutually helping one another, acting in common
accord, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, engage in recruitment activities for
overseas job placement and actually contract, enlist and recruit EVELYN V. RAMOS, ROSEMARIE I.
TUGADE, GENEROSA G. ASUNCION and ROSALYN B. SUMAYO as domestic helpers in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, for a fee of various amounts ranging from P10,000.00 to P15,000.00 each, without first
obtaining the required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA).

Rosemarie Tugade went to the house of one Celia Bautista, a "recruiter-agent" of the accused, at Brgy.
Bulala, Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Celia told Rosemarie that she had to submit the following requirements for her
application to work in Dubai as a domestic helper: P4,000.00 as placement fee, P1,200.00 for passport,
P850.00 for "medical," six (6) 2x2 pictures and her original birth certificate. The scheduled departure did
not push through.

Private complainant Evelyn Ramos was with Rosemarie when she went to Celia Bautista's house on April
19, 1994. Celia told Evelyn that for P4,000.00 she could leave for Dubai to work as a domestic helper. Like
Rosemarie, Evelyn gave all her documents and paid the fees to Celia, who in turn handed them to Esther
Gamilde in Tondo. On June 10, 1994, Ramos gave Bautista P8,000.00, which was also turned over to
Gamilde. Like Rosemarie, Evelyn was not able to leave the country despite the accused's promises.
Another complainant, Rosalyn D. Sumayo, also applied for overseas job placement as a domestic helper
in Dubai. Her experience was more agonizing. In her case, it was one Marilyn Garcia who assisted
Rosalyn. She submitted a copy of her birth certificate, six (6) copies of 2 x 2 pictures, two (2) copies of
her whole-body picture, passport, and medical certificate. Marilyn also asked Rosalyn to pay: a
processing fee of P7,500.00, P2,620.00 as full tax, P500.00 as terminal fee, and P3,000.00 as service
charge. All the documents and money given by Rosalyn to Marilyn were subsequently remitted to the
accused at her office on June 28, 1994. The accused told Rosalyn that she would be leaving anytime, but
after three months, Rosalyn's departure did not push through.

Generosa Asuncion suffered the same fate as her co-applicants. She applied for overseas job placement
with one Linda Rabaino. Generosa submitted her passport, medical certificate, clearance from the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), birth certificate, bio-data and pictures. She also paid P15,000.00
in two installments on September 9 and 12, 1994, which payments were not receipted. However, she
was not able to leave because, according to Linda, at 25, Generosa was under-aged. Linda then referred
Generosa to the accused in the latter's office, where Linda turned over Generosa's documents as well as
the P15,000 00 to the accused. The accused promised that Linda would be able to leave, but her
departure never took place.

With the promises of jobs abroad unfulfilled, complainants decided to verify if the accused was a
licensed recruiter. Upon learning from the POEA that she was not so licensed, they proceeded to the
Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) to execute their respective affidavits.

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.He presented a Certification issued by Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, Manager of the
Licensing Branch and containing the list of officers and staff of Sarifudin. On said list appear the names
"Florna Gutierrez" and "Flor Gutierrez," apparently, one and the same person.

It is further certified that the said agency revoked the appointment of Ms. Flor Gutierrez as Overseas
Mktg. Director/Manager in a letter dated Dec. 15, 1995, although this Office has not received nor
acknowledged the representation of Ms. Gutierrez.

The trial court rendered its Decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE

YES.

That appellant engaged in recruitment and placement is beyond dispute. The complaining witnesses
categorically testified that the accused promised them on several occasions that they would be leaving
for work abroad. Appellant received complainants' money and documents, a fact that the complainants
themselves witnessed and which the accused acknowledged when she returned the same to them after
the filing of the case against her. Appellant even brought complainant Rosalyn Sumayo to the airport
three times, raising her expectations, but leaving her hanging in mid-air. The accused even had the
audacity to demand cancellation fees from the complainants when they asked for a refund.

As found by the trial court the evidence on record, notably appellant's own version, indicates that she
was running her own labor recruitment business.

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.

Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license
or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers;
and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined
under Art. 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.

Art. 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."

The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the two elements concur, with the addition
of a third element: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a
group.

Moreover, 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. Approval by
the Administration of the appointment or designation does not authorize the agent or representative to
establish a branch or extension office of the licensed agency represented.