Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 615 views

    People v. Goce, G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995

    Uploaded by

    Mae Clare Bendo
    Nelly Agustin was charged with illegal recruitment. Four witnesses testified that Agustin introduced herself as the manager of a placement agency, discussed fees and paperwork with potential recruits, and referred them to the agency owners to finalize their recruitment. Agustin claimed she only introduced the recruits to the licensed agency owners. The court found Agustin's actions went beyond mere introduction and constituted illegal recruitment under the law because she recruited workers and referred them to the agency for a fee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Goce, G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995

    Uploaded by

    Mae Clare Bendo
    615 views1 page
    Nelly Agustin was charged with illegal recruitment. Four witnesses testified that Agustin introduced herself as the manager of a placement agency, discussed fees and paperwork with potential recruits, and referred them to the agency owners to finalize their recruitment. Agustin claimed she only introduced the recruits to the licensed agency owners. The court found Agustin's actions went beyond mere introduction and constituted illegal recruitment under the law because she recruited workers and referred them to the agency for a fee.

    Original Title

    1. People v. Goce, G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Nelly Agustin was charged with illegal recruitment. Four witnesses testified that Agustin introduced herself as the manager of a placement agency, discussed fees and paperwork with potential recruits, and referred them to the agency owners to finalize their recruitment. Agustin claimed she only introduced the recruits to the licensed agency owners. The court found Agustin's actions went beyond mere introduction and constituted illegal recruitment under the law because she recruited workers and referred them to the agency for a fee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    615 views1 page

    People v. Goce, G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995

    Uploaded by

    Mae Clare Bendo
    Nelly Agustin was charged with illegal recruitment. Four witnesses testified that Agustin introduced herself as the manager of a placement agency, discussed fees and paperwork with potential recruits, and referred them to the agency owners to finalize their recruitment. Agustin claimed she only introduced the recruits to the licensed agency owners. The court found Agustin's actions went beyond mere introduction and constituted illegal recruitment under the law because she recruited workers and referred them to the agency for a fee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People v.

    Goce
    G.R. No. 113161
    August 29, 1995

    Facts:
    On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale. It
    was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional
    Trial Court of Manila.

    On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was
    arrested. Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing
    warrant of arrest against the accused. Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the
    offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of
    arrest. Eventually, at around midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the
    Parañaque police.

    Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution - Rogelio Salado, Ramona Salado, Dionisio Masaya
    and Ernesto Alvarez. All of their testimonies have corroborated that Nelly Agustin has introduced herself as
    the manager of the Clover Placement Agency owned by spouses Dan and Loma Goce. The respondent
    received money from the petitioners either for placement fee, for securing passport and/or visa processing.

    Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her
    neighbors at Tambo, Parañaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement
    Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin
    met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the
    Goce.

    Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated
    only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution.

    Issue:
    Whether or not appellant Nelly Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions
    went beyond that which already constitutes recruitment.

    Ruling:
    Yes. Nelly Agustin’s actions went beyond introduction of the complainants to the Goce couple and already
    constitute recruitment / illegal recruitment

    Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to 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 other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding
    of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected
    employer, placement officer or bureau. 

    The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal
    recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached
    regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay,
    as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused
    spouses who owned the placement agency.

    As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore
    engaging in recruitment activity.

    You might also like