PEOPLE vs. BODOZO (Labor Law Review)

G.R. No. 96621 October 21, 1992 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

JOEY BODOZO y BULA, and NIMFA BODOZO y NERI, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

When the accused Nimfa Bodozo was in Luna, La, Union, she told the private complainants, who are simple farmers, and at the time unemployed, that she was recruiting workers for employment in Saudi Arabia and Singapore. The accused Nimfa Bodozo required the five (5) private complainants to submit to her, in addition to their respective applications, NBI clearances and medical certificates in connection with their applications. The private complainants Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan were told by the accused Nimfa Bodozo that their salary in Saudi Arabia was US$200.00 a month, while the accused Nimfa Bodozo assured private complainant, Angelino Obiacoro, Ludovico Gagtan and Domingo Obiacoro that they were going to be paid, by their respective employers, in Singapore, the amount of Singapore 16.00 dollars a day. The private complainant Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan submitted their application forms, duly filled up, passports, their NBI clearances and medical certificates to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in their residence at Quirino Avenue, Manila, Domingo Obiacoro, Angelino Obiacoro and Ludovico Gagtan likewise submitted to the accused their NBI clearances and medical certificates as required by the accused. Moreover, the accused demanded payment to all complainants in connection with the their application for employment abroad.

ISSUE:

Whether Bodozo is guilty of illegal recruitment.

RULING:

Yes, t should be noted that any of the acts mentioned in Article 13 (b) can lawfully be undertaken only by the licensees or holders of authority to engage in the recruitment and placement workers.

The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements:

1 The offender is a non-license or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment or placement of workers; and

2 That the offender undertakes either any recruitment activities defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.

In this case at bar, it is undisputed that accused-appellants Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo are neither licensed not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Accused-appellants want this Court to believe that they merely helped private complainants apply for overseas employment. Evidences on record, however, show otherwise. Accused-appellants not only asked private complainants to fill up application forms but also to submit to them their NBI clearances, passports and medical certificates. In addition thereto, accused-appellants collected payment for processing fee and other sundry expenses from private complainants, all which constitutes acts of recruitment within the meaning of the law.