PEOPLE vs. VILLANUEVA (Labor Law Review)

G.R. No. 123010 July 20, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.

MAGED T. GHARBIA, MARY G. ALWIRAIKAT and LAILA VILLANUEVA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

Nineteen of the thirty-five complainants, from majority of whom hails from Baguio City were presented by the prosecution to establish the scheme perpetrated by appellant in his illegal recruitment activities. The record shows that Gharbia and Villanueva, who represented themselves as husband and wife, and purportedly doing business under the name and style of Fil-Ger Recruitment Agency with office address at Quezon City, conspired with co-accused Mary Alwiraikat, likewise of Baguio City, in convincing the complainants that employment opportunities as factory workers abound in Taiwan. Allegedly that upon full payment of the prescribed fees which, surprisingly, were exacted in different amounts ranging from P20,000.00 to as high as P48,000.00, the applicants would then be able to fly to Taiwan to commence work thereat.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused were guilty of the crime illegal recruitment by large scale.

RULING:

Yes, The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale requires the concurrence of three elements, viz: That (1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, defined under Article 13 (b), 5 or in any prohibited activities under Article 34, 6 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 having a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, and (3) the accused commits the offense against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 

Contrary to appellant's assertions, the prosecution has presented clear and compelling evidence fingering him as one of those who recruited complainants. The illegality of the recruitment was bolstered by the POEA certification whereby Ms. Nenita Mercado attested that neither appellant nor Fil-Ger Recruitment Agency is licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

On this score, we defer to the findings of the trial court which ruled that while it is true that none of the receipts issued to the complainants was signed by appellant, it is incorrect for him to argue that his indictment was based on such issuance alone. The totality of the evidence shows that appellant took an active and direct part in misrepresenting that they have the authority and the power to facilitate workers' employment abroad.

The testimony of the other complainants substantially corroborate those previously mentioned with respect to appellant's degree of participation in the illegal recruitment charge.