People vs. Laogo

A person who, without the required license or authority from the POEA, gives complainants the distinct impression that she has the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter are convinced to part with their money to be employed, is guilty of illegal recruitment, and when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, the offense constitutes illegal recruitment in large scale, a form of economic sabotage carrying the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.

Teresita "Tessie" Laogo was the proprietor and manager of Laogo Travel Consultancy, a travel agency firm located along Padre Faura Street in Ermita, Manila. Her co-accused, Susan Navarro, was identified by some complainants as an employee of the travel agency, though Laogo denied any connection between Navarro and the firm. Under Philippine law, recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment requires a license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, administered through the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Laogo Travel Consultancy was not so licensed, as certified by the POEA.

Sometime during the second week of March 2000, Susan Navarro invited several individuals to her house in Bulacan, Bulacan to celebrate the town fiesta. Among the guests was appellant Teresita "Tessie" Laogo. During the fiesta, Gary Bustillos introduced Teodulo dela Cruz to Susan as someone who could help him find work abroad. Susan told Teodulo he could apply as assistant cook in Guam, USA, and upon her instruction, Teodulo filled up an application form and gave her ₱3,000.00 for processing. On May 22, 2000, Susan accompanied Teodulo to appellant's travel agency office in Ermita, where he paid an additional ₱15,000.00 as placement fee; a receipt bearing the logo and name of Laogo Travel Consultancy was issued, signed by Susan. Billy dela Cruz, Jr. likewise met Susan through Gary and, at Susan's house, saw Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, and Rogelio Enriquez, all seeking Susan's help to work abroad. Susan introduced Billy to appellant, who promised to send them abroad within three months. Billy issued two Metrobank checks dated March 11 and May 10, 2000 for ₱23,000.00 and ₱44,000.00, respectively, as partial placement fee, and on May 19, 2000 personally handed ₱6,000.00 cash to Susan at appellant's office, which Susan then gave to appellant. Appellant issued a receipt for the cash bearing her signature and the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy.

Dante Lopez was also introduced by Gary to appellant and Susan, who told him they could send him and his companions to Guam within three months. Lopez paid ₱6,000.00 to both accused, covered by a receipt dated May 19, 2000 bearing appellant's signature. When the promise went unfulfilled after three months, appellant told Lopez he would be sent to a different country, but that promise likewise failed. Rogelio Enriquez met appellant during the same town fiesta when Susan invited him to cook for her guests; Susan introduced appellant as someone who could send him to work abroad. Rogelio gave ₱3,000.00 to Susan, who handed the money to appellant, and a week later gave an additional ₱900.00. No receipts were issued because Rogelio had not completed the required ₱6,000.00 placement fee. Edwin Enriquez paid ₱12,000.00 to Susan as processing fee, with appellant and Susan's husband present; a receipt dated May 16, 2000 bearing the logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy was issued, signed by Susan with the notation "Payment was for Placement Fee."

When months passed without any deployment, the complainants followed up with appellant and Susan, who consistently told them their visas had yet to be released. Rogelio verified the status of Laogo Travel Consultancy with the POEA and learned that neither the accused nor the agency was licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. Rogelio, together with his six companions, filed a complaint. Two of the seven complainants — Edith Bonifacio-Ulanday and Gary Bustillos — later withdrew their complaints after executing affidavits of desistance. Warrants of arrest were issued on March 15, 2001; appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, while Susan remained at large despite an alias warrant.

During the trial, appellant denied any participation in the recruitment activities. She insisted that Susan was not connected with her travel agency and that she confronted Susan upon learning of the recruitment activities. Appellant claimed she renamed her agency to Renz Consultancy and Employment Services to avoid association with Susan. She admitted meeting Rogelio at the town fiesta but denied knowing the other complainants. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that all five remaining complainants were promised deployment abroad by Susan and appellant acting together, that follow-up transactions occurred inside appellant's travel agency, and that four receipts bearing the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy were issued, two of which were personally signed by appellant.

• Lack of Participation: Appellant maintained that she had no hand in the recruitment of the complainants and that the recruitment activities were undertaken solely upon the initiative of co-accused Susan Navarro.
• Transactions with Susan, Not Appellant: Appellant argued that the complainants' own testimonies showed that transactions and payments were made with Susan, not with her, and thus the prosecution failed to prove her involvement.
• Nature of Business: Appellant admitted that her consultancy firm was merely engaged in assisting clients in the procurement of passports and visas, and denied that the agency was involved in any recruitment activity as defined under the Labor Code.
• Renaming of Agency: Appellant contended that she changed the name of her travel agency to disassociate herself from Susan's recruitment activities, purportedly demonstrating her innocence.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant, without the required license or authority from the POEA, engaged in recruitment and placement activities by promising overseas employment to complainants for a fee, thereby constituting illegal recruitment in large scale.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. The conviction was affirmed, the prosecution having established that appellant and her co-accused, acting together and without POEA license, gave five complainants the distinct impression that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the power to send them abroad for work, inducing them to part with their money as placement fees.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Recruitment and placement is defined under the Labor Code as the 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. When a person or entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Article 38(a) of the Labor Code declares recruitment by non-licensees or non-holders of authority illegal and punishable, and Article 38(b) provides that when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, the offense is deemed committed in large scale and constitutes economic sabotage. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money to be employed; there must at least be a promise or offer of employment. Here, both the trial court and the CA found that all five complainants were promised deployment abroad by Susan and appellant as cooks and assistant cooks. The follow-up transactions were conducted inside appellant's travel agency. All four receipts issued to the victims bore the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy, with two personally signed by appellant. Appellant and her co-accused thus made the complainants believe they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency that had authority to recruit and deploy them, when in fact it had none, as certified by the POEA. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked or misappreciated significant facts that would alter the result, their factual findings are binding. Appellant's claim that she renamed her agency to disassociate from Susan was rejected as a belated afterthought — an act smacking of a desperate attempt to escape liability rather than the reaction of an innocent person.

• Definition of Recruitment and Placement — Recruitment and placement refers to the 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. When a person or entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The Court applied this definition to find that appellant's promises of overseas employment for placement fees constituted recruitment and placement activities.

• Test for Illegal Recruitment — To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money to be employed. There must at least be a promise or offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter. The Court found this test satisfied through appellant's assurances of deployment, the issuance of receipts bearing her agency's name, and the conduct of transactions inside her office.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, and is considered an offense involving economic sabotage carrying stiffer penalties. The Court found the element satisfied because five complainants were recruited, each promised overseas employment and charged placement fees.

• Binding Effect of Lower Court Factual Findings — Absent any showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances which, if properly considered, would change the result, the Supreme Court is bound by the lower courts' factual findings. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the concurrent findings of the RTC and CA that appellant participated in the recruitment.

• "But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed." — This passage states the controlling test for illegal recruitment, derived from Lapasaran vs. People, and is the ratio decidendi applied to the facts of this case.

• "Indubitably, appellant and her co-accused acting together made complainants believe that they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for work when in truth and in fact it had none as certified by the POEA." — This passage encapsulates the Court's conclusion that the elements of illegal recruitment were satisfied, tying the factual findings to the legal test.

• "Absent any showing that the trial court and the CA overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances, which if properly considered, would change the result, we are bound by said findings." — This passage articulates the doctrine of deference to lower court factual findings, explaining why the Supreme Court did not disturb the concurrent findings of conviction.

• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 — Procedural precedent followed for the transfer of the appeal from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals in cases involving penalties of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

• Lapasaran vs. People, G.R. No. 179907, February 12, 2009 — Controlling authority cited for the test that illegal recruitment requires showing that the accused gave complainants the distinct impression of having the power or ability to send them abroad for work, inducing them to part with their money.

• People vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 132376, April 11, 2002 — Followed for the requirement that there must at least be a promise or offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.

• People vs. Costelo, G.R. No. 134311, October 13, 1999 — Cited for the doctrine that the Supreme Court is bound by the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts absent any showing of overlooked or misappreciated facts that would alter the result.

• Article 38(a) and (b), Labor Code (as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1412) — Article 38(a) declares recruitment activities by non-licensees or non-holders of authority illegal and punishable. Article 38(b) provides that illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons individually or as a group is deemed committed in large scale, constituting economic sabotage. The Court applied these provisions to find appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, as neither she nor Laogo Travel Consultancy was licensed by the POEA, and five complainants were recruited.

• Section 7, in relation to the last paragraph of Section 6, of Republic Act No. 8042 — These provisions govern the penalties for illegal recruitment in large scale as a form of economic sabotage. The Court applied them to uphold the imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.

Conchita Carpio Morales (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.