People vs. Molina

A licensed recruitment agency's officer is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 for failure to reimburse workers' processing expenses when deployment does not occur without the workers' fault, notwithstanding the existence of a valid license at the time of recruitment.

Delia C. Molina was the President of Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation, a private recruitment agency issued a provisional license by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on March 31, 2006. The agency's license was suspended on May 31, 2006, for non-compliance with POEA requirements, allegedly lifted on July 31, 2006, and ultimately expired on March 31, 2007. The case involves the regulatory framework of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), which penalizes illegal recruitment, including specific acts committed by licensees such as the failure to reimburse workers when deployment fails without their fault.

On December 21, 2007, Delia C. Molina and Juliet Pacon were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale for promising employment in South Korea to five complainants—Maria C. Luya, Gilbert B. Ubiña, Wilfredo I. Logo, Benjamin B. Delos Santos, and Maylen S. Bolda—and collecting placement fees totaling ₱450,000.00 from them between April and September 2006. The case proceeded only against Molina, as Pacon remained at-large. Molina pleaded not guilty during her arraignment on April 7, 2009.

The five private complainants testified that they were referred to the agency Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation, where they dealt with Juliet Pacon. Pacon discussed the requirements and placement fees for factory worker positions in South Korea, assuring them of deployment once requirements were met. The complainants paid their respective placement fees to Pacon, evidenced by cash vouchers bearing the agency's name and address. During their visits to the agency, the complainants saw Molina, who was introduced by Pacon as the owner or President of the agency. Molina personally assured the complainants of their deployment. When the promised employment did not materialize, the complainants discovered through POEA certifications that the agency had no job orders for South Korea and that its license had expired and been cancelled.

Molina testified as the lone defense witness, admitting she was the President of the agency but denying any knowledge of Juliet Pacon or the private complainants. She claimed Pacon had no authority to act for the agency and that she was abroad seeking job orders during the relevant period. On cross-examination, Molina admitted to having approximately 100 illegal recruitment cases filed against her and prior convictions for illegal recruitment in other branches of the Makati RTC. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of the private complainants more credible than Molina's general denial, noting that the transactions occurred in her agency and the cash vouchers bore the agency's name.

• Lack of Participation: Accused-appellant argued that she never recruited or promised private complainants work in South Korea, and had no contractual obligation to deploy them.
• Absence of Receipt of Payment: She maintained that it was co-accused Juliet Pacon who recruited the complainants and received their payments, and that she never demanded or received any amount from them.
• No False Impression: Accused-appellant asserted there was no direct evidence that she gave the complainants the impression she had the power to send them abroad, and that she had no participation in their transactions with Pacon.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale despite holding a valid license at the time of recruitment and denying participation in the transactions.
• Liability of Corporate Officers: Whether the President of a recruitment agency can be held liable for the failure to reimburse workers under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042.
• Imposition of Interest: Whether the imposition of interest on the actual damages awarded should be computed from the date of finality of the judgment.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Yes. The existence of a valid license at the commencement of the recruitment process does not exempt the accused from liability under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 for failure to reimburse expenses when deployment fails without the worker's fault.
• Liability of Corporate Officers: Yes. Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, in case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management, or direction of their business shall be liable.
• Imposition of Interest: Yes, with modification. The interest on actual damages shall be computed at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: The Court applied Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042, which includes as illegal recruitment the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by workers for documentation and processing when deployment does not take place without their fault, regardless of whether the recruiter is a licensee or non-licensee. Although the agency held a provisional license during the recruitment period, the deployment never materialized. The complainants' testimonies established that Molina assured them of deployment, and the cash vouchers showed payments were made to the agency. Her general denial was insufficient to overcome the affirmative testimonies of the complainants.
• Liability of Corporate Officers: Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 explicitly states that in case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management, or direction of their business shall be liable. As President of Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation, Molina had control and management of the agency. The recruitment activities and receipt of payments occurred in her agency's office, and she was identified by the complainants as the owner who assured them of employment.
• Imposition of Interest: Citing Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, the Court modified the lower courts' imposition of interest. The 6% per annum interest on the actual damages was adjusted to be computed from the date of finality of the Supreme Court's Decision until fully paid, instead of from the date of the filing of the criminal case.

• Illegal Recruitment by a Licensee under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 — A licensed recruitment agency or its officers can be held liable for illegal recruitment if they fail to reimburse expenses incurred by workers in connection with documentation and processing when deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. The existence of a valid license at the time of recruitment does not preclude liability under this specific provision.
• Liability of Corporate Officers for Illegal Recruitment — Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, in cases involving juridical persons engaged in illegal recruitment, the officers having control, management, or direction of their business shall be criminally liable.
• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale as Economic Sabotage — 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, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine under Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042.

• "The existence of a valid license at the commencement of the recruitment process will not justify an acquittal, for the provision and mandate of the special law violated is clear, categorical and specific on this point." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi that a valid license does not exempt a recruiter from liability for failure to reimburse under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042.
• "[T]he absence of receipts to evidence payment to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being fatal to the prosecution's cause." — This defines the evidentiary rule in illegal recruitment cases, emphasizing that testimonial evidence of payment suffices even without receipts.
• "[I]n case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable." — This establishes the basis for holding the corporate president personally liable for the illegal recruitment acts of the agency.

• People vs. Crispin Billaber y Matbanua — Cited to support the proposition that the absence of receipts evidencing payment to the recruiter does not warrant an acquittal.
• People vs. Owen Marcelo Cagalingan — Cited for the doctrine that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court, subject to exceptions.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames — Cited as the basis for the modification of the imposition of interest on actual damages, computing it from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment, including the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by workers when deployment fails without their fault, and provides that officers of juridical persons having control or management shall be liable. Applied to hold Molina liable as President of the agency.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 8042 — Provides the penalties for illegal recruitment. Section 7(b) imposes life imprisonment and a fine for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage, which includes large scale illegal recruitment. Applied to sustain the penalty of life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine.
• Article 13(f), Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines) — Defines recruitment and placement, referenced in Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 to delineate the activities constituting illegal recruitment.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and Andres B. Reyes, Jr.