Toston vs. People of the Philippines

A mere employee of a validly licensed recruitment agency who performs routine recruitment-related tasks under the supervision of the agency's officers, without knowledge of the agency's failure to register his employment with the POEA, cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment per se or estafa, as the obligation to register personnel with the POEA belongs to the agency's officers, not the individual employee.

Adriano Toston y Hular was an employee of Steadfast International Recruitment Corporation, a private recruitment agency licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to engage in overseas employment placement. Mary Ann O. Soliven was a job applicant who responded to an online job posting and transacted with Steadfast's office in Malate, Manila. The dispute arose under the framework of Republic Act No. 8042 (the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended), which defines and penalizes illegal recruitment, and Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes estafa by means of deceit. Under the governing regime, recruitment agencies and their personnel must be duly licensed or registered with the POEA; persons acting without such license or authority may be prosecuted for illegal recruitment per se.

Adriano Toston worked for Steadfast International Recruitment Corporation (Steadfast) from 2002 to 2007, first as a Staff Assistant and later as a Recruitment Assistant—a designation reported to the POEA. After a period of employment elsewhere, he returned to Steadfast in 2009, holding the position of Administrative Assistant and performing mostly clerical work, including interacting with persons who came into the office. Steadfast's recruitment license was valid until June 10, 2015, though it was preventively suspended on July 8, 2011 and cancelled on May 25, 2012.

Mary Ann O. Soliven discovered Steadfast's website while browsing the internet for overseas job openings and went to the agency's office in Malate, Manila, on June 19, 2010, to apply for a waitress position in Singapore. According to Mary Ann, she was first interviewed by Alvin Runas, Steadfast's Recruitment Assistant, for about five minutes; thereafter, Toston and Runas told her she was eligible for an overseas job, and Toston instructed her to wait for a call. Toston, for his part, testified that he merely asked Mary Ann her purpose in coming to the office and, upon learning she wanted to apply abroad, referred her to Runas—telling Runas, "TOL, MAG-AAPPLY DAW PARA SA ABROAD. PAKI-ASIKASO NAMAN." After two to three weeks, Toston telephoned Mary Ann to inform her that she had passed the interview and needed to undergo a medical examination. Mary Ann returned to the Steadfast office, where Toston gave her a referral slip for the medical examination.

On July 7, 2010, Ethel Gutierrez, Steadfast's General Manager, called Mary Ann to inform her that she had passed the medical examination and should pay P50,000.00 as a placement fee. Mary Ann and her husband Charles went to the Steadfast office that same day and paid the amount to Gutierrez, who issued an acknowledgment receipt signed by Runas. Toston was not present during the payment, a fact confirmed by both Mary Ann and Toston. Gutierrez told Mary Ann to wait at least one year for deployment. Mary Ann made regular follow-ups with Toston and Runas, but she was never deployed.

By November 2010, Mary Ann read an internet blog post alleging that Steadfast was an illegal recruiter. She called Toston, who assured her that the allegations were untrue. In April or May 2011, Mary Ann found additional social media posts by "Ka Susan Bantay OCW" also identifying Steadfast as an illegal recruiter. This prompted her to go to the Steadfast office and withdraw her application. Among the documents returned to her was the result of her medical examination, which showed that she was unfit to work abroad—a fact that had been concealed from her by Gutierrez. Mary Ann sought assistance from Ka Susan, who referred her to the police authorities. Upon filing a complaint, Mary Ann discovered that Steadfast's POEA registration had been temporarily suspended and that POEA records indicated Toston had been deemed resigned from Steadfast as of August 13, 2007. On September 16, 2011, after Mary Ann had filed her complaint, Gutierrez executed a promissory note for the return of the placement fee.

POEA records, as testified to by labor and employment officer Teresita Taladtad, showed that Toston was appointed Recruitment Assistant on March 30, 2009, and that, from the POEA's perspective, he held that designation from June 11, 2011 to September 14, 2011; there was no POEA record of his employment as Administrative Assistant. However, Steadfast's internal documents showed that Toston was hired on February 16, 2009, and separated on June 16, 2011 due to resignation. Critically, a letter dated March 27, 2009 from Gutierrez to the POEA's Licensing and Regulation Division stated that Steadfast was submitting the documents of Toston as "recruitment/processing assistant as of February, 2009," and a POEA letter dated March 31, 2009 confirmed that this notice was reflected in POEA records on March 30, 2009. The trial court found Toston guilty of illegal recruitment and estafa on June 29, 2015, crediting Mary Ann's testimony and holding that Toston's acts—interviewing, giving the referral slip, and handing over the employment contract—constituted active participation in recruitment. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on December 28, 2016, increasing the illegal recruitment penalty to 20 years and P2,000,000.00, holding that Toston lacked POEA authority when he transacted with Mary Ann on June 19, 2010.

• Definition of Recruitment: Petitioner argued that interviewing prospective overseas job applicants is not expressly mentioned in the definition of illegal recruitment per se under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 and therefore does not constitute an act of recruitment.
• Scope of "Referring": Petitioner maintained that the term "referring" as used in R.A. No. 8042 pertains only to referrals related to the procurement of workers, since the law uses the conjunction "and" between the phrases "procuring workers" and "includes referring," and that merely passing along a query to the person next to him does not constitute a referral amounting to illegal recruitment.
• Employment Status: Petitioner claimed he was a mere Administrative Assistant with no direct involvement in Mary Ann's application, having only interacted with her on two occasions—when he referred her to Runas and when he handed over the employment contract—and that he neither received the placement fee nor knew about the suspension of Steadfast's license.

• Illegal Recruitment Per Se: Whether Toston, as an employee of Steadfast whose appointment was reported to the POEA, could be held liable for illegal recruitment per se on the ground that he personally lacked a license or authority to recruit at the time he transacted with the complainant.
• Illegal Recruitment Practices: Whether Toston could be held liable for illegal recruitment practices under Section 6(1) of R.A. No. 8042 for failure to deploy the complainant despite the signing of an employment contract and payment of a placement fee.
• Estafa: Whether Toston could be held liable for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding the complainant by means of deceit.

• Illegal Recruitment Per Se: No. Toston was a validly documented employee of a validly licensed recruitment agency at the time he transacted with the complainant, and the obligation to register his employment with the POEA belonged to Steadfast's officers, not to him.
• Illegal Recruitment Practices: No. The complainant's non-deployment was based on a valid reason—she was medically unfit for overseas work—and she voluntarily withdrew her application before the agreed-upon one-year waiting period elapsed.
• Estafa: No. The element of deceit was negated because Toston was an employee of a validly licensed agency, and the prosecution failed to prove that he knew about the concealed medical examination results or participated in the collection or misappropriation of the placement fee.

• Illegal Recruitment Per Se: The Court first clarified that under R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment per se can only be committed by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, while illegal recruitment practices and prohibited practices may be committed by any person regardless of licensing status. Both courts a quo found Toston guilty of illegal recruitment per se on the theory that neither he nor Steadfast had a valid recruitment license at the time of Mary Ann's recruitment, and that Toston personally lacked POEA authority. The Court rejected this reasoning. Steadfast's license was valid until June 10, 2015, and was not preventively suspended until July 8, 2011—well after the June 19, 2010 transaction. While POEA record searches did not reflect Toston's 2009–2011 stint at Steadfast, the record contained a letter from Gutierrez to the POEA dated March 27, 2009, reporting Toston's appointment as "recruitment/processing assistant as of February, 2009," and a POEA letter dated March 31, 2009 confirming receipt and reflection of this notice in POEA records on March 30, 2009. The fact that subsequent POEA record searches did not reflect this stint could not be held against Toston. Relying on People vs. Chowdury, the Court held that the obligation to register personnel with the POEA belongs to the agency's officers, not to a mere employee, who cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for the agency's operation. Toston was justified in relying on Steadfast to comply with industry regulations. His participation was limited to a preliminary interview, a referral to Runas, and a referral to the medical clinic—all performed under the supervision of Gutierrez, the general manager. He was therefore a documented employee of a validly licensed agency and could not be held liable for illegal recruitment per se.

• Illegal Recruitment Practices: The Court examined whether Toston could be liable under Section 6(1) of R.A. No. 8042, which penalizes failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason. The record showed that Mary Ann was found medically unfit for overseas deployment, which constituted a valid reason for non-deployment. Furthermore, Mary Ann voluntarily withdrew her application before the one-year waiting period that Steadfast had told her to wait. The prosecution did not present proof that Toston knew about the result of Mary Ann's medical examination or that he was privy to Gutierrez's concealment of this fact. The only acts of recruitment conclusively attributable to Toston were the preliminary interview, the referral to Runas, and the referral to the medical clinic. Given these circumstances, Toston could not be held liable for violating Section 6(1).

• Estafa: The Court applied the two elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. While Mary Ann suffered pecuniarily estimable damage in the form of the P50,000.00 placement fee she paid to Gutierrez and Runas, the element of fraud by deceit with respect to Toston was negated by the fact that, at the time of the act complained of, Toston was an employee of a validly licensed recruitment agency. Assuming arguendo that Mary Ann was defrauded when Gutierrez lied about the medical examination results, such fraudulent act could not be attributed to Toston absent any proof that he directly participated in or abetted the concealment. The prosecution failed to prove that Toston knew about the medical examination results or was privy to the concealment. Likewise, the defense established that Toston was not present and had no participation in the payment of the placement fee, which was handled exclusively by Gutierrez and Runas. The charge of estafa against Toston therefore had no basis.

• Obligation to Register Agency Personnel with the POEA — The obligation to register the appointment, change, or termination of officers, representatives, and personnel of licensed recruitment agencies with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency, not to the individual employee. A mere employee cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for the agency's operation and is justified in relying upon the employer to faithfully comply with industry regulations. The Court applied this doctrine to acquit Toston, whose 2009–2011 employment at Steadfast was reported to the POEA by the agency's general manager, even though subsequent POEA record searches did not reflect this stint.

• Three Modes of Illegal Recruitment under R.A. No. 8042 — Under the prevailing law, there are three modes of committing illegal recruitment: (1) illegal recruitment per se, as defined in the first paragraph of Section 6, which can only be committed by non-licensees or non-holders of authority; (2) illegal recruitment practices, as listed (a) to (m) in the same provision, which may be committed by any person regardless of licensing status; and (3) prohibited practices amounting to illegal recruitment, also in Section 6, likewise committed by any person. The Court applied this framework to determine that Toston, as a documented employee of a licensed agency, could not be liable for illegal recruitment per se, and that the non-deployment of the complainant was justified by a valid reason.

• Referral as an Act of Recruitment — Referral, expressly mentioned in Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, is the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after an initial interview to a selected employer, placement officer, or bureau. The Court held that the phrase "referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad" is a continuation of "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers," and both phrases refer to the subject of the entire sentence—illegal recruitment. Toston's act of passing Mary Ann to Runas for processing of her application constituted a referral under the law.

• Liability of Employees in Illegal Recruitment Cases — Employees of corporations found to be engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principals if it is proven that they actively and consciously participated in the recruitment. However, where an employee's participation is limited to routine tasks performed under the supervision of the agency's officers, without knowledge of any irregularity, and the employee did not receive money from the applicants, the prosecution fails to prove conscious and active participation beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this principle, drawing from People vs. Chowdury, to exonerate Toston.

• "The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Chowdury and applied by the Court to Toston's case, articulates the controlling rationale: the duty to register personnel with the POEA rests on the agency, not the employee, and an employee cannot be faulted for the agency's failure to comply.

• "Toston cannot be faulted for not following up on his registration status. Since the obligation to register his employment fell upon Steadfast, Toston was justified in relying upon his employer to faithfully comply with industry regulations." — This statement applies the Chowdury doctrine to the facts, establishing that an employee of a licensed agency who performs routine tasks without knowledge of regulatory lapses cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment per se.

• "Given these circumstances, it is clear that Toston was merely performing his tasks as a documented employee of a validly licensed recruitment agency, under the supervision of the agency's general manager, Gutierrez. Thus, he cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment per se." — This passage crystallizes the Court's conclusion on the illegal recruitment per se issue, tying the legal rule to the specific facts of Toston's limited participation.

• "Assuming arguendo that Mary Ann was indeed defrauded when Gutierrez lied to her about the result of her medical examination, such fraudulent act cannot be attributed to Toston, absent any proof that he directly participated in or abetted the commission thereof." — This statement defines the boundary of estafa liability for an employee of a recruitment agency: fraud committed by a superior officer cannot be imputed to a subordinate employee without proof of knowledge or participation.

• People vs. Chowdury, 382 Phil. 459 (2000) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court acquitted an interviewer of a recruitment agency who was convicted of illegal recruitment because his employment was not registered with the POEA, holding that the obligation to register belongs to the agency's officers, not the employee, and that the prosecution failed to prove the employee's conscious and active participation. The Court applied the same rationale to Toston.
• People vs. Tolentino, 762 Phil. 592 (2015) — Cited for the proposition that a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad; and (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042. Also cited for the rule that a person who commits acts constituting illegal recruitment may be held liable not only for illegal recruitment but also for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Gonzales-Flores, 408 Phil. 855 (2001) and People vs. Goce & Agustin, 317 Phil. 897 (1995) — Cited for the definition of "referral" as the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after an initial interview to a selected employer, placement officer, or bureau.
• People vs. Solina, 778 Phil. 207 (2016) — Cited for the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by R.A. No. 10022) — Defines illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The provision also enumerates illegal recruitment practices (a) to (m) and prohibited practices, including Section 6(1) on failure to deploy a contracted worker without valid reason. The Court applied this provision to determine that Toston's acts (interview, referral, medical referral slip) constituted recruitment activities, but that he could not be held liable for illegal recruitment per se because he was a documented employee of a licensed agency, and could not be held liable under Section 6(1) because non-deployment was based on a valid reason and the complainant voluntarily withdrew her application.
• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Penalizes estafa committed by means of deceit, requiring (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. The Court applied this provision to hold that while the complainant suffered pecuniary damage, the element of deceit was not established against Toston, who was an employee of a licensed agency and had no knowledge of or participation in the concealment of the medical examination results or the collection of the placement fee.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement activities. The trial court cited this provision to hold that profit is not an element of recruitment, meaning Toston could be liable even without personally receiving the placement fee. The Supreme Court did not disturb this interpretation but found the element of illegal recruitment per se unmet on other grounds.

Caguioa (Acting Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Rosario, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.

None. Chief Justice Peralta took no part in the case; Justice Rosario was designated as additional Member per Raffle dated February 17, 2021.