People v. Cabacang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Felicia Cabacang, was charged with illegal recruitment for allegedly recruiting four individuals (Romeo Eguia, Ronnie Reyes, Armando Castro, and Dante Eguia) for overseas employment without the necessary license from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The private complainants paid a total of P32,500.00 in processing fees to the appellant between March 3, 1990, and April 27, 1990. The appellant assured them of deployment to Abu Dhabi by May 10, 1990, but they were never deployed. Upon inquiry, the private complainants discovered that the appellant was merely renting a table at the Lakas Agency Management Corporation and was not an employee. The appellant agreed to a settlement to refund the fees but only partially complied. Procedural History: The case was filed before Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, arguing that she never represented herself as a licensed recruiter, that she was merely an employee of a licensed agency, and that she was not at fault for the failure to deploy the complainants or for the agency's policies regarding ticket costs.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment despite not representing herself as a licensed recruiter. Whether the accused can be held liable for illegal recruitment as an employee of a licensed recruitment agency. Whether the accused is liable for the policies of the recruitment agency regarding the payment of airfare. Whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment based on her receipt of placement fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused with modification. The accused was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, pay a fine of P100,000.00, and indemnify the private complainants in the amount of P25,800.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment despite not representing herself as a licensed recruiter: The Court held that it is incorrect to maintain that to be liable for illegal recruitment, one must represent himself/herself as a duly-licensed recruiter. Illegal recruitment is defined as any recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. The essential elements are (1) the person charged must have undertaken recruitment activities, and (2) said person does not have a license or authority to do so. It is not required that the person wrongfully represented themselves as licensed. The definition of recruitment and placement includes any 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. Any person or entity that in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. On the issue of whether the accused can be held liable for illegal recruitment as an employee of a licensed recruitment agency: The Court rejected the appellant's contention that she merely performed her duties as an employee of a licensed recruitment agency. Her claim was uncorroborated, and she failed to present credible evidence to support it. The burden of proof lies with the party making the affirmative allegation. The prosecution presented documentary evidence, specifically receipts for processing fees, which showed that the appellant received the payments in her own behalf, not in behalf of the Lakas Agency. These receipts were not on agency letterhead and did not indicate payment to the agency. Furthermore, a commitment/agreement executed by the appellant before the NBI explicitly stated her personal promise to return the P32,500.00 to Wilma Gregorio, indicating she was acting in her own capacity. On the issue of whether the accused is liable for the policies of the recruitment agency regarding the payment of airfare: The Court did not directly address this as a separate issue but implicitly found the appellant liable for the overall illegal recruitment. The appellant's defense that the complainants failed to leave because they could not produce money for airfare, and that the agency had a policy requiring applicants to shoulder ticket costs, was part of her attempt to shift blame. However, the Court focused on her direct involvement in receiving fees and promising deployment without a license. The prosecution demonstrated that the appellant performed recruitment activities without a license, including informing applicants about job openings, accepting applications, assuring them of deployment, and receiving processing fees directly from them. The complainants dealt with the appellant alone throughout the transaction. On the issue of whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment based on her receipt of placement fees: The Court found the appellant guilty based on her direct recruitment activities and receipt of fees without a license. The prosecution successfully demonstrated that the appellant performed recruitment activities without any license. She informed an applicant about a second batch of janitors for deployment, accepted job applications, assured them of departure after paper processing, instructed them to pay processing fees directly to her, and personally received the total amount of P32,500.00. She issued and signed receipts for these fees. She processed their papers at the POEA and assured them of a specific departure date. The private complainants and Wilma Gregorio dealt exclusively with the appellant until after their failed departure, when they sought to locate her. Therefore, the appellant directly recruited the private complainants within the meaning of the Labor Code, and since she lacked the necessary license or authority from the DOLE, her acts constituted illegal recruitment.
Main Doctrine
To be liable for illegal recruitment, it is not required that one represent himself/herself as a duly-licensed recruiter. The essential elements are (1) the person charged undertook recruitment activities, and (2) said person does not have a license or authority to do so. Furthermore, a person acting in her own behalf, receiving processing fees and promising employment abroad without the requisite license, is guilty of illegal recruitment, even if she claims to be an employee of a licensed agency.