G.R. Nos. 124443-46 June 6, 2002
On that same day, private complainants
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NIMFA REMULLO
FACTS:
Private complainants JENELYN QUINSAAT,
ROSARIO CADACIO, and HONORINA MEJIA averred that they
went to appellant’s house sometime in March 1993, where
appellant told them she was recruiting factory workers for
Malaysia. Appellant told them to fill up application forms and to
go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where
appellant worked. Appellant also required each applicant to submit
a passport, pictures, and clearance from the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI); and then to undergo a medical examination.
Appellant told them the placement fee was P15,000 for each
applicant, which private complainants gave her. Appellant did not
issue receipts for any of the payments. At the Jamila office, private
complainants met a certain Steven Mah, the alleged broker from
the company in Malaysia that was interested in hiring the women.
Mah told them they were fit to work. Private complainants were
supposed to leave for Malaysia on June 6, 1993. On May 28, 1993,
private complainant Quinsaat testified that she and the others met
with appellant at the Philippine General Hospital where appellant
showed them their plane tickets. Appellant also told them to fill up
departure cards by checking the word "holiday" thereon. At the
airport on June 6, 1993, an immigration officer told private
complainants they lacked a requirement imposed by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Their passports
were cancelled and their boarding passes marked "offloaded".
Private complainant Mejia testified that appellant told them they
were not able to leave because their visas were for tourists only.
Appellant told private complainants they would be able to leave on
June 20, 1993 but this, too, did not push through.
Private complainant Mejia inquired from Jamila and
Co. regarding their application papers. In response, Evelyn
Landrito, vice president and general manager to Jamila, denied any
knowledge of such papers. Landrito told Mejia that appellant did
not submit any document to Jamila. She further certified that
appellant was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of
Jamila. EVELYN LANDRITO testified that appellant was a
marketing consultant for Jamila. As such, her work was limited to
securing job orders for the company through contacts abroad.
According to Landrito, appellant went on absence without leave in
late 1993. Landrito did not know the private complainants. She
stated that Jamila did not have job orders accredited by the POEA
for Malaysia. She knew of a Steven Mah who represented
Manifield Enterprise but the agreement with that company did not
push through and POEA did not accredit Manifield.
In her defense, appellant NIMFA REMULLO denied
having recruited private complainants and receiving any money
from them. According to her testimony, she met private
complainant at the Jamila office where she was a marketing
consultant. They asked for her help in obtaining jobs abroad, so
she had them fill up bio-data forms and told them to wait for job
openings. She alleged that Jamila had an agreement with Wearness
Electronics, based in Malaysia, concerning the recruitment of
workers for Wearness. Private complainants were supposed to
have been recruited for Wearness. Appellant explained that Steven
Mah was the owner of Manifield Enterprise a recruitment agency.
Appellant said that Mah "went to Malaysia to look for job opening
and he was able to find this company, Wearness
Electronics.Appellant insisted that private complainants did not
hand their placement fees to her but to Steven Mah and to a certain
Lani Platon.19 She presented in evidence photocopies of receipts
allegedly signed by Platon.20 She said private complainants sought
her assistance after they were unable to leave for abroad. She
pointed out that she helped private complainants fax a letter to
Steven Mah in Singapore asking for the return of their money.21
She also accompanied them to Batangas where Lani Platon was
supposed to be residing.22
On cross-examination, appellant insisted that her job at Jamila was
not limited to finding prospective employers abroad. She said that
her duties included those assigned by Virginia Castro, Jamila’s
deputy manager, among them entertaining job applicants. She said
that it was actually Castro who told Mah to interview private
complainants at the Jamila office. Mah went to Jamila sometime
on May 24, 1993 to deliver documents regarding job openings in
Singapore and Malaysia.
happened to be at the Jamila office.
Appellant also claimed that private complainants later transacted
business with Mah without the knowledge of Jamila. According to
her, Lani Platon told her that private complainants were supposed
to leave on June 6, 1993.
Also for the defense, witness AMADO PANCHA testified that he
came to know appellant when he was applying for a job abroad
through Jamila. He claimed that he was at the Jamila office on
May 30, 1993 and saw some people, presumably private
complainants, inside appellant’s office.27 He met Lani Platon and
asked her what she was doing at Jamila. Platon allegedly replied
that she was recruiting female workers for jobs abroad. She
introduced Pancha to her Singaporean companion, Steven Mah.28
Thereafter, according to Pancha, private complainants gave Platon
an envelope containing money that Platon put inside her bag.
Private complainants then handed Platon a piece of bond paper
with something typewritten on it, which the latter signed.29
Appellant signed on the same piece of paper.
The trial court found appellant guilty. Hence, the
appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not Nimfa Remullo is guilty of the crime
charged against her.
RULING:
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 13. Definitions. -- xxx
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or
not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two
or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.
We are convinced that private complainants, the main witnesses
for the prosecution, were enticed by appellant to apply for jobs
abroad. The three private complainants filled up application forms
at appellant’s house, and each paid appellant the amount of
P15,000 as placement fee. However, she acted without license or
lawful authority to conduct recruitment of workers for overseas
placement. The POEA’s licensing branch issued a certification
stating that appellant, in her personal capacity, was not authorized
to engage in recruitment activities. Evelyn Landrito, general
manager of the placement agency where appellant used to work,
denied that the scope of appellant’s work included recruiting
workers and receiving placement fees. Such lack of authority to
recruit is also apparent from a reading of the job description of a
marketing consultant, the post that appellant occupied at Jamila
and Co.
Anent appellant’s conviction for estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-
654 to 95-656, we find no error committed by the trial court. Their
conviction and sentence are fully supported by the evidence on
record. For charges of estafa to prosper, the following elements
must be present: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.39 In this case, appellant clearly defrauded private
complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the
power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. By virtue of
appellant’s false representations, private complainants each parted
with their hard-earned money. Each complainant paid P15,000 as
recruitment fee to appellant, who then appropriated the money for
her own use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job
placements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole,
complainants were provided defective visas, brought to the airport
with their passports and tickets, only to be offloaded that day, but
with promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. The
recruits wait in vain for weeks, months, even years, only to realize
they were gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases
of estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant should
be held criminally responsible.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Makati City, Branch 132, is hereby AFFIRMED
G.R. No. 132376 April 11, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SAMINA ANGELES Y
CALMA
FACTS:
Maria Tolosa Sardeña was working in Saudi Arabia when she
received a call from her sister, Priscilla Agoncillo, who was in
Paris, France. Priscilla advised Maria to return to the Philippines
and await the arrival of her friend, accused-appellant Samina
Angeles, who will assist in processing her travel and employment
documents to Paris, France. Heeding her sister’s advice, Maria
immediately returned to the Philippines. Marceliano Tolosa who at
that time was in the Philippines likewise received instructions from
his sister Priscilla to meet accused-appellant who will also assist in
the processing of his documents for Paris, France.
Maria and Marceliano eventually met accused-appellant. During
their meeting, accused-appellant asked if they had the money
required for the processing of their documents. Maria gave
P107,000.00 to accused-appellant at Expert Travel Agency.
Subsequently, she gave another P46,000.00 and US$1,500.00 as
additional payments to accused-appellant. Marceliano, on the other
hand, initially gave P100,000.00 to accused-appellant and he gave
an additional P46,000.00 and US$1,500.00 at the United Coconut
Planters Bank in Makati.
Analyn Olpindo met accused-appellant in Belgium. At that time,
Analyn was working in Canada but she went to Belgium to visit
her in-laws. After meeting accused-appellant, Analyn Olpindo
called up her sister, Precila Olpindo, in the Philippines and told her
to meet accused-appellant upon the latter’s arrival in the
Philippines because accused-appellant can help process her
documents for employment in Canada. Precila Olpindo eventually
met accused-appellant at the Expert Travel Agency. Accused-
appellant asked for the amount of $4,500.00, but Precila was only
able to give $2,500.00.
No evidence was adduced in relation to the complaint of Vilma
Brina since she did not testify in court.
Accused-appellant told Precila Olpindo and Vilma Brina that it
was easier to complete the processing of their papers if they start
from Jakarta, Indonesia rather than from Manila. Precila Olpindo,
Vilma Brina and accused-appellant flew to Jakarta, Indonesia.
However, accused-appellant returned to the Philippines after two
days, leaving behind Precila and Vilma. They waited for accused-
appellant in Jakarta but the latter never returned. Precila and Vilma
eventually came home to the Philippines. They started looking for
her but they could not reach her.
Elisa Campanianos of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency presented a certification to the effect that accused-
appellant was not duly licensed to recruit workers here and abroad.
In her defense, accused-appellant averred that she never
represented to the complainants that she can provide them with
work abroad. She insisted that she was a marketing consultant and
an international trade fair organizer. She met Priscilla Agoncillo in
France and they became friends. Priscilla asked her to assist her
siblings, Maria and Marceliano, particularly in the processing of
their travel documents for France. Accused-appellant told Priscilla
that she can only help in the processing of travel documents and
nothing more. It was Priscilla who promised employment to Maria
and Marceliano. She received money from complainants not in the
form of placement fees but for the cost of tickets, hotel
accommodations and other travel requirements. She has the same
defense for Analyn Olpindo whom she met in Belgium.
After trial on the merits, the trial court found accused-appellant
guilty of illegal recruitment and four (4) counts of estafa. The case
was elevated to the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellant alleged that she never promised nor offered any
job to the complainants.She pointed out that not one of the
complainants testified on what kind of jobs were promised to them,
how much they would receive as salaries, the length of their
employment and even the names of their employers, which are
basic subjects a prospective employee would first determine.
ISSUE: Whether or not Angeles is guilty with four (4) counts of
estafa and one (1) count of illegal recruitment
RULING:
1.) Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) elements
concur: 1) that the offender has no valid license or authority
required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment
and placement of workers; and 2) that the offender undertakes
either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and
placement defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34.3
Article 13(b), of the Labor Code provides, thus:
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to 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: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two
or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-
appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the
power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that
the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed.4 To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and
placement, it is plain that there must at least be a promise or offer
of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether
locally or abroad.
Plainly, there is no testimony that accused-appellant offered
complainants jobs abroad. Hence, accused-appellant Samina
Angeles cannot be lawfully convicted of illegal recruitment.
2.) Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
the elements of estafa are: (1) the accused has defrauded another
by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (2) damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person. Clearly, these elements are present in this
case.8
Although Samina Angeles did not deceive complainants into
believing that she could find employment for them abroad,
nonetheless, she made them believe that she was processing their
travel documents for France and Canada. They parted with their
money believing that Samina Angeles would use it to pay for their
plane tickets, hotel accommodations and other travel requirements.
Upon receiving various amounts from complainants, Samina
Angeles used it for other purposes and then conveniently
disappeared. Complainants trusted Samina Angeles because she
was referred to them by their own relatives. She abused their
confidence when she led them to believe that she can process their
travel documents abroad, thus inducing them to part with their
money. When they demanded from Samina their travel documents,
she failed to produce them. Likewise, she failed to return the
amounts entrusted to her.
Clearly, Samina Angeles defrauded complainants by falsely
pretending to possess the power and capacity to process their travel
documents.
P107,000.00 – Maria; 190,00 – Marceliano; 61,200- Precila.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision is
MODIFIED.
G.R. No. 93666 April 22, 1991 in preferred areas of investments or in accordance with the
imperative of economic development;
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and EARL
TIMOTHY CONE vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES Article 40 of the Labor Code reads as follows:

FACTS:
The National Capital Region of the Department of Labor and
Employment issued Alien Employment Permit in favor of
petitioner Earl Timothy Cone, a United States citizen, as sports
consultant and assistant coach for petitioner General Milling
Corporation ("GMC").
Petitioners GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment
whereby the latter undertook to coach GMC's basketball team.The
Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation approved petitioner Cone's application for a change of
admission status from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee.
Petitioner GMC requested renewal of petitioner Cone's alien
employment permit. GMC also requested that it be allowed to
employ Cone as full-fledged coach. The DOLE Regional Director
granted the request. Alien Employment Permit valid until 25
December 1990, was issued.
Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the
Philippines ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of said alien
employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor who
issued a decision ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone's
employment permit on the ground that there was no showing that
there is no person in the Philippines who is competent, able and
willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of
petitioner Cone would redound to the national interest.
Petitioner GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and two (2)
Supplemental Motions for Reconsideration but said Motions were
denied by Acting Secretary of Labor. Petitioners elevated the case
before the Court on a Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner GMC's
claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative
has no legal basis at all. Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an
employer seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an
employment permit from the Department of Labor. Petitioner
GMC's right to choose whom to employ is, of course, limited by
the statutory requirement of an alien employment permit.
ISSUE:
Art. 40. Employment per unit of non-resident aliens. –– Any alien
seeking admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and
any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien
for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment
permit from the Department of Labor.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to
the applicant employer after a determination of the non-availability
of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at
the time of application to perform the services for which the alien
is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said
employment permit may be issued upon recommendation of the
government agency charged with the supervision of said registered
enterprise. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners apparently suggest that the Secretary of Labor is not
authorized to take into account the question of whether or not
employment of an alien applicant would "redound to the national
interest" because Article 40 does not explicitly refer to such
assessment. This argument (which seems impliedly to concede that
the relationship of basketball coaching and the national interest is
tenuous and unreal) is not persuasive. In the first place, the second
paragraph of Article 40 says: "[t]he employment permit may be
issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a
determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines
who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to
perform the services for which the alien is desired." The
permissive language employed in the Labor Code indicates that the
authority granted involves the exercise of discretion on the part of
the issuing authority. In the second place, Article 12 of the Labor
Code sets forth a statement of objectives that the Secretary of
Labor should, and indeed must, take into account in exercising his
authority and jurisdiction granted by the Labor Code,
Art. 12. Statement of Objectives. –– It is the policy of the State:
a) To promote and maintain a state of full employment through
improved manpower training, allocation and utilization;

Whether or not Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Omnibus xxx xxx xxx
Rules Implementing the Labor Code is null and void as it is in
violation of the enabling law as the Labor Code does not empower
c) To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons
respondent Secretary to determine if the employment of an alien
seeking work in conformity with the national interest;
would redound to national interest.

d) To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in

RULING:
conformity with the national interest;

Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing Rules,

e) To regulate the employment of aliens, including the
provides as follows:
establishment of a registration and/or work permit system;

Section 6. Issuance of Employment Permit –– the Secretary of

Thus, we find petitioners' arguments on the above points of
Labor may issue an employment permit to the applicant based on:
constitutional law too insubstantial to require further consideration.

a) Compliance by the applicant and his employer with the

Petitioners have very recently manifested to this Court that public
requirements of Section 2 hereof;
respondent Secretary of Labor has reversed his earlier decision and
has issued an Employment Permit to petitioner Cone. Petitioners
b) Report of the Bureau Director as to the availability or non- seek to withdraw their Petition for Certiorari on the ground that it
availability of any person in the Philippines who is competent and has become moot and academic.
willing to do the job for which the services of the applicant are
desired.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for
certiorari for lack of merit.
(c) His assessment as to whether or not the employment of the
applicant will redound to the national interest;

(d) Admissibility of the alien as certified by the Commission on

Immigration and Deportation;

(e) The recommendation of the Board of Investments or other

appropriate government agencies if the applicant will be employed