G.R. No. 215280 - Eizmendi, Jr. vs. Ferdez

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108, in its decision dated March 22, 1996, found accused Flor Gutierrez y Timod guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
The conviction was based on evidence that, from April to August 1994 in Pasay City, the accused engaged in recruitment activities without the required Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) license.
The court sentenced her to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of P100,000.00, and ordered her to pay moral and exemplary damages to each of the complainants.
The Information detailed the accused’s collaboration with several alleged co-conspirators in conducting unlicensed recruitment activities.

The accused, along with her alleged co-conspirators (including Cecilia Bautista, Esther Gamilde, Linda Rabaino, and Marilyn Garcia), conducted recruitment activities for domestic helpers destined for employment in Dubai.
The scheme involved collecting various fees from job applicants, with fees ranging from P10,000.00 to P15,000.00 per applicant.

Initially interacted with recruiter-agent Celia Bautista, submitting documents and paying fees (e.g., placement, passport processing, medical, photo fees).
Experienced repeated postponements in her departure to Dubai despite assurances and further instructions for additional payments, including a terminal fee.

Similar to Rosemarie, she submitted documents and fees, and later paid an additional processing fee at the accused’s office.
Like the other complainants, her overseas placement never materialized.

Handled by Marilyn Garcia, Rosalyn paid multiple fees including processing, tax, terminal, and service charges.
Endured several disconcerting episodes such as being taken to the airport and a restaurant under false pretenses, with promises unfulfilled.
When demanding a refund, she was instead extorted a cancellation fee.

Applied through Linda Rabaino, submitted required documents, and paid fees in installments.
Her departure was halted following a claim that she was under-aged, and even after being referred to the accused’s office, she never left.

Complainants, after failing to secure placement abroad, verified with the POEA that the accused was not a licensed recruiter.
The Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and police, led by SPO4 Johnny Marqueta, conducted an investigation including an entrapment operation using marked money.
The accused was arrested during a meeting with the complainants at a public location, thereby solidifying the case against her.

The accused argued that she acted as an employee or representative of Sarifudin Manpower and General Services—a duly licensed recruitment agency.
She submitted a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), a Certification from the agency, receipts for a cash bond, payments of royalty and office rental fees, and various official memoranda to support her claim.
However, evidence from the POEA and corroborating testimonies indicated that her appointment had not been properly submitted for POEA approval, and she appeared to be running her own recruitment operations.

The prosecution asserted that illegal recruitment is committed when a person recruits without a valid license or authority and engages in placement activities as defined under the Labor Code.
The accused’s failure to secure prior POEA approval for her representative appointment, as mandated by Section 11, Rule II, Book II and Section 1, Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, was central to the charge.
Evidence confirmed that even though Sarifudin Manpower and General Services was a licensed agency, the accused’s personal actions fell outside the regulatory scope since her appointment was not properly processed or acknowledged by the POEA.

Whether the accused, claiming to be merely a representative of a licensed recruitment agency, can be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.

Whether the essential requirement of possessing a valid POEA-authorized license for recruitment was absent, thus constituting the necessary element for illegal recruitment.

Whether the evidence showing that the accused conducted independent recruitment activities and received fees and documents directly from complainants is sufficient to demonstrate personal engagement in illegal recruitment.

The testimonies of the complainants and the documents presented (e.g., receipts, marked money evidence) that point to the accused’s direct role in the recruitment scheme.

Whether the submission of a Special Power of Attorney and certification by the agency can shield the accused from liability despite non-compliance with POEA appointment requirements.

The legal effect of unauthorized appointment as a representative or agent under existing administrative rules.

Whether the allegations and evidence for the element of “large scale” (i.e., illegal recruitment against three or more persons) have been properly established.