G.R. No. 110776 - Maranaw Hotel and Resort Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110776)

Charges and Informations

Appellant was charged in six separate informations: one count of illegal recruitment (Crim. Case No. 02-755) and five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) (Crim. Case Nos. 02-756 to 02-760). The illegal recruitment count alleged advertising for employment, enlisting and promising employment for a fee without the required license or permit. The estafa counts alleged deceit in representing capability to secure employment and visas in Korea and collecting placement fees or partial payments (P15,000 to P35,000) which were allegedly misappropriated.

Factual Allegations Presented by Prosecution

Private complainants testified that appellant met with them in early November 2001 at her office in Alabang, represented she could secure factory work in Korea earning approximately $630 monthly, showed pictures of purportedly placed applicants, explained processing procedures, and promised visas and contracts within three months. Complainants each paid partial amounts (commonly P20,000 initially and a subsequent P15,000 or similar) as placement fees, for which petty cash vouchers and Trainee Agreements were issued. On 30 January 2002 contracts presented bore other names; appellant allegedly assured originals would follow. Appellant was arrested for illegal recruitment in February 2002; a POEA certification (dated 10 March 2003) established she was not licensed to recruit overseas workers. Another complainant (Panesa) alleged an earlier August 2001 transaction of P15,000 as partial payment for a promised P75,000 placement fee and subsequent lack of contact.

Defense Position at Trial

Appellant testified as the lone defense witness, denying recruitment and asserting she only explained procedures and was herself pursuing employment through Narcisa Santos. She admitted receiving payments and issuing receipts but claimed she acted upon instructions from Narcisa Santos and turned over collected funds to Santos. Appellant acknowledged signing petty cash vouchers but admitted she had no documentary proof she actually remitted the money to Santos.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court (decision rendered 9 June 2010) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large-scale illegal recruitment (economic sabotage) and of five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a). The trial court initially sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for illegal recruitment and imposed various indeterminate terms for the estafa counts while ordering return of amounts paid and awarding moral damages in certain counts.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. It concluded the prosecution proved illegal recruitment in large scale because appellant (1) admitted lacking authority or license, (2) led complainants to believe she could secure overseas employment and induced payments, and (3) issued petty cash vouchers and Trainee Agreements. The CA rejected appellant’s contention that Narcisa Santos was the recruiting party for lack of supporting evidence and found liability for estafa established by the same facts supporting illegal recruitment.

Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court and Constitutional Basis

The Supreme Court reviewed appellant’s appeal. Because the Court’s decision date is 2015, the 1987 Constitution governs the resolution and provides the constitutional framework for adjudication; statutory and jurisprudential provisions cited by the courts below (Labor Code, RA 8042, Revised Penal Code) remain the operative laws applied in the Court’s analysis.

Legal Standard for Illegal Recruitment (Labor Code and RA 8042)

Under the Labor Code (Article 13(b) and Article 38) and RA 8042 (Sections 6 and 7 as reproduced in the record), illegal recruitment for overseas employment includes any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers for employment abroad when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, and it also includes specified prohibited acts (e.g., charging unlawful fees, publishing false information, substituting contracts). RA 8042 treats illegal recruitment committed in large scale (against three or more persons) or by a syndicate as economic sabotage and prescribes heavier penalties. The Labor Code formulation and RA 8042 together supply the elements the courts applied.

Application of Illegal Recruitment Elements to the Facts

The Court affirmed that three elements for illegal recruitment in large scale were satisfied: (1) appellant undertook recruitment activities (promises to secure overseas employment, collection of placement fees, issuance of Trainee Agreements and receipts); (2) appellant lacked POEA license or authority (POEA certification and appellant’s admission); and (3) the offense was committed against three or more persons (five complainants). The Court credited the complainants’ testimonial evidence and documentary items (petty cash vouchers, Trainee Agreements) and rejected appellant’s alternative explanation that funds were transmitted to Narcisa Santos due to lack of proof. Trial court credibility determinations, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were accorded due respect by the Supreme Court.

Legal Standard for Estafa (Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code)

Article 315(2)(a) punishes one who defrauds another by, inter alia, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, agency or business. The elements are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit, and (2) the offended party suffered damage capable of pecuniary estimation. Penalties under Article 315 depend on the amount defrauded and include indeterminate sentencing rules and incremental increases for amounts exceeding statutory thresholds.

Application of Estafa Elements and Sentencing Analysis

The Supreme Court agreed that the same acts constituting illegal recruitment also supported convictions for estafa: appellant falsely represented capacity to secure employment abroad and induced payments which resulted in pecuniary loss to complainants. The Court found the trial court erred in the terms of the indeterminate sentences imposed and corrected the penalties consistent with Article 315 and governing indeterminate sentence computations. The Court deleted the awards of moral damages for lack of legal basis, fixed appropriate minimum and maximum terms by reference to the prescribed penalty ranges and incremental adjustments for amounts exceeding P22,000, and ordered restitution of actual amounts paid with legal interest at 6% per annu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 110776)

Procedural History

Appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision dated 29 November 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04558, which affirmed the trial court's decision finding appellant Alelie Tolentino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa.
Trial court rendered its decision on 9 June 2010; trial court found appellant guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment (economic sabotage) and five counts of estafa, and imposed penalties and restitution; trial court also ordered credit for preventive imprisonment under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecution appealed and the appellant brought the case to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 208686; the Supreme Court promulgated its decision on 01 July 2015 (Second Division, penned by Justice Carpio).
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's factual findings and convictions; the Supreme Court reviewed both conviction and appropriateness of penalties and damages and affirmed with modifications.

Parties and Roles

Appellee: People of the Philippines (prosecution).
Appellant/Accused: Alelie Tolentino, also known as "Alelie Tolentino y Hernandez."
Co-actor alleged in Informations and in evidence: Narcisa Santos (referred to in the Informations and in appellant's defense), alleged by appellant to have instructed collection and to have deployed workers in the past.
Private complainants/victims: Lederle Panesa, Orlando Layoso, Jimmy Lejos, Marcelino Lejos, and Donna Magboo — complainants who paid placement fees and alleged deceit and misappropriation.

Charges and Informations (as pleaded in separate criminal case numbers)

CRIM. CASE NO. 02-755: Illegal Recruitment — accused advertised for employment, enlisted, contracted and promised employment to five named persons for a fee without first securing license and/or permit from the government agency concerned; charged as illegal recruitment.
CRIM. CASE NO. 02-756: Estafa (Art. 315(2)(a) RPC) — accused represented she could secure work for Lederle Panesa in Korea, could process visa and documents, demanded P75,000 placement fee; Panesa paid P15,000 as partial payment; accused misappropriated P15,000.
CRIM. CASE NO. 02-757: Estafa (Art. 315(2)(a) RPC) — accused, conspiring with Narcisa Santos, represented ability to secure work for Orlando Layoso in Korea for P80,000; Layoso paid P35,000 as partial payment; accused misappropriated P35,000.
CRIM. CASE NO. 02-758: Estafa (Art. 315(2)(a) RPC) — accused, conspiring with Narcisa Santos, represented ability to secure work for Donna Magboo in Korea for P80,000; Magboo paid P35,000 as partial payment; accused misappropriated P35,000.
CRIM. CASE NO. 02-759: Estafa (Art. 315(2)(a) RPC) — accused, conspiring with Narcisa Santos, represented ability to secure work for Jimmy Lejos in Korea for P80,000; Lejos paid P35,000 as partial payment; accused misappropriated P35,000.
CRIM. CASE NO. 02-760: Estafa (Art. 315(2)(a) RPC) — accused, conspiring with Narcisa Santos, represented ability to secure work for Marcelino Lejos in Korea for P80,000; Marcelino paid P20,000 as partial payment; accused misappropriated P20,000.

Factual Narrative (as established in the record)

Meetings: Private complainants Orlando Layoso, Donna Magboo, Jimmy Lejos and Marcelino Lejos met appellant in the first week of November 2001 at appellant's office (3rd floor, Arevalo Building, Alabang, Muntinlupa City). Appellant explained procedures for overseas employment and offered assistance to find work abroad for a fee of P80,000.
Representations and inducement: Appellant showed pictures of persons she allegedly helped find work abroad; she told them they would earn $630 monthly as factory workers in Korea; when asked about a license, she told them she would show it later; she promised visas and employment contracts within three months.
Payments and documents: On 14 November 2001 each of those complainants gave P20,000 as partial payment (to cover placement fee and expenses for medical examination and processing). On 30 January 2002 they met appellant (with Narcisa Santos) at Wendy's for signing of contract; contracts bore names other than complainants' names; appellant explained they were for other applicants and assured originals with complainants' names would be provided; complainants signed and paid P15,000 each as second partial payment (resulting in total P35,000 each except Marcelino who paid only P20,000 in total).
Apprehension and POEA certification: On 7 February 2002 appellant was arrested by CIDG for illegal recruitment; complainants confronted appellant at Manila City Hall and demanded return of money; appellant denied charges but promised refunds; complainants later obtained POEA certification that appellant was not licensed to recruit for overseas employment.
Lederle Panesa: In August 2001 Panesa met appellant who offered work in Korea for P75,000 placement fee; Panesa gave P15,000 on 7 September 2001 as initial payment; appellant assured Panesa of departure in second week of November 2001 and that balance could be paid upon receipt of visa; Panesa later received no further contact and was told no job openings and was offered other countries; Panesa demanded return of money and then later learned of appellant's arrest and lack of POEA authorization.
Documentary and corroborative evidence: Petty cash vouchers, receipts and Trainee Agreements bearing appellant’s signature; POEA certification dated 10 March 2003 stating appellant was not licensed.

Prosecution Evidence and Proof

Witness testimony: Direct testimony of Orlando Layoso, Donna Magboo and Jimmy Lejos; Marcelino Lejos adopted his Joint Affidavit of Complaint as his direct testimony; Lederle Panesa gave factual account in her affidavit and testimony.
Documentary exhibits: Petty cash vouchers issued by appellant acknowledging receipt of payments (Records p.170, 177, 181); Trainee Agreements signed by complainants; POEA Certification (Records p.176) showing appellant not licensed to recruit overseas.
Factual nexus: Testimonies and documents show appellant represented ability to secure employment and process visas, induced payment of placement fees, issued receipts and agreements, and failed to deliver placements or refund payments; appellant was arrested for illegal recruitment.

Defense Case and Testimony of Appellant

Appellant testified as sole witness for the defense.
Appellant's claims: She denied charges and said she was introduced to complainants by Cezar Manonson; owner of rented office was her relative; she only explained procedure for overseas employment and was hesitant to help because she herself was applying as factory worker through Narcisa Santos; she admitted receipt of payments and issuance of receipts but said she acted upon instructions from Narcisa Santos and turned over collected payments to Narcisa Santos.
Lack of proof: Appellant admitted she had no proof she actually turned over the collected money to Narcisa Santos.
Signature confirmation: Appellant confirmed her signature on petty cash vouchers.

Trial Court Findings and Dispositive Ruling (9 June 2010)

Convictions: Trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large-scale illegal recruitment (constituting economic sabotage) in Criminal Case No. 02-755 and of five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-756 to 02-760.
Penalties imposed by trial court (as originally stated by the trial court):
- Criminal Case No. 02-755: life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.
- Criminal Case No. 02-756: indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor in its maximum to four years two months and one day of prision correccional in its maximum; ordered to return P15,000 and pay P5,000 moral damages.
- Criminal Case Nos. 02-757, 02-758, 02-759: indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor in its maximum to twelve years of prision mayor in its maximum; ordered to return P35,000 each and pay P15,000 each for moral damages.
- Criminal Case No. 02-760: indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor in its maximum to six years and one day of prision mayor in its minimum; ordered to return P20,000 and pay P8,000 moral damages.
Credit for preventive imprisonment: Trial court ordered appe