G.R. No.

113161, August 29, 1995

People of the Phil., plaintiff-appellee
vs Loma Goce, et. al., accused-appellant

Willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4)
Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8) Ne lson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor

Facts:

On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38
and 39 of the labor code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin in the RTC of Manila, alleging
that in or about during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive in the City of Manila, the
accused conspired and represent themselves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers for employment abroad.

January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused bot none of them was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the
RTC ordered the case archived but issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused.

Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado requested for a copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually
Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested to set a
hearing for purpose of due process and for accused to immediately have her day in court. On the arraignment, Agustin pleaded not
guilty and the trial went on with four complainants testified for the prosecution and reciepts of the processing fees they paid.

Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters but denied her participation in the recruitment and
denied knowledge of the receipts as well.

On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale
with sentence of life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.

On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00
Issues:

Agustin appealed with the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing the complainants to the couple does not fall within the
meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13 in relation to Article 34 of the labor code; (2) there is no proof of
conspiracy and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered/promised overseas employment to the complainants.

Ruling:

The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment because, the
complainants had a previous interview with Agustin (as employee of the Goce couple) about fees and papers to submit that may
constitute as referral. Agustin collected the payments of the complainants as well as their passports, trainning fees, medical tests
and other expenses. On the issue of proof, the court held that the receipts exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to prove the
payments and transaction made.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CARMELITA PUERTOLLANO COMIA, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Plaintiff falsely representing herself to have the capacity and power to contract, enlist, and recruit workers for employment abroad,
was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 38, in relation to paragraph (a) of Article
39, of the Labor Code. The information 1was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. After trial on the merits,
the court promulgated on 4 February 1993 its decision 2finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged
and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00.

Facts:
Complainant Susana Belloso through her husband applied to the accused for a job employment abroad as a janitress. She paid the
total amount of P6,800.00, all payments had no receipts. After paying these amounts, the accused Comia told her to wait for a
certain Doctora who will be coming from Hong Kong and that Doctor will be her Boss. At the airport, the accused Comia told them
that the Doctora will be coming. However, they were not able to leave and so they went to the Immigration Office where she and
her companions were told that they were not scheduled to leave for abroad so they were brought to the NBI were they were
investigated.

The second complainant is Marilyn Bibar, who was also supposed to work as a janitress in Hong Kong. The accused told her that her
employer has a hospital in Hong Kong and her name is Dr. Zenaida Andres. She was asked to produce necessary documents and paid
the total amount of P6,270.00 but she was not given receipts for the payments. The third complainant is Sandra Cosart who was
with the second complainant. The accused received money from her in the amount of P6,970.00. She also did not receive any
receipts from the accused. The fourth witness, Remedios Asis, who was with the 2nd and 3rd complainant. She gave to the accused
Comia P6,970.00. The three complainants also were not able to leave the country, so policeman, after that, told them to bring
accused Comia to the NBI. Sgt. Afuang of the Immigration Office accompanied them to the NBI together with the accused.

The defense did not introduce any documentary evidence and the accused was the only witness. The accused denied having received
any money from any of the complainants. She claimed that since she did not receive any money from the complainants why should
she give receipts? She claimed that she was also one of the victims of Dra. Zenaida Andres.

Issue: Is Plaintiff liable for illegal recruitment?

THE TRIAL COURT accepted the version of the prosecution because the statements of the complaining witnesses were positive and
affirmative in nature and were worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denial of the accused. It further
observed that the accused had not shown any ill motive on the part of the complainants and that the accused's reference to a certain
Dr. Zenaida Andres as the employer and, therefore, the real recruiter does not inspire belief.

The accused seasonably filed her notice of appeal which. In its order of 23 February 1993, the trial court erroneously directed the
elevation of the records of the case to the COURT OF APPEALS. The latter rectified the error by transmitting the records to this Court
after its receipt thereof.

In the Appellee's Brief, 12 the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL maintains that the trial court committed no error and prays that
the assailed decision be affirmed in toto. The appeal is without merit.

Article 38 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows:

Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code,
to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this Article.

(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage
and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first
paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

Article 13(b) of the same Code defines recruitment as follows:

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.

It is clear from the foregoing provisions that there is illegal recruitment in large scale when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment
activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a
license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or
more persons, individually or as a group.

In this case, the presence of the second and third elements is beyond dispute. That the accused is not authorized by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers is evidenced by a certification
of the said agency dated 1 October 1991. There are no less than four complainants who patiently endured the rigors of trial to
denounce the accused and expose her illegal recruitment activities.

Proffered to satisfy the first element of the crime were the testimonies of the complainants pointing to the accused as the person
who promised them employment abroad and who collected and received various amounts from them. The accused questions the
sufficiency of the said testimonies contending that Article 13(b), which defines recruitment and placement, specifically provides that
the offer or promise of employment must be "for a fee" thereby making receipts indispensable in proving alleged payment. Since
none of the four complaining witnesses presented a single receipt to prove alleged payment of a fee, the accused contends that
their claim of payment without being issued receipts defies belief as this fact is contrary to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
habits of life 14 and runs against the presumption that persons take ordinary care of their concerns. 15

The complainants' failure to ask for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused, as well as their consequent failure to present
receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by their
respective testimonies that the accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear
and positive, are sufficient. In People vs. Naparan 16 and People vs. Sendon, 17 this Court did not fault the victims of illegal
recruitment for not asking for receipts explaining that inasmuch as they were inexperienced and titillated by the prospect of earning
easy money abroad, they fell easy prey to the accused-appellant's glibness and roseate promises and were deluded into relying on
her assurance that receipts for their money would be issued later.

Moreover, the trial court found the positive declarations of the complainants more credible than the sole testimony of the accused
denying the transactions, there must be a well-founded reason in order to deny great weight to its evaluation of the complainant's
testimonies. The accused has failed to provide that reason.

The accused cannot feign innocence of the illegal recruitment by claiming that she too was a victim of the illegal recruitment of Dr.
Andres. The thrust of the defense to deflect liability from the accused by claiming that she is also a victim of Dr. Andres, who should
be held responsible for the whole mess, is unavailing.

Affirmance of the appealed decision is thus inevitable. However, the dispositive portion thereof failed to adjudge the restitution of
the amounts the accused had obtained from the complainants which, as proved, are P6,270.00 from Marilyn Bibar; P6,547.00 from
Susana Belloso; P6,800.00 from Sandra Cosart; and P6,970.00 from Remedios Asis. The accused is ordered to restore to each of
them the above amounts.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 91-6443 is hereby
AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification decreeing the restitution of the amounts the accused had obtained from the
complainants.

Costs against accused Carmelita Puertollano Comia. SO ORDERED.

Songco, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

G.R. Nos. 50999-51000
(March 23, 1990)

FACTS: Zuelig filed an application for clearance to terminate the services of Songco, and others, on the ground of retrenchment due
to financial losses. During the hearing, the parties agreed that the sole issue to be resolved was the basis of the separation pay due.
The salesmen received monthly salaries of at least P400.00 and commission for every sale they made.

The Collective Bargaining Agreements between Zuelig and the union of which Songco, et al. were members contained the following
provision: "Any employee who is separated from employment due to old age, sickness, death or permanent lay-off, not due to the
fault of said employee, shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent to one (1) month's salary per
year of service."

The Labor Arbiter ordered Zuelig to pay Songco et al., separation pay equivalent to their one month salary (exclusive of commissions,
allowances, etc.) for every year of service with the company.
The National Labor Relations Commission sustained the Arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether or not earned sales commissions and allowances should be included in the monthly salary of Songco, et al. for the
purpose of computing their separation pay.

RULING:

In the computation of backwages and separation pay, account must be taken not only of the basic salary of the employee, but also of
the transportation and emergency living allowances.

Even if the commissions were in the form of incentives or encouragement, so that the salesman would be inspired to put a little
more industry on jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for services rendered which
contributed to the increase of income of the employee. Commission is the recompense compensation or reward of an agent,
salesman, executor, trustee, receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his
transactions or on the profit to the principal. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for
services rendered demonstrate that commissions are part of Songco, et al's wage or salary.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that some salesmen do not receive any basic salary, but depend on commissions and
allowances or commissions alone, although an employer-employee relationships exists.

If the opposite view is adopted, i.e., that commissions do not form part of the wage or salary, then in effect, we will be saying that
this kind of salesmen do not receive any salary and, therefore, not entitled to separation pay in the event of discharge from
employment. This narrow interpretation is not in accord with the liberal spirit of the labor laws, and considering the purpose of
separation pay which is, to alleviate the difficulties which confront a dismissed employee thrown to the streets to face the harsh
necessities of life.

In Soriano vs. NLRC (155 SCRA 124), we held that the commissions also claimed by the employee (override commission plus net
deposit incentive) are not properly includible in such base figure since such commissions must be earned by actual market
transactions attributable to the petitioner [salesman]. Since the commissions in the present case were earned by actual transactions
attributable to Song, et al., these should be included in their separation pay. In the computation thereof, what should be taken into
account is the average commission earned during their last year of employment.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC.,

vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENTADMINISTRATION (POEA)166 SCRA 533, G.R. No. 76633, October 18, 1988
Respondents:
1.Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
2.Minister of Labor and Employment
3. Abdul Basar (Hearing Officer)
4.Kathleen D. Saco

Facts:

Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accidentin Tokyo, Japan on March 15, 1985.His
widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2of the POEA.The petitioner, as owner of
the vessel, argued that the complaint was cognizable not by thePOEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed
against the State FundInsurance.The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of theparties
ruled in favour of the complainant.The petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. The temporary restraining orderdated
December 10, 1986 is hereby LIFTED. It is so ordered.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseasworker.2. Whether or not the validity
of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as violative of the principleof non-delegation of legislative power.

Held:

1. Yes. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive OrderNo. 797, promulgated on May 1,
1982, to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights. It replaced the National Seamen
Board created earlier underArticle 20 of the Labor Code in 1974. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order, the POEAis vested
with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims,involving employee-employer relations arising out of
or by virtue of any law or contractinvolving Filipino contract workers, including seamen." These cases, according to the 1985Rules
and Regulations on Over

seas Employment issued by the POEA, include, claims for death,disability and other benefits arising out of such employment.

The award of P180,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses was made bythe POEA pursuant to its
Memorandum Circular No. 2, which became effective on February 1,1984. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted
by both foreign and domesticshipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment.2. No. Memorandum
Circular No. 2 is an administrative regulation. The model contractprescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the
cases without challenge by theemployer. The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring themodel
contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in theexercise of the said authority. That standard is
discoverable in the executive order itself which, increating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, mandated it to
protect the rightsof overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices."GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of
powers; exceptionIt is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated.What can be
delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what thelaw shall be. The ascertainment of the latter
subject is a prerogative of the legislature. Thisprerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.Two
Tests of Valid Delegation of Legislative PowerThere are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation
of legislativepower, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the lawmust be complete in all
its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when itreaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to
enforce it. Under the sufficientstandard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of
the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, whois not allowed to step into the
shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its
non-delegation the exception.

Rationale for Delegation of Legislative PowerThe reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing
inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its
activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that thelegislature cannot be expected to reasonably comprehend.
Specialization even in legislation hasbecome necessary. Too many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings,
thelegislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not tosay, specific solutions. These
solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who aresupposed to be experts in the particular fields.Power of Subordinate
LegislationThe reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularlyapplicable to administrative
bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and theirattendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it
more and more necessary toentrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions

of the statute. This is called the power of subordinate legislation.

With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in statute by

filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to

provide. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. Administrative agencies are vested with two basic
powers, the quasi-legislative and quasi- judicial. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations, and
thesecond enables them to interpret and apply such regulations

Whatever doubts may still remain regarding the rights of the parties in this case are resolved in favor of the private respondent, in
line with the express mandate of the Labor Code and the principle that those with less in life should have more in law.
When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter must
be counter-balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. This is only fair if he is to
be given the opportunity and the right to assert and defend his cause not as a subordinate but as a peer of management, with which
he can negotiate on even plane. Labor is not a mere employee of capital but its active and equal partner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. The temporary restraining order dated December 10, 1986
is hereby LIFTED. It is so ordered.