Republic of the Philippines represented by OSG V Cortez et.

al
GR NO. 187257 (August 8, 2017)

FACTS:
NECU and NEW filed a petition for mandamus praying that NAPOCOR be
ordered to release the Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) and Amelioration (AA)
allegedly withheld from from July 1, 1989 to March 19, 1999. NECU AND NEWU
believed that they were among the government employees whose COLA and AA
were not factually integrated into their basic salary upon the implementation of
Republic Act No. 6758.
In their 16,500 Workers' Solicitous Motion for Reconsideration, respondents
NECU and NEWU insist that law, jurisprudence, and evidence support their
contention that their COLA and AA were deducted from their salaries from July 1,
1989 to March 19, 1999. In particular, they distinguish NAPOCOR workers into
three (3) categories. The first category includes workers already employed when
Republic Act No. 6758 took effect and whose COLA and AA were integrated into
their basic salaries only up to 1993. The second category covers those hired after
Republic Act No. 6758 took effect and whose COLA and AA were allegedly deducted
from 1989 to 1999. The third category consists of employees hired after the
effectivity of Republic Act No. 7648 and whose COLA and AA were allegedly
deducted from 1994 to 1999.

ISSUE:
WON NAPOCOR shall release the COLA and AA?

RULING:
Republic Act No. 6758 remained effective during the period of ineffectivity of
DBM-CCC No. 10. Thus, the COLA and AA of NAPOCOR officers and employees were
integrated into the standardized salaries effective July 1, 1989 pursuant to Section
12 of Republic Act No. 6758, which provides:ch
anRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except for
representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances;
subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and
hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad;
and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be
determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein
prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received
by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates
shall continue to be authorized.

Hence, respondents NECU’s and NEWU’s COLA and AA were integrated into
their basic salary by virtue of RA NO 6758.
Section 12 has never been ineffective or rendered unconstitutional. Thus, all
allowances not covered by exceptions to section 12 are presumed to have been
integrated into the basic standardized pay. The receipt of a transition allowance is
not proof that only those who are hired before July 1 1989 received their COLA and
A. The transition allowance was only given to comply with the non-dimunition
clause of law. It was never meant as an additional compensation.
 As basis for computation of the first across-the-board salary adjustment of
incumbents with transition allowance, no incumbent who is receiving compensation
exceeding the standardized salary rate at the time of the effectivity of this Act, shall
be assigned a salary lower than ninety percent (90%) of his present compensation
or the standardized salary rate, whichever is higher. Subsequent increases shall be
based on the resultant adjusted salary.
Upon the implementation of Republic Act No. 7648, NAPOCOR workers were
covered by a new compensation plan. All prior questions on the non-publication of
Department of Budget and Management Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10
would no longer apply to the determination of whether COLA and AA were withheld.
Furthermore, the new compensation plan under Republic Act No. 7648 already
incorporated all benefits previously integrated, including the COLA and
AA.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The enactment of Republic Act No. 7648, or the Electric Power Crisis Act of
1993 authorized the President of the Philippines to reorganize NAPOCOR and to
upgrade its compensation plan. From this period, NAPOCOR ceased to be covered by
the standardized salary rates of Republic Act No. 6758.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V ERLINDA A. SISON
GR NO. 187160

FACTS:

Darvy Castuera was introduced to Sison who has a wife that he mentioned
who can facilitate papers for workers in Australia. Sison asked Castuera for 180, 000
for processing his papers and after some negotiations Sison agreed to lower the fee
to 160,000. Castuera paid the half and the other half will be taken away from his
salary in Australia. However, Sison failed to secure an Australian visa for Castuera.
She advised Castuera to got o Malaysia since it is easier according to her to get an
Australian visa in Malaysia. Upon arrival in Malaysia, Castuera met Rea Dedales and
Leonardo Bacomo (co-accused of Castuera).

Castuera’s application for visa was again, denied. Dedales said that it was
harder to get an Australian visa from Indonesa and told Castuera to apply for US
visa. Dedales asked for 1000 USD which he paid. However, when his US Visa came it
as an Indonesian passport bearing and Indonesian name. He decided to seek help
and just return to the Philippines. Castuera filed a case against Sison, Dedales and
Bacomo at POEA. POEA verified that the three has no license or permit to hire and
recruit overseas employment.

Sison denies that she is an illegal recruiter and alleged that she was also a
victim of Dedales and Bacomo.

ISSUE:
WON Sison, Dedales and Bacomo violated Article 13 of PD 442?

RULING:

RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, approved
on 7 June 1995, further strengthened the protection extended to those seeking
overseas employment. Section 6, in particular, extended the activities covered under
the term illegal recruitment:

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any
act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring
workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or
non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. Provided,
that such non-license or non-holder, who, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so
engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any
persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group
of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It
is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.

The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control,
management or direction of their business shall be liable. It is "committed by
persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they
have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes."

In this case, Sison herself admits that she has no license or authority to
undertake recruitment and placement activities'. The Court has held in several cases
that an accused who represents to others that he or she could send workers abroad
for employment, even without the authority or license to do so, commits illegal
recruitment. It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to recruit and
deploy workers that renders the recruitment activity unlawful. To prove illegal
recruitment, it must be shown that "the accused gave the complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a
manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end."

On the other hand, illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, as in the

present case, has the following elements: (a) the offender does not have the valid
license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement of
workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the "recruitment and placement"
activities defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or engages in any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under now Section 6 of RA 8042; and (c) the illegal
recruitment is "carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction,
enterprise or scheme."In the third element, it "is not essential that there be actual
proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they
acted in concert pursuant to the same objective."

The acts of Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo show a common purpose and and each
undertook a part to reach their objective. Their concerted action is evident in that
either Sison or Dedales was receiving payments from the recruits; that Dedales
signed the acknowledgment receipt from Sison; and that the three accompanied
their recruits together in seeking out their visas in Malaysia and Indonesia. Further,
the impression given to Castuera and other recruits was that the three were indeed
working together.

Since it was proven that the three accused were acting in concert and
conspired with one another, their illegal recruitment activity is considered done by
a syndicate, making the offense illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage.
Hence, Santos, Dedales and Bacomo are guilty of illegal recruitment.