PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DELIA MOLINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Molina

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Delia Molina, the President and Chief Executive Officer of a recruitment agency, for illegal recruitment after two applicants paid placement fees for factory work in Korea and were never deployed, and were never refunded. The trial court convicted her of simple illegal recruitment, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The case matters because it settles two questions every reviewee must be able to answer: first, whether a corporate officer who did not personally receive the money may still be criminally liable; and second, whether a valid recruitment license shields an agency and its officers from liability for the prohibited acts of failure to deploy and failure to reimburse.

Procedural History

Two informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, charging Delia Molina together with Angelita Palabay and Rolando Salilin with illegal recruitment under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act. Molina, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty; her two co-accused remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, in a joint decision dated the thirty-first of January, two thousand thirteen, found Molina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple illegal recruitment in both cases, sentenced her in each case to an indeterminate prison term of six years and one day as minimum to twelve years as maximum, imposed a fine of two hundred thousand pesos for each case, and ordered her to pay civil liability to the two private complainants with interest at twelve percent per annum from the filing of the information until fully paid. Molina appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as her lone error that the trial court gravely erred in convicting her when her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Delia Molina was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation, a recruitment agency holding office in Makati City. Sometime in two thousand six, Helen Paras went to that office to apply as a factory worker in Korea. She was assisted by Angelita Palabay, who introduced herself as the Treasurer, and Paras paid a total of eighty-five thousand pesos in placement fees, evidenced by two cash vouchers. She followed up her deployment, was told to wait, and in two thousand seven the office closed down without her ever being deployed.

Also in two thousand six, Michael Narly Fuentes applied at the same office for himself and his sister as factory workers in Pusan, Korea. He transacted with Rolando Salilin, who introduced himself as one of the owners and required seventy-five thousand pesos each as partial placement fee, with the balance due after the issuance of passports, and required them to learn the Korean language. Fuentes paid one hundred fifty thousand pesos, evidenced by two cash vouchers, and was told to wait three months. Even after complying with the language requirement, they were not deployed. When he followed up, both Salilin and Molina assured him that he and his sister would leave, first around January of two thousand seven. When that did not happen, he asked for a refund; Salilin and Molina promised to return the money, but even after the office closed in May of two thousand seven, nothing was returned.

For her defense, Molina was the lone witness. She denied any participation in the applications, argued that the agency held a valid license for land-based overseas employment, and pointed out that the complainants had no direct transactions with her but dealt instead with Palabay and Salilin. She added that Palabay had already resigned before she received Paras's payment, and that Salilin was never an employee of the agency. The trial court rejected these defenses, and Molina appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly found Delia Molina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple illegal recruitment despite the absence of proof that she personally and directly participated in the applications of the private complainants.
• Whether or not the fact that the recruitment agency held a valid license at the time of the acts complained of exempts Molina from criminal liability for illegal recruitment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Republic Act Number 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, defines illegal recruitment and enumerates the prohibited acts, and provides:

SEC. 6. Definition. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee 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 any such non-licensee 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 person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority: x x x (l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage; and x x x The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having ownership, control, management or direction of their business who are responsible for the commission of the offense and the responsible employees/agents thereof shall be liable.

This provision supplies both the acts committed by the agency and the rule that fixes criminal liability on the officers in control of a juridical person, which is the basis of Molina's conviction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was without merit. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the agency, through Molina as its President and Chief Executive Officer, failed to deploy the private complainants without valid reason and failed to reimburse their expenses when deployment did not take place. The Court stressed that it was immaterial that Palabay and Salilin were the ones who directly transacted with the complainants, because Section 6 expressly makes the officers having control, management or direction of the business liable together with the responsible agents and employees. Molina was at the forefront of the company's recruitment activities; she even assured Fuentes of deployment and promised to return his money. Her bare denial could not prevail over the positive, candid, and unwavering testimonies of the complainants, whose credibility the trial court was best situated to assess, and she imputed no improper motive to them.

On the second issue, the Court held that a valid license is no defense. Under the law, illegal recruitment may be committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, a non-holder, a licensee, or a holder of authority. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Gasacao:

A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. However, it appears that even licensees or holders of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment should they commit any of the above-enumerated acts.

The Court thus affirmed the conviction and the penalties imposed by the trial court.

Doctrine

First, illegal recruitment includes the failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason and the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker where deployment does not take place without the worker's fault, and these acts are punishable whether committed by a non-licensee, a non-holder, a licensee, or a holder of authority. Second, where the recruiter is a juridical person, the officers having ownership, control, management or direction of the business are criminally liable together with the responsible employees and agents, so a corporate president and chief executive officer cannot escape liability by showing that her subordinates personally received the placement fees. Third, a valid license does not immunize the agency or its officers from liability for the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 6.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Delia Molina for simple illegal recruitment, together with the penalties, fine, and civil liability imposed by the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a valid license is not a defense to illegal recruitment, and the officers in control of a recruitment agency are criminally liable for its prohibited acts of non-deployment and non-reimbursement. Examiners use this case to test the corporate-officer liability clause of Section 6 and the rule that licensees may themselves be guilty of illegal recruitment.