PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TAN TIONG MENG ALIAS “TOMMY TAN”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Tan Tiong Meng

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Tan Tiong Meng, also known as Tommy Tan, a Singaporean national who held himself out as a recruiter of Filipino workers for jobs in Taiwan. The prosecution charged him with illegal recruitment in large scale and with six separate counts of estafa, all arising from the same scheme of collecting placement and processing fees from job applicants whom he could not send abroad. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of two rules every bar candidate must carry into the examination room: that illegal recruitment is defined by the Labor Code and punished as economic sabotage when committed in large scale, and that a conviction for illegal recruitment does not bar a separate conviction for estafa under the Revised Penal Code, so long as the elements of estafa are themselves proven.

Procedural History

Seven informations were filed against the accused: one for illegal recruitment in large scale, and six for estafa. He pleaded not guilty to all of them, and the seven cases were tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 88. On 12 May 1995, the trial court rendered judgment convicting him on all counts. For illegal recruitment in large scale it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos, and for each count of estafa it imposed an indeterminate prison term of two years as minimum to six years as maximum, together with awards of actual, moral and exemplary damages to each complainant. It further ordered his deportation after service of sentence, he being an alien. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and of the six counts of estafa.

Facts

Between June and August 1993, job applicants were brought to the house of Jose Percival Borja in Cavite City, where the accused met them and told them he could get them work as factory workers in Taiwan at a monthly salary of 20,000 pesos. He required each of them to submit a passport, a bio-data and a high school diploma, and to pay 15,000 pesos each as placement and processing fees. Each payment was covered by a receipt signed by the accused himself. He gave the applicants departure dates, then moved those dates again and again, and when one complainant asked for his money back, the accused told him a refund was impossible because the money had already been sent to his brother-in-law in Taiwan.

When the promised departures never materialized, the complainants went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, where they learned that the accused was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. A certification from the Chief of the Licensing Branch confirmed this. Borja, who had allowed his house to be used as the meeting place, helped set a trap, and the accused was arrested by a policeman neighbor.

At trial the accused was the only witness for the defense. He admitted receiving money from all the complainants but claimed he was merely a collector for Borja, retaining only a commission of 1,000 pesos per applicant, and that the deceit was Borja's. The prosecution presented Borja in rebuttal, and he testified that it was the accused who represented himself as a direct recruiter for Taiwan, and that the accused's low fee of 15,000 pesos, against the prevailing rate of 45,000 to 60,000 pesos, made the offer attractive. The accused also admitted that he and his wife were respondents in about seventy cases of estafa and illegal recruitment in Batangas, and he had executed a sworn statement before a police officer, in the presence of his lawyer, admitting receipt of 15,000 pesos from one complainant.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale under the Labor Code.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of estafa under the Revised Penal Code for the same acts that constitute illegal recruitment.
• Whether or not the accused's defense, that he was a mere collector for another recruiter, can overcome the evidence of the prosecution.

Applicable Provisions

The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement in Article 13, paragraph (b), in this wise:

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.

This definition is the measure of the accused's acts, because his acceptance of placement fees and his promises of jobs in Taiwan fall squarely within it.

Article 38 of the Labor Code prohibits recruitment by non-licensees and defines large scale 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. (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.

Because the accused recruited six complainants, the offense is large scale, and the penalty is that provided in Article 39, which the Court describes as life imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused's acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and representing to them that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement under the Labor Code. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration having certified that he was not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, the offense committed against the six complainants is illegal recruitment in large scale, punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos.

On the second issue, the Court held that a person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may also be convicted of estafa under the Revised Penal Code, provided the elements of estafa are present. Those elements are:

a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.

Both elements were proven, because the accused assured the complainants of jobs in Taiwan in order to induce them to part with their money, and they did part with it to their damage.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the defense as bizarre. It pointed to the revealing circumstances: the accused told one complainant the money had already been sent to his brother-in-law in Taiwan; all the receipts were signed by the accused; he admitted being a respondent in about seventy similar cases; he had sworn to receiving money from one complainant in the presence of counsel; and all the complainants pointed to him, not to Borja, as the one who promised them jobs. Finding the prosecution witnesses straightforward, credible and convincing, the Court held that the constitutional presumption of innocence had been overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

First, recruitment and placement is any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and any person who in any manner offers or promises employment for a fee to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Second, recruitment undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority is illegal, and illegal recruitment is large scale when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, in which case it is economic sabotage punished under Article 39 of the Labor Code. Third, a person convicted of illegal recruitment may be convicted separately of estafa under the Revised Penal Code where the elements of estafa, deceit or abuse of confidence and damage capable of pecuniary estimation, are present, for the two offenses are distinct and the Labor Code does not preclude prosecution under the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, finding Tan Tiong Meng guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and of six counts of estafa, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that illegal recruitment in large scale is committed against three or more persons and is economic sabotage, and that it may be prosecuted alongside estafa because the elements of estafa are separate and must still be proven. Examiners like to use this case to test the definition of recruitment and placement, the large scale threshold, and the rule that conviction for illegal recruitment does not absorb a conviction for estafa.