Illegal recruitment is qualified into large scale recruitment when three or more persons are victimized.42 When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment "committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group," it must be understood as referring to the number of complainants in each case who are complainants therein. A conviction for largescale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group.43 A witness must testify as to the facts that would prove recruitmet.44 Where the evidence shows that accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning her authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various amounts from complainants for placement fees, the accused-appellants committed acts constitutive of large scale scale illegal recruitment.45 As exhaustively discussed by the trial court, herein appellant Altuveros together with her co-accused Lumabas, misrepresented to some eight (8) complainants, five (5) of whom testified during the trial (Remedios Magante, Teresita Cabrera, Marina Ner, William Cerdon and Edelson Malabana) that they have the capacity to deploy said complainants to work as janitor, domestic helper and baby-sitter in Saudi Arabia and solicited various amounts as placement fees, medical fee, travel tax and processing of passports and NBI Clearance. Such false statements of accused Altuveros and Lumabas that they are deploying Filipino workers in the Middle East on a direct hire basis, there being no agency involved, complainants were persuaded to part with their money which were received either by Lumabas or Altuveros in the presence of the other. Accused conducted their recruitment activities at the house of Lumabas in Tondo and also met some of the complainants in Balintawak, Quezon City at Altuveros' place. Out of sheer and urgent desire to be 42 People vs. Guevarra, 306 SCRA 111. 43 People vs. Gallardo, 388 SCRA 121. 44 People vs. Segun, 379 SCRA 673. 45 People vs. Ong, 322 SCRA 38. employed overseas, complainantswitnesses Cabrera, Ner, Cerdon and Malabana gave the amounts demanded by the accused even without the corresponding receipts issued for their payments. That accused even scheduled their departure dates after making their payments all the more convinced the complainants of the pretended authority or power by the accused to deploy them for overseas job. However, their scheduled departure came to pass without anyone of them actually being able to leave the country. When complainants started to realize they had just been duped, they demanded for the return of their money but accused failed to do so until the former decided to bring the matter to the police authorities. The trial court correctly rejected the defense put up by the accused as being also a fellow job applicant (Lumabas) and mere acquaintance of the real recruiter Abubakar who later disappeared (Altuveros). In the first place, none of the five (5) private complainants-witnesses personally knew or met said Abubakar whose name, according to Malabana, was only being mentioned by Altuveros. As far as their deployment for abroad, the complainants-witnesses were relying solely on the representations of accused Lumabas and Altuveros, it was to these two (2) persons that they applied for overseas employment, and to whom they gave amounts as payment for placement fees, medical examination, travel tax and processing of passports. There were no other persons present during their meetings with the accused, save for their fellow applicants who did not testify in court. The acts of the accused in giving the impression to complainants that they can deploy persons to work abroad through direct hiring convinced said complainants to part with various sums which accused told them were needed for their employment - - amounts which, in their own words, are deemed big money to poor people like them. The fact that complainants were informed beforehand that there is no company or agency involved under their direct hire scheme is of no moment. It was held that illegal recruiters need not even expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to send workers abroad it is enough that they give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.46 Appellant reiterates he argument that the prosecution failed to present documentary evidence directly proving that she actually received from private complainants substantial amounts. She contends that it is fully inconsistent with ordinary experience and unbelievable for a person to give his or her hand-earned money without demanding for receipts whatsoever. The absence of testimony from a POEA representative concerning the certification (Exhibit "B") issued was likewise assailed as improper; the identification of said document made by SPO4 Marcelo Reyes does not have probative value, being hearsay in nature. These contentions are bereft of merit. As established by jurisprudence, even the absence of receipts is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, for as long as it is clearly established through the witnesses' witnesses' respective testimonies, that the accused is the one involved in prohibited recruitment.47 Thus, even lacking a receipt, a claim for damages may be sustained if the complainant is able to prove by his testimony that the accused was involved in the recruitment process and that she got the money claimed.48 To stress the point, the absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.49 The fact that appellant did not issue the receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on her culpability for the complainants have shown through their respective testimonies and affidavits that appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment.50 The presentation of the receipts of payments is not necessary for the conviction of accused.51 We likewise 46 People vs. Lapis, 391 SCRA 131. 47 People vs. Dionisio, 375 SCRA 56; People vs. Alvarez, 387 SCRA 448. 48 People vs. Ladera, 344 SCRA 647. 51 People vs. Gonzales-Flores, 356 SCRA 722. cannot consider the failure of the prosecution to summon a POEA representative to identify Exhibit "B" as fatal error. SPO4 Reyes identified said Certification in court as the reply to their query regarding the authority of accused to engage in recruitment activities. Appellant also faults the trial court in disregarding the fact that she herself filed charges against Abubakar and had him blottered, as shown by Exhibits "3" and "4". Considering herself as also a victim of circumstances, appellant assails the trial court in holding there was a conspiracy that existed between her, her co-accused and Abubakar. The Court is not persuaded. A perusal of the supposed documentary evidence (Exhibits "3" and "4") seem to indicate merely that Abubakar owed appellant cash money of P32,000.00 which he failed to pay allegedly with intent to defraud her.52 There is no showing that the fraud purportedly committed by Abubakar upon appellant had anything to do with the acts complained of by private complainants, or that Abubakar was engaged in illegal recruitment of which appellant herself is a victim. It must be clarified that the trial court only made the observation or assumption for the sake of argument that even if said Abubakar was indeed an illegal recruiter, the acts of appellant and her co-accused Lumabas clearly established their concurrence, cooperation and complicity with his alleged criminal design when they abetted, encouraged or assisted in making private complainants part with hard-earned money for placement fees. Despite her attempt to put the blame on said foreigner - with whom private complainants never dealt or transacted - appellant cannot escape criminal liability for her own misrepresentations to private complainants who paid her various sums as placement and processing fees. Were it indeed true, as William Cerdon testified, that Altuveros kept mentioning the name of Abubakar who was not known to 52 Records, p. 243. the private complainants, accused-appellant then could still be regarded as his conspirator. So, too, the circumstance that private complainant Ner admittedly brought along some of her province maters to apply personally to accused Lumabas and Altuveros will not exonerate the latter, nor mitigate their liability for committing recruitment activities without the requisite license or authority. Such will not make Ner the recruiter as she herself was misled into believing that accused could also send her province mates to work abroad. In one (1) case, it was held that the fact that a certain person, herself a victim of the accused, and another person introduced some of the victims to the accused and encouraged in some way or another said complainants to apply for overseas employment with the accused do not in any way shift the blame towards them or blot out the accused's culpability.53 As it is, however, the evidence on record negates any knowledge on the part of experience for persons, such as herein private complainants, to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime that would take the latter's liberty and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and vindicate the frustration of their dreams to work abroad.56 Clearly, appellant committed acts of recruitment and placement for having given the impression that she and her co-accused Lumabas had the power to send the complainants to the Middle East for employment.57 As appellant, in conspiracy with her co-accused Lumabas, committed illegal recruitment against three (3) or more persons, the trial court correctly held her liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. It bears to stress that Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense.58 Moreover, even if it were the case that Abubakar was named as a suspect, his nonprosecution provided no ground for herein private complainants as to the alleged appellant to fault the decision of the trial participation of Abubakar in the recruitment activities of accused Lumabas and Altuveros. None of the private complainants who testified in court actually met or knew such person by the name of Abubakar. The undisputed fact is that appellant was positively identified as the person, along with her co-accused Lumabas, who transacted with the five (5) private complainants, promised them jobs and received money from them. On this score, the court a quo found the prosecution evidence credible, and the complaining witnesses testified and answered questions in a categorical and straightforward manner, 54 and without any ill motive whatsoever to testify falsely against the accused. Indeed, the natural tendency of one who has been wronged is to seek redress from the person who caused the harm or injury, not from anyone else.55 It is contrary to human nature and 53 People vs. Banzales, 336 SCRA 64. 54 Vide: People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 92. 55 People vs. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93 court convicting her as there is sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody.59 Of course, it has to be underscored herein that private complainants never knew personally Abubakar; their respective testimonies all pointed to no other person except appellant and her co-accused Lumabas who promised to deploy them for jobs in the Middle East and received money from them as placement and processing fees. In the light of the established facts, appellant was correctly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of illegal recruitment in large-scale. The trial court correctly sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One 56 People vs. Librero, 341 SCRA 229; People vs. Lagan, 361 SCRA 581. 57 Vide: People vs. Navarra, 352 SCRA 84. 58 People vs. Gutierrez, 422 SCRA 32. 59 People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780. Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for the crime of illegal recruitment in large-scale under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code.60 The trial court likewise did not err in imposing legal interest on the amounts respectively paid by private complainants which it ordered the accused to refund. Victims of illegal recruitment are entitled to legal ínterest on the amount to be recovered as indemnity, from the time of the filing of the information until fully paid.61 The Court, in closing would like to recall an important observation previously made by the High Court, speaking through former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., words that remain as relevant to this day. 62 We highlight the same with particular concern for the poor victims who came all the way from a depressed province, shelling out a few thousand pesos, money direly needed by their families, holding on to that prospect of a well-paying but non-existent overseas jobs. That the perpetrators are themselves former overseas workers who must have known the personal sacrifices of countless Filipinos in foreign lands just to support their families back home, is truly difficult to understand and which makes their misdeeds even more reprehensible. "We cannot end this case without some parting thoughts to conclude what we had stated in the beginning. Something must be wrong somewhere if, in spite of the stiff penalties for illegal recruitment, some still brazenly take advantage of the misery of others and profit from their misfortunes while many still fall for the false promises of illegal recruiters despite the painful lessons the experiences of others have taught. What is clear to us is that illegal recruiters cannot flout our laws and prey on the hard lot of others if the Government had the will to resolutely enforce the laws against illegal recruitment and to be merciless against the violators. They do not deserve any mercy. Large-scale illegal recruitment is a crime which is not difficult to discover, prosecute and prove, for it cannot be done in absolute secrecy. That there must be an end to illegal recruitment is a matter of public policy for not only must the State protect those who, because of economic difficulties or lack of employment opportunities in the country, seek greener pastures in foreign lands and from whose earnings the State itself benefits, it must also punish to the fullest extent of the law illegal recruiters, especially those engaged in syndicated or large-scale illegal recruitment, who continue to wreak havoc on our economy. It is thus earnestly wished that the Government flex its muscles to eradicate this pernicious evil."63 [UNDERSCORING SUPPLIED] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed Decision dated October 19, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52 in Criminal Case No. 94-135362 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD. With costs against the accused-appellant. SO ORDERED. Delos Santos* and Dimaampao, J.J., concur. Appeal dismissed. Judgment affirmed and upheld. CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. (Sgd.) MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice Chairman 63 Ibid., at p. 663. * Vice Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam. [SP No. 92642. March 23, 2007] RAUL C. LANUZA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ERMITA A. CUYUCA, PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC (DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO), CHIYUKI FUJIMOTO AND ESPERANZA ALVEZ, respondents. 1. LABOR LAW; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; THE EMPLOYER BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYEE IS FOR A JUST AND AUTHORIZED CAUSE AND AFTER DUE PROCESS.-It is a basic principle in termination cases that the employer bears the onus of proving that dismissal is for a just cause and that his failure to do so would mean that the the the dismissal is not justified, consonant with the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure as implemented by law. The employer has the burden of proving the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal. No worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitute discharge without just cause, while illegality in the manner of dismissed is dismissal without due process. 2. ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL DISMISSALS; FAILURE TO PROVE BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONER WAS FOR A JUST OR AUTHORIZED CAUSE, RENDERS THE SAID DISMISSAL ILLEGAL.-Undoubtedly, the presence of roaches in the chocolate mousse served to the complainant guests could not be validly attributed to petitioner who had no hand in their preparation. Indeed, the "last touch" theory invoked by respondent hotel deserves scant consideration. Suffice it to state that the infestation of roaches in the hotel that brought about their existence in the chocolate mousse served to the guests, is beyond question attributable to the hotel itself. As a five-star hotel, the hotel is duty bound to maintain cleanliness in its premises, specifically in the area where food is being prepared. Evidently, the quantum of evidence required to justify the dismissal of an employee, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise, was not established in this case. Thus, the dismissal of petitioner for violation of the Code of * Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, Vol. 42. 3. ID.; 4. ID.; Discipline on Gross Negligence and Nonobservance of Quality Standards was undoubtedly illegal. ID.; GROSS NEGLIGENCE; THE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO AVOID THE PRESENCE OF ROACHES IN THE CHOCOLATE MOUSSE SERVED TO THE COMPLAINING GUESTS AS HE HAS NO PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION THEREOF.-To be a just cause for termination of employment, the negligence of the employee must be gross. It implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. From the factual circumstances of the case, it is very clear that petitioner was not grossly negligent in failing to avoid the presence of roaches in the chocolate mousse served to the complainant guests of respondent hotel. As earlier mentioned, he had no participation whatsoever in the preparation of the dessert. Moreover, he supervised the banquet waiters when he instructed them to inspect all food items before serving the same, which they did. Neither is the finding of the labor tribunals that petitioner was validly dismissed for non-observance of quality standards supported by substantial evidence. To justify depriving an employee of his means of livelihood, the dismissal must be based on a just and lawful cause. ID.; AN ILLEGALLY DISMISSED ENTITLED TO EMPLOYEE IS REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES, ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.-As a necessary consequence of petitioner's illegal termination from work, he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement. On top of this, he is entitled to attorney's fees for he actually engaged the services of a lawyer to vindicate his right to claim for monetary benefits as a result of his illegal termination. Thus, it is proper to award him ten (10%) percent attorney's fees based on the total monetary award. 5. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED IF THE DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE OR DUE PROCESS AND IT WAS ATTENDED WITH BAD FAITH OR FRAUD |