ARTICLE 34 FINMAN vs.

INOCENCIO, GR number: 90273-75, Date: November 15, 1989 Facts: Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. ("Pan Pacific") is a private, fee-charging, recruitment and employment agency. T in accordance with the requirements of Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), Pan Pacific posted a surety bond issued by petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation ("Finman") and was granted a license to operate by the POEA. Private respondents William Inocencio, Perfecto Palero, Jr., Edwin Cardones and one Edwin Hernandez filed with the POEA separate complaints against Pan Pacific for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended and for refund of placement fees paid to Pan Pacific. The complainants alleged that Pan Pacific charged and collected such fees from them but did not secure employment for them. In the case at bar, the POEA held, and the Secretary of Labor affirmed, that Pan Pacific had violated Article 32 of the Labor Code. Issue: Whether or not the POEA or the Secretary of Labor had proper jurisdiction over the case? Held: Yes, the Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The second paragraph of Article 31 of the Labor Code states that the secretary of Labor shall have the exclusive power to determine, decide, order or direct payment from, or application of, the cash or surety bond for any claim or injury covered and guaranteed by the bonds. There is, hence, no question that, both under the Labor Code and the POEA Rules and Regulations, Pan Pacific had violated at least one of the conditions for the grant and continued use of the recruitment license granted to it. NORBERTO SORIANO VS OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GR number: G.R. No. 78409, Date: September 14, 1989 Facts: In search for better opportunities and higher income, petitioner Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine Engineer, sought employment and was hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized shipping agent in the Philippines, Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation. As evidenced by the Crew Agreement, petitioner was hired to work as Third Marine Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a conduction basis for a period of fifteen (15) days. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six (6) months by mutual agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer. Thus, while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on July 23, 1985 he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to the alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner to the position of Second Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila. In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, a complaint against private respondent for payment of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary for November, 1985 and refund of his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20,000.00 contending therein that private respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his salary of US$800.00 per month to US$560.00, causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed prohibited acts by altering or substituting employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor? Held: Yes, there is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the approval of the Department of Labor is a serious violation of law. In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission correctly

analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted law. Under similar circumstances, this Court ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the coverage of a statute are strictly construed. But such construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable, sensible and fair. Hence, to rule out from the exemption amendments set forth, although they did not materially change the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit, was held to be unreasonable and unjust, and not in accord with the declared purpose of the Margin Law. EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION VS SECRETARY OF LABOR, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ELVIRA VENTURA, ESTER TRANGUILLAN, et al. GR number: L-79436-50 Date: January 17, 1990 Facts: In connection with the application with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration of J&B Manpower Specialist, Inc. for a license to engage in business as a recruitment agency, a surety bond was filed on January 2, 1985 by the applicant and the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation, herein petitioner, in virtue of which they both held themselves firmly bound unto Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Ministry of Labor in the penal sum of PESOS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY for the payment of which will and truly to be made, they bound themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally. In consideration of promised deployment, complainants paid respondent various amounts for various fees. Because of nondeployment, the applicants filed separate complaints with the Licensing and Regulation Office of POEA against J&B for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code between the months of April to October 1985. EASCO essentially disclaimed liability on the ground that the claims were not expressly covered by the bond, that POEA had no jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the bond, that some of the claims were paid beyond or prior to the period of effectivity of the bond. Issue: Whether or not the POEA or the Secretary of Labor had proper jurisdiction over the claims for refund filed by non-employees. Held: Yes, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and this decision is declared to be immediately executory. The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed for violations of the above quoted provisions, among others. And the Secretary of Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions, as well as the authority, conferred by Section 36, not only, to "restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies," but also to "promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions" governing said activities. Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted, the Secretary of Labor gave the POEA "on its own initiative or upon filing of a complaint or report or upon request for investigation by any aggrieved person, authority to conduct the necessary proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of the license or authority of any agency or entity" for certain enumerated offenses. Liabilities of Principals and Agents MANUELA S. CATAN/M.S. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY VS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION and FRANCISCO D. REYES GR number: G.R. No. 77279 Date: April 15, 1988 Facts: The Petitioner, a duly licensed recruitment agency, as agent of Ali and Fahd Shabokshi Group, a Saudi Arabian firm, recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as a steelman. The contract was automatically renewed when private respondent was not repatriated by his Saudi employer but instead was assigned to work as a crusher plant operator. On March 30, 1983, while he was working as a crusher plant operator, private respondent's right ankle was crushed under the machine he was operating. On September 9, 1983, he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work. On May 15,1984, he was repatriated. Upon his return, he had his ankle treated for which he incurred further expenses. Issue: Whether or not this was grounds for cancellation or suspension of license or authority of M. S. Catan Placement Agency

Held: Yes, Power of the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreign-based employer for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. [Section 10(a) (2) Rule V, Book I, Rules to Implement the Labor Code. The Court ruled that a recruitment agency was solidarily liable for the unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment in Saudi Arabia. Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency agreement at the time private respondent was injured, petitioner may still be sued for a violation of the employment contract because no notice of the agency agreement's termination was given to the private respondent. SEAGULL MARITIME CORP. AND PHILIMARE SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY VS NERRY D. BALATONGAN, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION GR number: G.R. No. 82252 Date: February 28, 1989 Facts: On October 6, 1983 Balatongan met an accident in the Suez Canal, Egypt as a result of which he was hospitalized at the Suez Canal Authority Hospital. Later, he was repatriated to the Philippines and was hospitalized at the Makati Medical Center from October 23, 1983 to March 27, 1984. On August 19, 1985 the medical certificate was issued describing his disability as "permanent in nature."Balatongan demanded payment for his claim for total disability insurance in the amount of US $ 50,000.00 as provided for in the contract of employment but his claim was denied for having been submitted to the insurers beyond the designated period for doing so. Seagull and Philimare appealed said decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on June 4, 1986. Pending resolution of their appeal because of the alleged transfer of the agency of Seagull to Southeast Asia Shipping Corporation, Seagull filed on April 28, 1987 a Motion For Substitution/Inclusion of Party Respondent which was opposed by Balatongan. This was followed by an ex-parte motion for leave to file third party complaint on June 4, 1987 by Seagull. Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed prohibited acts by altering or substituting employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor. Held: Yes, it shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor. The supplementary contract of employment was entered into between petitioner and private respondent to modify the original contract of employment The reason why the law requires that the POEA should approve and verify a contract under Article 34 of the Labor Code is to insure that the employee shall not thereby be placed in a disadvantageous position and that the same are within the minimum standards of the terms and conditions of such employment contract set by the POEA. SEAMAN COMPENSATION for Death NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. (PTE) and PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES, INC. VS NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, HON. CRESCENCIO M. SIDDAYAO, OSCAR M. TORRES, REBENE C. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C. ABORDO GR number: G.R. No. L-54204 Date: September 30, 1982 Facts: Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C. Abordo, was the Second Engineer of M.T. "Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE). The M.T. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry. The late Napoleon B. Abordo at the time of his death was receiving a monthly salary of US$850.00. In her complaint for "death compensation benefits, accrued leave pay and time-off allowances, funeral expenses, attorney's fees and other benefits and reliefs available in connection with the death of Napoleon B. Abordo," filed before the National Seamen Board, Restituta C. Abordo alleged that the amount of compensation due her from petitioners Norse Management Co. (PTE) and Pacific Seamen Services, Inc., principal and agent, respectively, should be based on the law where the vessel is registered. On the other hand, petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance Law of Singapore.

As an alternative, they offered to pay private respondent Restituta C. Abordo the sum of P30,000.00 as death benefits based on the Board's Memorandum Circular No. 25 which they claim should apply in this case. Issue: Whether or not the National Seamen Board had proper jurisdiction over the case at bar. Held: Yes, According to Article 20 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, provides that the National Seamen Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or cases including money claims, involving employer-employee relations, arising out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas employment. Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code, including its implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BRIGIDO SAMSON, represented by wife, NORMA S. SAMSON GR number: G.R. No. L-63535 Date: May 27, 1985 Facts: The case at bar stems from a claim for disability compensation benefits and hospitalization expenses under employment contract, filed by private respondent herein, Brigido Samson, against the petitioner before the National Seaman's Board (NSB). On December 17, 1981, the appealed decision was affirmed by the NLRC. After the said decision reached finality, the corresponding writ of execution was issued and served on petitioner. On April 28, 1982, the Sheriff who served the writ submitted a report to the Board, stating that petitioner had paid P18,000.00 to private respondent herein which the latter accepted and evidenced by a voucher and a "Release" document dated May 7, 1981; and that because of said payment, the Sheriff had in the meantime refrained from collecting the balance of the award until the Board shall have passed upon this matter. Hence, this instant petition for certiorari, with petitioner attributing to the NLRC the commission of the following alleged errors, namely. The respondent NLRC erred in recognizing a clearly illegal decision, because said decision orders payment in the dollar standard in violation of law. Issue: Whether or not the respondent was in violation of R.A. No. 529. Held: No, Republic Act No. 529 makes it unlawful to require payment of domestic obligations in foreign currency, this particular statute is not applicable to the case at bar. A careful reading of the decision rendered by the Executive Director of the NSB dated April 2, 1981 and which led to the Writ of Execution protested to by petitioner, will readily disclose that the award to the private respondent does not compel payment in dollar currency but in fact expressly allows payment of "its equivalent in Philippine currency." WHEREFORE, the petition in this case is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. ARTICLE 38 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BULU CHOWDURY G.R. No.: G.R. No. 129577-80 Date: Feb. 15, 2000 Facts: BuluChowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting Estrella B. Calleja, Melvin C. Miranda and Aser S. Sasis for employment in Korea. Evidence shows that accused appellant interviewed private complainant in 1994 at Craftrades office. At that time, he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under temporary authority given by POEA pending the renewal of license. He was charged based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers. The compalinants also averred that during their applications for employment for abroad, the license of Craftrade was already expired. For his defense Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until 1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed the instructions given by his superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency's President and General Manager, and Mr. UtkalChowdury, the agency's Managing Director. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Held: No, an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. In this case, Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. Moreover, accused-appellant was not aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and the prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money from them. Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NELLIE CABAIS y GAMUELA G.R. No.: G.R. No. 129070 Date: March 16, 2001 Facts: Accused-appellant Nellie Cabais met the complainants Joan Merante, Nancy Oidi, Florentino Balanon, Jr. and Imelda Mortera on different occasions. They were told that the accused-appellant was a legal recruiter working with a licensed recruitment agency based in Manila. She talked to complainants several times during the period of February 1994 up to May 1994, persuading them to be contract workers in South Korea. She even presented some persons to influence them. Convinced, the complainants complied with requirement and paid all the needed amounts. After complying with all the requirements, complainants were told to wait for their deployment. They waited and repeatedly inquired about the status of their applications. However, several months passed and they were not deployed as promised. Complainants checked with the office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) in Baguio and learned that Nellie Cabais was not licensed to recruit in Baguio or in any part of the Cordillera Administrative Region. The accused was indicted for illegal recruitment and estafa. For her part, accused Cabais denied all the charges against her. She alleged that she was hired as an employee and as such employee, her duties only included processing other applications for job placement and entertaining applicants. Accused Cabais denied involvement in the recruitment of complainants, claiming that it was her boss who was doing recruitment activities. She admitted, though, that she received payments from complainants, but alleged that she was merely acting upon the instruction of Forneas and that she turned over all the payments to her employer. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant Accused-appellant Cabais is guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. Held: Yes, In this case, all the requisite of illegal recruitment are present. Accused-appellant was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She also received money from them as placement fees. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais. Thus, accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants. Furthermore, accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitment activities, as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the testimony of a representative of said government agency. Her acts constituted recruitment, and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the company, her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities. Since the recruitment involves three or more persons, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LINDA SAGAYDO G.R. No.: G.R. No. 124671-75 Date: Sep. 29, 2000 Facts: Accused Linda Sagayado was convicted before the regional trial court of illegal recruitment in large scale and fur charges of estafa. Complainants Gina Cleto, Rogelio Tebeb, Nata Pita and Jessie Bolinao recounted that the accused Sagayado propsed and encourage them for employment abroad in Korea. Complainants gave their respective payments to the accused for the processing of their travel papers and passport. They were assured of their flight and of employment abroad. However, months have passed but their flight never pushed through. They then inquired at the Baguio POEA office whether the accused was a license recruiter to which they receive certification that the accused was not a license recruiter. In her defense, the accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being informed that she was able to send her three (3) sons to Korea. While accused admitted having received money from complainants Gina Cleto and Naty Pita, she said she used their money to buy their plane tickets. Gina and Naty

were not able to leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement beginning January, 1992. When asked why she was not able to return the money of Gina and Naty, accused said that she returned the plane tickets to the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency did not make reimbursements. With respect to complainants Jessie Bolinao and Rogelio Tibeb, the accused denied having received money from them. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Held: Yes, Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more person, individually or as a group. This crime requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All the requisites are present in this case. The accused representations to the private complainants that she could send them to Korea to work as factory workers, constituting a promise of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. From the testimonies of the private complainants, there is no denying that accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, mere denial of accused cannot prevail. As to the license requirement, the record showed that accused-appellant did not have the authority to recruit for employment abroad as the certification issued by the POEA in Baguio City. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENZONG ONG y SATE G.R. No.: G.R. No. 119594 Date: Jan. 18, 2000 Facts: The regional trial court convicted accused Benson Ong of illegal recruitment and seven charges of estafa for promising employment abroad to the following: 1.Noel Bacasnot Baldivino; 2.Ruth A Eliw; 3.Samuel Bagni; 4.Francisca Cayaya; 5.Teofilo S. Gallao,Jr.; 6.Sally Kamura; 7.Paul G. Esteban; 8.David Joaquin; and 9. Solidad M. Malinias The above complainants recounted that the accused encourage them for employment abroad. Some of them voluntarily sought the help of the accused believing that he is a legal and licensed recruiter. They paid the placement fees and were assured for employment abroad upon completion of their papers. Accused never fulfilled his promise. Complainants sought help to the NBI about the recruitment activities of the accused. The NBI confirmed from the Philippine Overseas Employment AdministrationRegional Extension Unit (POEA-REU) in the Cordillera Autonomous Region that accused had not been licensed to recruit for overseas employment. On June 27, 1994, a team composed of NBI and special investigators conducted an entrapment operation which led to the arrest of the accused. For his part, the accused denied the charges and for collecting fees from them. He further claimed that his signatures on the receipt were forged and he merely suggested to the complainants employment abroad. Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Held: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art. 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All the requisites of Illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case. Accused represented himself to complainants as one capable of deploying workers abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of factory and construction workers in Taiwan. He was not also authorized to recruit workers abroad as he has not been licensed by the POEA and he illegally recruited more than three persons. Even if accused-appellant did no more than "suggest" to complainants where they could apply for overseas employment, his act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Art.13 (b) of the Labor Code. Indeed, the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record shows that accused-appellant did more than just make referrals. The evidence shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees. Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (at large), KARL REICHL, and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ DE REICHL, G.R. No.: G.R. No. 141221-36 Date: March 7, 2002 Facts: In April 1993, eight informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and eight informations for estafa were filed against accused-appellants, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl, together with Francisco Hernandez. Only the Reichl spouses were tried and convicted by the trial court as Francisco Hernandez remained at large. The complainants namely, Narcisa Autor de Hernandez, Leonora Perez, Melanie Bautista Annaliza Perez, Edwin Coling, Estela Abel de Manalo, Anicel Umahon and Charito Balmes have their own similar stories about the illegal recruitment conducted by the accused-appellants. They recounted that accused Hernandez was the one convincing each of them to apply for employment abroad. Accused Hernandez asked for the payment for the processing of their papers, travel documents and visas. Complainants then were introduced by Hernandez to spouse Reichl who in turn promised them for employment abroad. The spouse issued reciept for the payments made by the complainants. The promises of employment however did not pushed through and the complainants remained in the Phillippines. Upon demands, the accused spouse promise them to refund the payment if their employments never materialized. These agreements were reduced into a document but the accused spouse never complies with their obligations. There was also a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that Francisco Hernandez, Karl Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. As for their part, the spouse denied any of involvement of Hernandez's recruitment and their knowledge of promises for overseas employment. They further contended that they cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale as the several information were only filed by single complainant. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants were guilty of syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. Held: They cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. Where only one complainant filed individual complaints as in this case, there is no illegal recruitment in large scale. However, they are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment. 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 of Article 38 of the Labor Code. It has been shown that Karl Reichl, Yolanda Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other in convincing private complainants to apply for an overseas job and giving them the guaranty that they would be hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensed to do so. Thus, the accused-appellants are liable for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. PP VS. TAN TIONG MENG alias "TOMMY TAN" G.R. No.: G.R. No. 120835-40, Date: April 10, 1997 Facts: Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias Tommy Tan was charged and convicted with illegal recruitment in large scale and 6 counts of estafa before the regional trial court of cavity city. The complainants namely: Ernesto Orcullo, Manuel Latina, Neil Mascardo, Librado C. Pozas, Edgardo Tolentino and Cavino Asiman have similar stories about the illegal recruitment activities of the accused. Each of them recounted that they were informed of job employment in Taiwan. The transactions happened in certain house of Borja where the accused-appellant assured the complainants of employment at Rainbow Ship Co.. They were asked to pay a certain amount for placement and processing fees. The accused issued receipts. The promise of employment however did not push through and the complainants decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment. They later found out that the accused-appellant was not a licensed overseas recruiter. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant was guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Held: Yes, the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as 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 that accused-appellant's acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement under the above provision of the Labor Code. The accused was not also licensed by the POEA and thus making him an illegal recruiter. Moreover, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, the accusedappellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale for having recruited six complainants.