This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.[44] All eight private complainants herein consistently declared that Ochoa offered and promised them employment overseas. Ochoa required private complainants to submit their bio-data, birth certificates, and passports, which private complainants did. Private complainants also gave various amounts to Ochoa as payment for placement and medical fees as evidenced by the receipts Ochoa issued to Gubat,[45] Cesar,[46] and Agustin.[47] Despite private complainants' compliance with all the requirements Ochoa specified, they were not able to leave for work abroad. Private complainants pleaded that Ochoa return their hard-earned money, but Ochoa failed to do so. | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The trial court's appreciation of the witnesses' testimonies is entitled to the highest respect since it was in a better position to assess their credibility. [70] The RTC held Cruz's testimony to be "not credit worthy" [71] for being irreconcilable with petitioner's earlier admissions. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, Cruz's testimony cannot be considered as a judicial admission against his interest as he is neither a party to the case nor was his admission against his own interest, but actually against either the petitioner's or the respondent's interest. Petitioner's statements on the other hand, were deliberate, clear, and unequivocal and were made in the course of judicial proceedings; thus, they qualify as judicial admissions. [72] In Alfelor v. Halasan, [73] this Court held that: | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.[22] As testified to by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan, Ocden gave such an impression through the following acts: (1) Ocden informed Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan about the job opportunity in Italy and the list of necessary requirements for application; (2) Ocden required Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons, Jeffries and Howard, to attend the seminar conducted by Ramos at Ocden's house in Baguio City; (3) Ocden received the job applications, pictures, bio-data, passports, and the certificates of previous employment (which was also issued by Ocden upon payment of P500.00), of Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons, Jeffries and Howard; (4) Ocden personally accompanied Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons, Jeffries and Howard, for their medical examinations in Manila; (5) Ocden received money paid as placement fees by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons, Jeffries and Howard, and even issued receipts for the same; and (6) Ocden assured Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons, Jeffries and Howard, that they would be deployed to Italy. | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the first case, petitioner was charged with illegal recruitment, defined and penalized by the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042.[14] Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that the latter was convinced to part with his money in order to be employed.[15] To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.[16] Petitioner's misrepresentations concerning her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and the collection from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. | |||||