Bernardo et al v. NLRC & FEBTCGR No. 122917, 12 July 1999Facts:The dismissed complainants, numbering 43, are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sortersand Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers". Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees,respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company maintained that complainants were hiredtemporarily under a special employment arrangement which was a result of overturesmade by some civic and political personalities to the respondent Bank; thatcomplainant[s] were hired due to "pakiusap"; that the tellers themselves already did thesorting and counting chore as a regular feature and integral part of their duties; thatthrough the "pakiusap" of Arturo Borjal, the tellers were relieved of this task of countingand sorting bills in favor of deaf-mutes without creating new positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in any other bank in the Philippines which deals with purely counting and sorting of bills in banking operations. The LA &, on appeal, the NLRC ruled against petitioners, holding that they could not be deemed regular employeessince they were hired as an accommodation to the recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employments were covered by Employment Contracts w/ special provisions on duration of contract as specified under Art. 80. Hence, the terms of thecontract shall be the law between the parties.Issue:Whether petitioners have become regular employeesHeld:Only the employees, who worked for more than six months and whose contracts wererenewed are deemed regular. Hence, their dismissal from employment was il legal. Thef a c t s , v i e w e d i n l i g h t o f t h e L a b o r C o d e a n d t h e M a g n a C a r t a f o r D i s a b l e d P e r s o n s , indubitably show that the petit ioners, except sixteen of them, should be deemed regular employees.The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that they shall be trainedfor a period of one month, after which the employer shall determine whether or not theyshould be allowed to finish the 6-month term of the contract. Furthermore, the employer may terminate the contract at any time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed inwriting by the employer, the contract shall automatically expire at the end of the term.The stipulations in the employment contracts indubitably conform with Art. 80 LC w/c  provides for the requisites in the employment agreement between an employer whoemploys handicapped workers. Succeeding events and the enactment of RA No. 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons),13however, justify the application of Article 280of the Labor Code.R e s p o n d e n t b a n k e n t e r e d i n t o t h e a f o r e s a i d c o n t r a c t w i t h a t o t a l o f 5 6 h a n d i c a p p e d

ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALEPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSE DUJUA, ET AL.G.R. Nos. 149014-16. February 5, 2004

Facts: Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle, Guillermo Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. Only Ramon was arrested. Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All of them were promised work abroad upon payment of fees but they were not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations that he was a recruiter.

Issue: Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was committed by Raon Dujua, et al.

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 Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 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 three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt.First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved that Dujua promised them employment and assured them of placement overseas. All of them identified Dujua as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujua’s mere denials cannot prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough credible testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal recruitment , a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority.Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the recruitment of more than three persons.