In cases of illegal recruitment, especially those involving economic sabotage, the Supreme Court emphasizes that all individuals found to be in conspiracy are equally liable, both criminally and civilly. This means that each participant can be held responsible for the entire amount defrauded from the victims, regardless of their specific level of involvement in the illegal scheme. This decision serves as a stern warning against those who might be tempted to participate in illegal recruitment activities, even in a seemingly minor role, as the financial consequences can be extensive and unavoidable.

Harvel’s Shadow: Can Mere Association Equal Guilt in Illegal Recruitment?

This case revolves around Maricar B. Inovero, who was convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale. The central question is whether her actions, including conducting orientations and representing herself as someone who could expedite visa processing, were sufficient to establish her guilt, even if she claimed not to be an employee of the recruiting agency, HARVEL. The complainants testified that Inovero played a crucial role in convincing them that they would be deployed overseas for work, leading them to pay significant amounts of money for placement and processing fees.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Inovero guilty, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the principle that when multiple individuals conspire to commit a crime, each is solidarily liable. Solidary liability means that each person is responsible for the entire debt or obligation. In this context, it implies that Inovero, as a co-conspirator, is liable for the total amount of money illegally obtained from the complainants, even if she did not directly receive all the funds.

Inovero argued that she was merely an associate of the illegal recruiters and that her interactions with the complainants were minimal. She claimed she only helped with errands and served refreshments during orientations. However, the Court found her actions went beyond mere association. The testimonies of the complainants revealed that she conducted orientations, provided information about salaries, and even represented herself as being involved in visa processing. Such actions, combined with the fact that HARVEL was not licensed to recruit workers, were enough to establish her participation in illegal recruitment.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the trial court’s findings of fact, noting that these findings are conclusive and binding, especially when affirmed by the CA. The Court emphasized it is not a trier of facts and must rely on the lower courts’ assessment of the evidence, unless there is a clear error in their appreciation. In this case, the Court found no such error. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the weakness of Inovero’s defense of denial. The Court cited People v. Bensig, stating:

Denial, essentially a negation of a fact, does not prevail over an affirmative assertion of the fact. Thus, courts – both trial and appellate – have generally viewed the defense of denial in criminal cases with considerable caution, if not with outright rejection. Such judicial attitude comes from the recognition that denial is inherently weak and unreliable by virtue of its being an excuse too easy and too convenient for the guilty to make. To be worthy of consideration at all, denial should be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The accused cannot solely rely on her negative and self-serving negations, for denial carries no weight in law and has no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the complainants’ positive assertions about Inovero’s role in the recruitment process were far more credible than her mere denial. The Court also addressed the issue of civil liability, noting that the lower courts had failed to include Inovero’s personal liability in their judgments. The Court emphasized that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, and this liability includes restitution, reparation, and indemnification. In this case, the civil liability involved the return of the placement, training, and processing fees paid by the complainants. The court cited Bacolod v. People:

It is not amiss to stress that both the RTC and the CA disregarded their express mandate under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if it was of conviction, state: “(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.” Their disregard compels us to act as we now do lest the Court be unreasonably seen as tolerant of their omission. That the Spouses Cogtas did not themselves seek the correction of the omission by an appeal is no hindrance to this action because the Court, as the final reviewing tribunal, has not only the authority but also the duty to correct at any time a matter of law and justice.

The Supreme Court invoked Article 2194 of the Civil Code, which states that joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. The Court defined joint tortfeasors as those who cooperate in, aid, or abet the commission of a tort. The court cited Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals:

x x x. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not same. No actor’s negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other acts. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.

The Court clarified that it is not an excuse for any of the joint tortfeasors to assert that their individual participation in the wrong was insignificant compared to the others. The damages cannot be apportioned among them, except by themselves, and they are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount. Thus, Inovero’s liability towards the victims of their illegal recruitment was solidary, regardless of whether she actually received the amounts paid or not, and notwithstanding that her co-accused have remained untried. The court also considered Article 2211 of the Civil Code and ordered Inovero to pay interest of 6% per annum on the sums paid by the complainants, to be reckoned from the finality of the judgment until full payment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Maricar Inovero could be held liable for illegal recruitment committed in large scale, even if she claimed she was not directly involved in the recruiting agency’s operations. The Court examined whether her actions contributed to the crime of illegal recruitment.
What is illegal recruitment in large scale?	Illegal recruitment in large scale involves recruiting three or more persons without the necessary license or authority from the government. It is considered economic sabotage and carries a heavier penalty.
What does solidary liability mean in this context?	Solidary liability means that each person involved in the illegal recruitment can be held responsible for the entire amount of damages suffered by the victims. This means one person can be made to pay the full amount even if others were also involved.
Why was Inovero held liable even though she claimed she wasn’t an employee?	The Court found that Inovero’s actions, such as conducting orientations and representing herself as someone who could expedite visa processing, were sufficient to establish her participation in illegal recruitment, regardless of her employment status. These actions gave the complainants the impression that she had the authority to send them abroad for employment.
What is the significance of the POEA certification in this case?	The POEA certification confirmed that neither HARVEL nor Inovero had the license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. This lack of license was a key element in proving the crime of illegal recruitment.
What amounts are the victims entitled to recover?	The victims are entitled to recover the amounts they paid for placement, training, and processing fees. They are also entitled to interest on these amounts from the date the judgment becomes final until the amounts are fully paid.
What is the court’s view on the defense of denial in this case?	The court viewed Inovero’s defense of denial with skepticism, as it is a weak defense that is easily made. The complainants’ positive testimonies about her involvement were given more weight than her mere denial.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing the decisions of lower courts?	The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally relies on the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It only intervenes if there is a clear error in the lower courts’ appreciation of the evidence.

This case underscores the severe consequences of participating in illegal recruitment activities, even in a seemingly minor role. The solidary liability imposed on co-conspirators serves as a strong deterrent, highlighting the importance of due diligence and ethical conduct in the recruitment industry.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Harleta Velasco y Briones, G.R. No. 195668, June 25, 2014