DOJ dismisses criminal raps vs Samsung executives
MANILA, Philippines–The Department of Justice (DoJ) has dismissed the criminal complaint against executives of Samsung Electronics Philippines Corp. (SEPCO) and SD Human Tech for allegedly pirating some 700 personnel of a Filipino manpower agency.
In an emailed statement by Samsung which was confirmed by a DoJ resolution of Assistant State Prosecutor Natilaine T. Salvilla, the case for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment, estafa and theft filed against executives of SEPCO and SD Human Tech has been dismissed.
Salvilla, in her 51-page resolution, found no probable cause to hold SEPCO executives, represented by the law firm Ortega, del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma and Carbonell in the case, and SD Human Tech officers liable for the charges filed by complainant Vivian Anastacio-Guerrero of Temps and Staffers Inc. (TSI), a Filipino manpower agency that had provided promoters and office-based personnel to SEPCO.
SEPCO, a subsidiary of the giant multinational company Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., is engaged in the marketing and distribution of consumer electronic products , home appliances, air conditioning systems, mobile phones, and information technology products.
Cleared of criminal charges were Kyung Chull Park, president and CEO of Samsung Philippines, and the firm’s chief finance officer Boem Hee Lee, as well as Hae Kyong Kim, an executive of SD Human Tech.
The DOJ also ordered the dismissal of the complaint against SEPCO executives Glenn Glinoga, lawer Gabriel Matriano, Mary Anne Felipe, Benjamin Jimenez, Sherilyn Tan, Louie Liston, Angela Salvallon, Gerard Duremdes, Ricky De Guzman, Noel Dajao, Elaine Matito, Jerick Paloma, and Maybelle Doloran.
The DoJ said Executives of SEPCO and SD Human Tech cannot be held liable for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment under Article 34 of the Labor Code because the complainant failed to establish that any of the officers or employees of SEPCO “personally induced or attempted to induce any one of the employees of TSI to quit their employment.”
Even if the TSI employees were recruited to transfer to other manpower agencies before their contracts with TSI ends, “it was clear that the offered employment was to take effect after their employment contract with TSI was terminated or expired.”
She added that no evidence has been presented to prove that the firm still had the right over the employees after the termination of their contracts of employment.
“After the end of their contract on June 30, 2010, they have no employment to speak of, as it was already terminated based on their contracts of employment,” Salvilla said.
“Likewise, complainant failed to consider that those employees are human beings and not commodities. They have their own rights and privileges. One of them is the right to choose their own employment offered to them by TSI or other manpower agencies after the end of their contract with TSI,” Salvilla added.
TSI was one of the manpower service providers engaged by SEPCO to provide promo-merchandisers to market and sell Samsung products in the country. TSI terminated its contract with SEPCO on June 30, 2010.
