Justice drops cases against Samsung executives

The Department of Justice has dismissed the complaint for syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment, estafa and theft filed against executives of Samsung Electronics Philippines Corp. and SD Human Tech for allegedly pirating 700 workers of a Filipino manpower agency.

Assistant State Prosecutor Natilaine T. Salvilla said there was 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., a Filipino manpower agency that had provided promoters and office-based personnel to Sepco.

The subsidiary of the Korean Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., is engaged in the marketing and distribution of consumer electronic products televisions, home appliances, air conditioning system, mobile phones, and information technology products.

Cleared of criminal charges were Kyung Chull Park, president and CEO of Samsung Philippines, and chief finance officer Boem Hee Lee, as well as Hae Kyong Kim, an executive of SD Human Tech.

The department also ordered the dismissal of the complaint against Sepco executives Glenn Glinoga, lawyer 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 prosecutor ruled that the complainant failed to establish that any of the officers or employees of Sepco 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, the prosecutor said.

It could not be considered that they were induced to quit their employment since 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.

TSI failed to present a single piece of evidence to establish that it still had the right over the employees after the termination of their contracts of employment, the prosecutor said. –Rey Requejo, Manila Standard Today