[4] PEOPLE v.
PANIS
recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The
proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in
GR No. L-58674-77 | July 11, 1986 | Illegal Recruitment | Dee
consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective
Petitioner: People of the Philippines workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged
Respondents: Hon. Domingo Panis, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance in the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that
of Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III and Serapio Abug presumption.
The proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to
Recit-Ready: Four informations were filed against Respondent Serapio Abug provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption
alleging that Abug, without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever
holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, unlawfully and he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an
criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing,
expenses and promising employment in Saudi Arabia to four separate individuals, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."
in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. Abug filed a
motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense Application: We fail to see why the proviso should speak only of an offer or
because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four promise of employment if the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or
informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal more persons to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner
recruitment only “whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or does not explain why dealings with two or more persons are needed where the
offered any employment for a fee.” Abug’s Motion was initially denied but was recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment but not
later on reconsidered and was granted by the Trial Court. Thus, the prosecution is when it is done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
now before the Court on Certiorari. hiring or procuring (of) workers."
W/N the number of persons dealt with is an essential ingredient of the act of
FACTS:
recruitment and placement of workers (NO).
1. Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First
Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, private
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of
respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of
recruitment and placement of workers.
Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee-
Doctrine: Article 13(b) of the Labor Code provides that 'Recruitment and
charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and
placement' refers to any act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting, transporting,
promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named
hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided,
2. Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not
That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he
placement."
claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only “whenever two or more
persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee.”
Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute
3. Denied at first, the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in the Orders employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That
of the trial court dated June 24 and September 17, 1981. The prosecution is any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
now before us on certiorari. employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
4. The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being recruitment and placement."
prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence,
Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two cited articles As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic
penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper authority, which rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The
is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and
recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable. placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in
5. The private respondents claim that to constitute recruitment and placement, consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course
all the acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or more of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
persons as an indispensable requirement. procuring (of) workers."
6. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more
persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of
an offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic
consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article rule in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one
may involve even only one person and are not necessarily for profit. prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence
that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
ISSUES: employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing
Whether or not the number of persons dealt with is an essential ingredient of the with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and
act of recruitment and placement of workers (NO). placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption.
RATIO: This is not unlike the presumption in article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of example, regarding the failure of a public officer to produce upon lawful demand
recruitment and placement of workers. funds or property entrusted to his custody. Such failure shall be prima facie
We fail to see why the proviso should speak only of an offer or promise of evidence that he has put them to personal use; in other words, he shall be
employment if the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or more persons deemed to have malversed such funds or property. In the instant case, the word
to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner does not "shall be deemed" should by the same token be given the force of a disputable
explain why dealings with two or more persons are needed where the recruitment presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and
and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it is placement.
done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring (of) workers." It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned
provision for lack of records of debates and deliberations that would otherwise
Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, reads as follows: have been available if the Labor Code had been enacted as a statute rather than
"(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, a presidential decree. At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give
'enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and
investing hard-earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream,
only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their
own countrymen.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the Orders of June 24, 1981, and September 17, 1981,
are set aside and the four informations against the private respondent reinstated.
No costs. SO ORDERED.
