1 Labor and Social Legislation I | 13 October 2020 | Atty.
Jerwin Lim
[G.R. No. L-58674-77. July 11, 1986.] or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment
for a fee." 2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. DOMINGO
PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Denied at first, the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in the
Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO Orders of the trial court dated June 24 and September 17, 1981. The
ABUG, Respondents. prosecution is now before us on certiorari. 3
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being
prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code;
DECISION hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two cited
articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper
authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application
CRUZ, J.: of the definition of recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is
unavoidable.
The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of Article 13(b) of The view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and
P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, reading as placement, all the acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph with two or more persons as an indispensable requirement. On the other
hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more persons
"(b) ‘Recruitment and placement’ refers to any act of canvassing, is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer
‘enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article may involve
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That even only one person and are not necessarily for profit.
any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in Neither interpretation is acceptable. We fail to see why the proviso
recruitment and placement."cralaw virtua1aw library should speak only of an offer or promise of employment if the purpose was
to apply the requirement of two or more persons to all the acts mentioned
Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner does not explain why
Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, dealings with two or more persons are needed where the recruitment and
private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the placement consists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it
Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging is done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."cralaw virtua1aw library
criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging
fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on
four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a
relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1 presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged
in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or
Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of
charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one employment is made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting,
person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of)
13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two
Andrei Da Jose | Page 1|2
2 Labor and Social Legislation I | 13 October 2020 | Atty. Jerwin Lim
workers."cralaw virtua1aw library
WHEREFORE, the Orders of June 24, 1981, and September 17, 1981, are
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act set aside and the four informations against the private respondent
of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in reinstated. No costs.
the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement
even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays SO ORDERED.
down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a
promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the Teehankee, C.J., Abad Santos, Feria, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-
individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr. and Paras, JJ., concur.
the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create
that presumption.
This is not unlike the presumption in article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code, for example, regarding the failure of a public officer to produce
upon lawful demand funds or property entrusted to his custody. Such
failure shall be prima facie evidence that he has put them to personal
use; in other words, he shall be deemed to have malversed such funds or
property. In the instant case, the word "shall be deemed" should by the
same token be given the force of a disputable presumption or of prima
facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and placement. (Klepp v. Odin
Tp., McHenry County 40 ND N.W. 313, 314.)
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 have been available if the Labor Code had been enacted
as a statute rather than a presidential decree. The trouble with
presidential decrees is that they could be, and sometimes were, issued
without previous public discussion or consultation, the promulgator
heeding only his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty
pinnacle of power. The not infrequent results are rejection, intentional or
not, of the interest of the greater number and, as in the instant case,
certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read against the background
facts usually reported in the legislative journals.
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the
campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has
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.
Andrei Da Jose | Page 2|2
