Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58674-77)
Procedural History
Four separate informations accused Abug of unlawfully operating a fee-charging employment agency without a license by promising employment in Saudi Arabia and collecting fees. Abug moved to quash, contending that under the proviso to Article 13(b) illegal recruitment occurs only when two or more persons are promised employment for a fee. The trial court initially denied but later granted the motion. The People sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court.
Parties’ Contentions
Abug maintained that the proviso imposes an indispensable requirement of two or more beneficiaries to constitute illegal recruitment. The People countered that Articles 16 and 39 penalize any unlicensed recruitment or placement, irrespective of the number of persons involved, and that Article 13(b)’s definition must apply.
Interpretation of Article 13(b)
The Court held that the proviso to Article 13(b) does not narrow the basic definition nor create an exception. Instead, it establishes a rebuttable presumption that any person or entity dealing with two or more individuals, promising employment for a fee, is engaged in recruitment and placement. The number of persons is not an essential element; any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring or procuring a worker constitutes recruitment and placement even if only one person is involved.
Presumptions and Analogies
By stating that an entity “shall be deemed” to be engaged in recruitment and placement when it offers employment for a fee to two or more persons, the proviso creates a disputable presumption—akin to the presumption under Revised Penal Code Article 217 that a public officer’s failure to remit entrusted funds constitutes prima facie evidence of malversation.
Legislative Background and Policy
The absence of legislativ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-58674-77)
Facts of the Case
- Four separate informations were filed on January 9, 1981 in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City.
- Each information alleged that Serapio Abug, without securing a license as a fee-charging employment agency from the Ministry of Labor, charged fees and promised employment in Saudi Arabia to one individual per information.
- The charges invoked Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of P.D. 442 (Labor Code).
- Abug moved to quash, contending that the proviso to Article 13(b) requires dealings with at least two persons for an act to constitute illegal recruitment and placement.
Procedural History
- The trial court initially denied Abug’s motion to quash.
- Upon reconsideration, the trial court granted the motion in Orders dated June 24, 1981 and September 17, 1981.
- The People of the Philippines petitioned for certiorari before the Supreme Court to overturn those Orders.
Legal Issue
- How should Article 13(b) of P.D. 442 be correctly interpreted with respect to:
• The definition of “recruitment and placement” as encompassing certain acts; and
• The operation and effect of the proviso requiring dealings with “two or more persons” for a fee-based offer or promise of employment?
Applicable Statutory Provision
- Article 13(b), P.D. 442 defi