G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO ABUG, respondents.

FACTS

Four separate informations were filed against Serapio Abug for violating Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code (illegal recruitment). Each information alleged that Abug, without the required license, operated a fee-charging employment agency by promising employment in Saudi Arabia to a single individual and charging a fee. Abug moved to quash, arguing that under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment requires dealing with two or more persons. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the charge of recruiting only one person per information did not constitute an offense.
The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari. The petitioner argued that Abug was prosecuted under the penal provisions (Articles 16 and 39), making Article 13(b)’s definitional section not directly applicable. However, since the penal provisions punish unauthorized “recruitment and placement,” recourse to the definition in Article 13(b) was necessary. The core dispute centered on interpreting the proviso in Article 13(b), which states that “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 recruitment and placement.”

ISSUE

Whether the act of recruiting or promising employment to only one person for a fee constitutes illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, or if the law requires that such act involve two or more persons to be punishable.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the trial court’s orders, and reinstated the four informations. The Court held that the number of persons recruited is not an essential element of the crime of illegal recruitment. The proviso in Article 13(b) stating that dealing with “two or more persons” shall deem one engaged in recruitment and placement merely establishes a disputable presumption or a rule of evidence. It creates a prima facie presumption that recruitment is taking place when a fee is collected from two or more persons in consideration of a promise of employment.
The basic rule in Article 13(b) defines “recruitment and placement” as “any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers.” Any single act from this list, when committed by a non-licensee, constitutes recruitment, even if it involves only one prospective worker. The proviso was not intended to be an exception or a condition requiring two persons for all acts of recruitment. Instead, it aids prosecution by creating a presumption of recruitment activity when the specific circumstance of transacting with two or more persons for a fee is present. This interpretation aligns with the state’s policy to vigorously combat illegal recruitment, which often exploits Filipino workers. The Court noted the ambiguity arose from the Code’s enactment as a presidential decree, lacking legislative records, but resolved it in favor of broader protection for workers.