People v. Panis (G.R. Nos. L-58674-77; July 11, 1990)
CASE DIGEST: 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. (This case digest was copied from Azucena's book, The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Year 22, Edition 8, 2013, Page 46. Available in bookstores nationwide.)
Facts: Four separate criminal complaints were filed against Abug for operating a fee-charging employment agency without first securing a license. But Abug argued that the complaints did not charge an offense as he was charged with illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Abug claimed that under Article 13(b) there would be illegal recruitment only when two or more persons in any manner were promised or offered any employment for a fee.
ISSUE:
SHOULD THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUIT BE COMMITTED AGAINST TWO OR MORE PERSONS?
Ruling: The Court ruled that the number of persons is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. — “As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.” The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute 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 consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words ‘shall be deemed’ create that presumption.”
Facts: Four separate criminal complaints were filed against Abug for operating a fee-charging employment agency without first securing a license. But Abug argued that the complaints did not charge an offense as he was charged with illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Abug claimed that under Article 13(b) there would be illegal recruitment only when two or more persons in any manner were promised or offered any employment for a fee.
ISSUE:
SHOULD THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUIT BE COMMITTED AGAINST TWO OR MORE PERSONS?
Ruling: The Court ruled that the number of persons is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. — “As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.” The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute 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 consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words ‘shall be deemed’ create that presumption.”