Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    PPL v. Panis

    Uploaded by

    Jess Choi
    The Supreme Court ruled that the number of persons involved is not an essential element of illegal recruitment. Any act of recruitment and placement specified in Article 13(b), such as canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, constitutes illegal recruitment even if it only involves one worker. The provision stating that recruitment is presumed if a fee is collected for promising employment to two or more workers merely establishes an evidentiary rule - it creates a presumption but does not impose an additional requirement. Thus, Serapio Abug could be charged with illegal recruitment for each of the four cases even if he only promised one worker employment in each case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PPL v. Panis

    Uploaded by

    Jess Choi
    23 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the number of persons involved is not an essential element of illegal recruitment. Any act of recruitment and placement specified in Article 13(b), such as canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, constitutes illegal recruitment even if it only involves one worker. The provision stating that recruitment is presumed if a fee is collected for promising employment to two or more workers merely establishes an evidentiary rule - it creates a presumption but does not impose an additional requirement. Thus, Serapio Abug could be charged with illegal recruitment for each of the four cases even if he only promised one worker employment in each case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ppl v. panis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the number of persons involved is not an essential element of illegal recruitment. Any act of recruitment and placement specified in Article 13(b), such as canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, constitutes illegal recruitment even if it only involves one worker. The provision stating that recruitment is presumed if a fee is collected for promising employment to two or more workers merely establishes an evidentiary rule - it creates a presumption but does not impose an additional requirement. Thus, Serapio Abug could be charged with illegal recruitment for each of the four cases even if he only promised one worker employment in each case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views2 pages

    PPL v. Panis

    Uploaded by

    Jess Choi
    The Supreme Court ruled that the number of persons involved is not an essential element of illegal recruitment. Any act of recruitment and placement specified in Article 13(b), such as canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, constitutes illegal recruitment even if it only involves one worker. The provision stating that recruitment is presumed if a fee is collected for promising employment to two or more workers merely establishes an evidentiary rule - it creates a presumption but does not impose an additional requirement. Thus, Serapio Abug could be charged with illegal recruitment for each of the four cases even if he only promised one worker employment in each case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.
    G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 | July 11,1990 | Cruz, J.

    Topic: Recruitment and Placement

    DOCTRINE – “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:
    In January 9, 1981, four informations were filed against Serapio Abug in the CFI of Zambales
    alleging that Abug operated a fee-charging employment agency without acquiring first from the ministry
    of labor the license that granted the authority to do so. The agency operated by Abug promised
    employment in Saudi Arabia to four different individuals.
    Abug filed a motion to quash arguing that in each of the 4 informations he was only promised
    one person employment, thus, he cannot be charged with illegal recruitment. He argued that Article
    13(b) requires that there be 2 to 3 persons promised employment for their to be illegal recruitment.

    The motion was first denied and was later on reconsidered which lead to this case.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the number of persons dealt with is an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment
    and placement of workers.

    RULING:
    No.

    The view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts
    mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or mre persons as an indispensable
    requirement. 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 an offer or promise of employment to
    such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article
    may involve even only one person and are not necessarily for profit.

    Neither interpretation is acceptable. We fail to see why the proviso 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 in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner does not explain why dealings with two

    1
    LABOR LAW REVIEW
    or more persons are needed where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of
    employment but not when it is done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
    hiring or procuring (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) win 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.

    2
    LABOR LAW REVIEW

    You might also like