Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 236 views

    People v. Panis

    Uploaded by

    Clariz Cron
    This case involves four individuals who were charged illegal recruitment fees by Serapo Abug for promising them employment in Saudi Arabia without obtaining the proper license. [1] Abug argued the charges should be dismissed because he only recruited one person in each case, while the law requires illegally recruiting two or more persons. [2] The court ruled that illegally recruiting even one person constitutes illegal recruitment under the labor code. [3] The provision requiring two or more persons was intended to create an evidentiary presumption, not impose an additional requirement.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Panis

    Uploaded by

    Clariz Cron
    236 views2 pages
    This case involves four individuals who were charged illegal recruitment fees by Serapo Abug for promising them employment in Saudi Arabia without obtaining the proper license. [1] Abug argued the charges should be dismissed because he only recruited one person in each case, while the law requires illegally recruiting two or more persons. [2] The court ruled that illegally recruiting even one person constitutes illegal recruitment under the labor code. [3] The provision requiring two or more persons was intended to create an evidentiary presumption, not impose an additional requirement.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves four individuals who were charged illegal recruitment fees by Serapo Abug for promising them employment in Saudi Arabia without obtaining the proper license. [1] Abug argued the charges should be dismissed because he only recruited one person in each case, while the law requires illegally recruiting two or more persons. [2] The court ruled that illegally recruiting even one person constitutes illegal recruitment under the labor code. [3] The provision requiring two or more persons was intended to create an evidentiary presumption, not impose an additional requirement.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Panis

    Uploaded by

    Clariz Cron
    This case involves four individuals who were charged illegal recruitment fees by Serapo Abug for promising them employment in Saudi Arabia without obtaining the proper license. [1] Abug argued the charges should be dismissed because he only recruited one person in each case, while the law requires illegally recruiting two or more persons. [2] The court ruled that illegally recruiting even one person constitutes illegal recruitment under the labor code. [3] The provision requiring two or more persons was intended to create an evidentiary presumption, not impose an additional requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PEOPLE V.

    DOMINGO PANIS and SERAPIO ABUG


    L-58674-77, 11 July 1990

    FACTS:

    Four informations were filed against private respondent, Serapo Abug, for allegedly
    operating a fee- charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses and
    promising employment in Saudi Arabia to four individuals without first securing the
    required license to operate from the Ministry of Labor. This is in violation of Article 16
    in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.

    Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an
    offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the
    four informations. He claimed that under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, there would
    be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner
    promised or offered any employment for a fee. On the otherhand, 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.

    Motion to quash was granted by the trial court upon reconsideration.

    ISSUE:

    Whether it is a condition to have dealings with two or more persons to be
    considered engaged in recruitment and placement?

    RULING:
    NO. 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.
    Note:
    Article 13(b) of the labor code provides (b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of
    canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
    contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
    Provided, 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.

    You might also like