People vs. Hon.

Panis (LABOR)

People vs. Panis, 142 SCRA 664 (1986) -

Facts: Four separate criminal complaints were filed against Abug for operating a fee-charging employment agency without first securing a license.
Abug filed a motion to quash alleging that the informations 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.

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.”

The Court laid down the rule in People vs. Goce, (64 SCAD 72, 247 SCRA 780 [1995]) that to prove that the accused was engaged in recruitment
activities, it must be shown that the accused gave the complainant the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the complainant
abroad for work, such that the'latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed. Where such act or representation is not
proven, there is no recruitment activity and conviction for illegal recruitment has no basis.

Thus, in Darvin vs. C.A. and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 125044, July 13, 1998, the Court noted the lack of evidence to prove that the accused
offered a job to complainant-respondent. It was established, instead, that the complainant gave P150,000.00 to the accused-appellant for payment of
air fare and US visa and other expenses. The receipt for the P150,000.00 stated that it was “for Air Fare and visa to USA.” The Court through Justice
Romero concluded: “By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without more, can hardly qualify as
recruitment activities.”