Practice question
A household arranges through a recruiter that its domestic worker must continue debt-linked service, with work value never reasonably applied to repayment. The household controls and benefits from the arrangement but says Section 15 cannot apply because the recruiter imposed it on paper. Assume the statutory bondage facts are established. Which is correct?
- A recruiter’s paper always legalizes the arrangement.
- Only a direct personal signature can violate Section 15.
- Household benefit eliminates the worker’s rights.
- The prohibition includes indirect placement, so the intermediary alone does not answer the household’s established role.
- The employer may rewrite the statute through a recruitment contract.
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 10361, Sections 4(a) and 15: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10361_2013.html Sections 4(a) and 15.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.