1) Why these two “fees” matter

In Philippine recruitment scams—especially for overseas work—money is often extracted through labels that sound “normal” but are legally suspicious. Two recurring labels are:

“Assurance fee” / “guarantee fee” / “slot reservation” / “deployment assurance”
“Medical fee” collections (often demanded early, repeatedly, or without proper documentation)

These are not just consumer-protection issues. Depending on the facts, they can support administrative cases (license suspension/cancellation), criminal cases (illegal recruitment, estafa), and civil claims (refunds/damages).

2) Legal framework in the Philippines (high-level map)

A. Recruitment regulation

Recruitment and placement—especially for overseas jobs—is regulated. As a rule:

Only licensed agencies (or duly authorized entities) may recruit for overseas employment.
Even licensed agencies must follow strict rules on advertising, selection, documentation, and fees.

Key legal anchors (commonly invoked in complaints):

Labor Code provisions on recruitment and prohibited practices (historically anchored on “prohibited practices” and fee regulation).
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (RA 8042) as amended (notably RA 10022): defines illegal recruitment, increases penalties, and provides protections for OFWs.
The regulatory authority for overseas recruitment is now under the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) (institutional change), which carries forward regulatory functions previously associated with POEA for land-based deployment.

B. Illegal recruitment (core concept)

Illegal recruitment generally covers either:

Recruitment activity by a non-licensee / non-authorized person, or
Commission of prohibited recruitment practices, which can be illegal recruitment even if done by a licensee (depending on the practice and governing rules).

It’s important because the “fee” is often the evidence—the receipt, transfer record, messages, and promises show the recruitment transaction and deception.

C. Other criminal hooks

Even when a case is not pursued (or not provable) as illegal recruitment, the same conduct can still be prosecuted as:

Estafa (swindling) under the Revised Penal Code (deceit + damage; taking money through false pretenses)
Sometimes falsification (fake documents), identity theft, or cyber-related offenses if done online, depending on evidence.

3) The “Assurance Fee”: what it is in practice

An “assurance fee” is typically pitched as money to:

“Guarantee” a job slot
“Ensure” deployment by a certain date
“Secure” a priority position with the foreign employer
“Guarantee passing” some step (interview, medical, visa)
“Fix” an issue (age, experience, documentation, medical findings)

In real-world patterns, it is often a pressure payment: “Pay now or you lose the slot.”

4) Why “assurance fees” are a major red flag

In legitimate recruitment, deployment is not “guaranteed” by paying extra money under the table. Outcomes depend on:

Employer selection
Document verification
Contract approval
Medical fitness
Visa issuance and host-country requirements

So, when someone sells “assurance,” it often indicates one or more of these legal problems:

A. It may be a prohibited fee / overcharging scheme

A common prohibited practice in recruitment regulation is charging or accepting fees not allowed, or beyond allowable limits, or collecting at improper stages, or without proper documentation. An “assurance fee” is frequently:

Not part of any approved schedule of fees
Not receipted properly
Collected before a real job order/contract exists
Collected by an individual rather than the agency’s proper cashiering process

B. It may be a bribery-by-proxy narrative

Sometimes “assurance fee” is framed as money that will be given to an insider to “push” papers. That framing itself is legally dangerous, and in practice it often masks a scam.

C. It is commonly tied to misrepresentation

If the “assurance fee” is based on statements like:

“Sure deployment in 2 weeks”
“Visa is already approved” (when it is not)
“Medical will be handled”
“Employer is waiting; you’re hired” …and those claims are false or reckless, the payment becomes strong evidence of deceit.

D. It can support illegal recruitment even if the recruiter looks “legit”

A frequent misconception: “They have an office; therefore they are legal.” In enforcement practice, illegal recruitment cases often involve:

Use of another entity’s name
Expired/suspended license claims
“Sub-agent” networks operating without authority
Unauthorized individuals collecting money

5) Lawful fees vs. suspicious fees (practical distinction)

A. Lawful fee handling generally looks like this

Legitimate fee handling (even when the worker pays certain allowed costs) tends to have:

Clear written basis (documented schedule of fees, contract references)
Proper receipts (official receipts, not scribbled acknowledgments)
Payments made to the correct entity (not personal accounts)
Timing tied to real milestones (e.g., after documented selection/processing steps)
Ability to explain refunds, cancellations, and what each fee covers

B. “Assurance fee” handling often looks like this

Cash requested “today” to a personal collector
“Reservation” language without a contract
No official receipt (or a vague acknowledgment)
Payment to personal e-wallet/bank accounts
Threat-based urgency: “last slot,” “cutoff today,” “flight next week”

6) Medical fee collections: what is legitimate, and what is not

A. Legitimate medical examination practices (general compliance patterns)

Medical exams are a standard requirement for many jobs and destinations. Legitimate handling typically includes:

Medical exam done by an accredited/recognized clinic for the destination or employer system (where applicable)
Worker is given clinic documents, official receipts, and exam results handling consistent with rules
Fees reflect real clinic charges (or are advanced transparently and receipted)

Medical is usually tied to an identifiable recruitment step: the worker is being processed for a real job with identifiable employer documentation.

B. Medical fee collections become suspicious when any of these happen

1) Medical demanded too early Red flag when “medical fee” is demanded:

Before any credible job order/employer details exist
Before any interview/selection step
As the first money you must pay to “start processing”

2) Medical paid to the “agent,” not the clinic

You are told to pay the recruiter who will “handle medical”
You are not given a clinic receipt
You don’t choose or even see the clinic details until after payment

3) Repeated medical payments

“Retake medical” multiple times without clear reason
“Additional tests” that keep escalating without documentation
Fees keep increasing, always payable to a person, not the clinic

4) No documentation

No official receipt
No itemization (exam, labs, x-ray, psych, etc.)
No written explanation of what happens if you fail medical or withdraw

5) Medical as a leverage tool

“Pay medical first so we can reserve your slot”
“Pay medical again so we can change results” This is not just a red flag; it suggests a potentially unlawful scheme.

7) How these “fees” connect to illegal recruitment elements

Illegal recruitment cases often hinge on proving:

Recruitment activity occurred (offers, referrals, interviews arranged, processing promised), and
The recruiter lacked authority or committed prohibited practices, and
Victims paid money / were induced to act, often shown by receipts/messages/transfers.

“Assurance fee” and “medical fee” evidence is commonly used to establish:

The recruiter’s active recruitment role
The unlawful nature of the collection (unauthorized, excessive, unreceipted, deceptive)
A pattern across multiple victims (important for aggravated forms)

8) Syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment (why multiple victims changes everything)

Philippine law recognizes aggravated forms typically framed as:

Large-scale illegal recruitment: committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
Syndicated illegal recruitment: carried out by a group (commonly three or more persons conspiring).

Why this matters:

The same “assurance fee” and “medical fee” scheme repeated across victims can move a case into a heavier-penalty category.
Group chat messages, shared collectors, common scripts, and identical receipts become powerful pattern evidence.

9) Administrative liability (even if criminal case is hard)

Even where criminal prosecution is slow or uncertain, agencies and their responsible officers can face administrative sanctions for:

Unauthorized fee collections
Overcharging or charging disallowed fees
Misrepresentation in recruitment advertisements/offers
Using unauthorized agents/sub-agents
Failure to issue proper receipts or keep records

Administrative cases can result in:

Suspension/cancellation of license
Fines
Blacklisting and other regulatory consequences

10) Practical red-flag checklist (high-signal indicators)

A. “Assurance fee” red flags

“Guarantee deployment” in exchange for extra money
“Reservation fee” without a written job offer/contract
Money requested to a personal account
No official receipt / vague acknowledgment
Pressure tactics: “deadline today,” “slot will be given away”
Claims of special access: “We have someone inside”
Promises that bypass normal constraints: “No need experience,” “sure visa,” “medical can be fixed”

B. Medical fee red flags

Medical demanded as the first payment
Payment collected by an “agent” rather than clinic cashiering
No clinic name/address provided before payment
No official receipt / no itemization
Repeated “additional tests” without paperwork
Medical framed as a way to “reserve” or “guarantee” employment
Instructions to avoid official channels or conceal payments

11) Evidence that matters (and why victims should preserve it)

In both illegal recruitment and estafa, contemporaneous documentation is crucial. High-value evidence includes:

Screenshots of chats, texts, emails, social media messages
Proof of payment: bank transfers, e-wallet receipts, remittance slips
Receipts/acknowledgments (even handwritten)
IDs, calling cards, recruitment posters, job ads
Names, numbers, account details used to receive payments
Address of offices/meeting places
Lists of other victims or group chats showing repeated collection

A common turning point in cases is showing the promise + the payment + the lack of legitimate deployment or the unlawful nature of the fee.

12) Typical defenses and how the “fee” evidence counters them

Recruiters commonly claim:

“It was only an assistance fee”
“It was for processing”
“It was a refundable deposit”
“Victim backed out”
“Delay is normal”

Fee evidence undermines these when:

There’s no written refund policy
Receipts are vague or non-official
The collector is not authorized
Multiple victims paid identical “assurance/medical” amounts
Claims about employer/visa/flight are contradicted by reality

13) Special note: sub-agents and “referrers”

A frequent Philippine pattern is a “referrer” recruiting in provinces or online:

They may claim they are “connected” to a licensed agency.
Even if a licensed agency exists, the person collecting money may still be unauthorized, and the fee collection may still be unlawful.

“Connected” is not the same as “authorized.” In enforcement, unauthorized collection and recruitment acts by sub-agents are a common basis for action.

14) Where these schemes often appear (common scenarios)

“Pooled hiring” promises (mass recruitment with vague employer identity)
Direct-hire “assistance” claims that turn into fee extraction
“No placement fee” destinations where money is still demanded under new labels
Seafarer-related scams where placement fees are prohibited/regulated tightly, but “assurance” is used as a workaround label
Medical/psych “packages” sold as mandatory even before a real job exists

15) Bottom line legal insight

In the Philippine recruitment context, labels do not sanitize unlawful collections. Calling a payment an “assurance fee” or “medical fee” does not make it legal. What matters is:

Who collected it (licensed/authorized or not),
What it was for (allowed or prohibited),
How it was collected (receipted, transparent, within limits, properly timed),
What representations were made (truthful vs deceptive),
Whether a real, compliant recruitment process existed.

When “assurance” is sold and “medical” is monetized early or repeatedly without transparent clinic transactions, those are among the clearest practical warning signs of an illegal recruitment scheme in the Philippines.