Short answer. A licence covers an agency that charges fees; an authority covers a recruitment entity that charges none. Both are documents issued by the Department of Labor under Article 13, and which one applies turns on one question: does any fee come, directly or indirectly, from the workers or the employers?
What the law says
"License" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency.
Labor Code, Article 13 — Key Recruitment Terms Defined. Read the full provision →
What the law says
"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.
Labor Code, Article 13 — Key Recruitment Terms Defined. Read the full provision →
The two definitions side by side
The Code defines both in the same list. A "License" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency. An "Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. Structurally they are the same thing: a document, from the same department, permitting recruitment. What differs is the kind of operator each one permits, and that is settled by the two definitions those phrases point back to.
The fee is the dividing line
A private fee-charging employment agency is defined as one engaged in recruitment and placement for a fee charged, directly or indirectly, from the workers or employers or both. A private recruitment entity is defined as one doing the same work without charging any such fee. So the whole distinction rests on money. If anything is collected from either side of the placement, the operator is an agency and needs a licence. If genuinely nothing is collected from either side, the operator is a recruitment entity and needs an authority. Neither is a lighter version of the other.
"Directly or indirectly" is the phrase to watch
Both fee definitions say directly or indirectly, and that wording is what stops the distinction from being a matter of labelling. A charge collected by an affiliated training arm, a payment described as covering documents or medical work, an amount deducted from wages once the worker is placed — all of these can be a fee reaching the operator by an indirect route. Whether a given payment does so is a question of fact about where the money ends up, not about what the receipt calls it. Structuring a charge around the word does not by itself avoid the definition.
What to ask before you deal with a recruiter
Because both are documents, both can be shown to you. Ask which one the person holds, in whose name it was issued, and what it covers — local placement, overseas placement, or both. Then compare it with what you are being asked to pay: someone presenting an authority while collecting money from you is describing themselves in one category and behaving as if in the other, and that mismatch is worth pausing on. Keep a photograph of the document and of every receipt. Those two things settle most later arguments about what you were told.