Short answer. No. Article 117 makes it unlawful to deduct any amount from an employee's wages for the benefit of the employer, a representative, or an intermediary, as consideration of a promise of employment or retention in employment. Paying to get or keep a job is exactly the arrangement this article prohibits.
What the law says
Deduction to ensure employment. It shall be unlawful to make any deduction from the wages of any employee for the benefit of the employer or his representative or intermediary as consideration of a promise of employment or retention in employment.
Labor Code, Article 117 — Deduction To Ensure Employment. Read the full provision →
What the article specifically targets
Article 117 is narrower and more specific than a general wage-protection rule: it is aimed at a particular transaction, where money is taken from an employee's wages in exchange for a promise about the job itself, either being hired in the first place or being kept on afterward. The article calls this a deduction made for the benefit of the employer or his representative or intermediary as consideration of a promise of employment or retention in employment, and it declares that unlawful outright.
It reaches representatives and intermediaries, not just the employer directly
The prohibited beneficiary of the deduction is not limited to the employer itself. The article also covers deductions made for the benefit of the employer's representative or intermediary, which matters where the demand for payment comes from a recruiter, a supervisor, or someone else positioned between the worker and the company rather than from the company's owner or officers directly. The source of the demand does not need to be the employer personally for the article to apply.
Why this is treated as a deduction, not simply an unpaid promise
Article 117 frames the prohibited conduct as a deduction from wages, meaning the article is concerned with money being taken out of what you have earned or would earn, in exchange for the employment promise. This distinguishes it from a general fraud claim about a broken promise of a job; here, the statute is specifically policing the practice of extracting payment from an employee's own wages as the price of employment or its continuation.
What the article does not itself cover
Article 117 does not describe complaint procedures, penalties, or how a worker recovers money already deducted under such an arrangement. Those questions sit outside the text quoted here. What is clear is that the underlying transaction, being asked to pay, out of your wages, for the privilege of being hired or staying employed, is not something the article treats as a legitimate condition of employment. Nor does the article distinguish between a lump-sum payment and a smaller amount deducted repeatedly over time — both fall within the deduction the article prohibits.