Short answer. It can be. Article 288 punishes any person, agent or officer of an association or corporation who forces or compels an employee, directly or indirectly, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind. It also reaches anyone who knowingly permits that compulsion by someone else.
What the law says
shall be imposed upon any person, agent or officer of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind
Revised Penal Code, Article 288 — Compulsory Purchase And Token Wages. Read the full provision →
The compulsion need not be open
Article 288 reaches any person, agent or officer of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind. The phrase directly or indirectly is the heart of it. A rule that is never announced but is enforced through consequences — shifts, assignments, standing in the workplace — is compulsion for the purposes of this article, and the absence of a written policy is not an answer to it.
Who can be liable
Three categories are named: any person, an agent, and an officer of an association or corporation. So liability is not confined to the enterprise as an abstraction; it attaches to individuals who acted. The clause on knowingly permitting extends this further, to a person who did not impose the requirement himself but was aware it was being imposed on employees under him and let it continue. That is a real extension of responsibility upward, and it means the question of who knew what is central rather than incidental in a case of this kind.
The companion rule on how wages are paid
The second paragraph of the article applies the same penalties to a person who pays wages due to a laborer or employee by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by the employee. The two paragraphs address one practice from both ends — being paid in something other than money, and being made to spend money in a particular place. The exception is narrow: it requires an express request from the employee, not acquiescence or a signature on a form presented at hiring.
What makes a complaint like this stand up
Documents that show the requirement operating. Payslips or deduction records, any memo or group message announcing the arrangement, the receipts or ledgers of the purchases themselves, and — most valuable — anything showing what happened to someone who declined. Statements from several employees carry more weight than one account, because the pattern is what demonstrates compulsion. Employment matters also raise labour claims that run on their own separate rules and timelines, so raise both with a lawyer at the same time rather than sequentially.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 288 — Compulsory Purchase And Token Wages
- Revised Penal Code, Article 286 — Grave Coercions