Short answer. Yes. Article 131 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period on any public officer or employee who hinders any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings. Stopping someone from joining a lawful association is squarely one of the acts this article punishes.
What the law says
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
Revised Penal Code, Article 131 — Prohibiting, Interrupting Or Dissolving A Peaceful Meeting. Read the full provision →
What the law says
without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same
Revised Penal Code, Article 131 — Prohibiting, Interrupting Or Dissolving A Peaceful Meeting. Read the full provision →
What the law says
shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
Revised Penal Code, Article 131 — Prohibiting, Interrupting Or Dissolving A Peaceful Meeting. Read the full provision →
The offense that answers your question
Article 131 of the Revised Penal Code addresses this directly, as a separate offense from prohibiting a meeting: "The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings." A public officer or employee who hinders someone from joining a lawful association faces the same penalty the article sets for interfering with a peaceful meeting.
The other conduct the same article punishes
Article 131 groups three distinct acts together under the same penalty. It also reaches a public officer or employee who, "without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same," and one who "shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances." All three are treated as equally serious under this article.
A textual detail worth noticing
The first sentence conditions liability on the officer acting "without legal ground." The second sentence, covering hindering someone from joining a lawful association, does not repeat that phrase in its own text — it simply says the same penalty applies to a public officer or employee who hinders such joining or attendance. Whether that omission changes anything about how the offense is proven is a question the article's own wording does not spell out one way or the other.
What this means for you
Applied to your question, yes — a public officer or employee can be held criminally liable under Article 131 for hindering someone from joining a lawful association or from attending its meetings, and that liability does not depend on any separate prohibition, interruption, or dissolution of a meeting having also occurred. It is its own, distinct act the article punishes, carrying the same penalty as the other conduct the article lists.