Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Manalo Vs Roldan-Confesor
Manalo Vs Roldan-Confesor
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
The Court views with grave concern the alarming incidents of illegal recruitment which demonstrate all too
clearly that overseas employment has fast developed into a major source not only of much-needed foreign
exchanged but also, for the cunning and the crafty, of easy money.
In response to a newspaper advertisement looking for a couple to work as driver and tutor cum baby sitter,
petitioners Vicente and Gloria Manalo went to Career Planners Specialists International, Inc. (CPSI), a
licensed service contracting firm owned by private respondents, the spouses Victor and Elnora Fernandez.
After the requisite interview and testing, they were hired to work for a family in Saudi Arabia for a monthly
salary of US$350.00 each. According to petitioners, a placement fee of P40,000.00 was imposed as a
precondition for the processing of their papers. They paid only P30,000.00 in cash and executed a
promissory note for the balance. Then they were allowed by respondent Elnora Fernandez to sign their
contract papers but did not issue a receipt for the placement fee despite demand.
Shortly before boarding their flight to Saudi Arabia, petitioners were handed their contracts. According to
Gloria, she was surprised to discover that her position had been changed to that of domestic help. However,
a CPSI employee assured her that the change was only for the purpose of facilitating her departure and did
not in any way alter her employment as tutor. Incidentally, CPSI provided petitioners with the Travel Exit
Pass (TEP) of Filipino Manpower Services, Inc. (FILMAN), a duly licensed recruitment agency.
Contrary to the representation of her recruiter, Gloria was actually hired as a domestic help and not as a
tutor, so that after working for only twenty-five (25) days in Jeddah, she returned to Manila. Soon after,
Vicente also resigned from his work and followed her home. He could not stand the unbearable working
conditions of his employment. However, before leaving, he had to execute a promissory note to cover his
plane fare which respondent Victor Fernandez advanced. Vicente also had to sign a quitclaim in favor of
CPSI and his employer.
On 29 February 1988, petitioners sued private respondents before the Philippines Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) charging them with illegal exaction, 1 false adverstisement, 2 and violation of other
pertinents laws, rules and regulations. They demanded the refund of the amount exacted from them, plus
payment of moral damages and the imposition of administrative sanctions. 3
Private respondents countered: (1) that Gloria applied as domestic help fully aware that she could not be a
tutor since she did not speak Arabic; (2) that the promissory note for P10,000.00 was required of petitioners
because they were hired without paying placement fees; (3) that it was unlikely for petitioners, who were
mature, educated and experienced in overseas work, to part with P30,000.00 without securing a receipt; (4)
that Vicente executed a quitclaim in favor of CPSI duly authenticated by embassy officials in Saudi Arabia;
(5) that there was no impropriety in having the employment papers of petitioners processed by FILMAN
because it was a sister company of CPSI, and private respondents Victor and Elnora were officers in both
agencies.
Private respondents prayed for the disqualification of petitioners from overseas employment, and sought to
recover from them the SR 1,150 plane fare advanced by Victor for Vicente, P10,000.00 as placement fee
evidenced by a promissory note, and attorney's fees.
Mainly, on the basis of the transcripts of petitioners' testimonies in the clarificatory questioning before the
Rizal Provincial Prosecutor in a related criminal case, 4 the POEA issued its Order of 7 May 1990 giving more
weight and credence to petitioners' version thus
After a careful evaluation of the facts and the evidence presented, we are more inclined to
give weight to complainants' posture. Complainants' version of the case spontaneously
presented in their pleadings is, to our mind, more convincing than respondent's stand.
Moreover, the manner by which complainants narrated the whole incident inspired belief in
the allegation that respondent Career is indeed guilty of illegal exaction. Thus, the actual
expenses incurred by herein complainants computed hereinbelow less the allowable fees of
P3,000.00 (P1,500.00 per worker, respondent being a service contractor) should be returned
to them.
Actual Expenses
P30,000.00 placement fees
14.00 application form
300.00 psychological test
1,400.00 medical exam
P31,000.00 total
less 3,000.00 processing fees at
P1,500.00 per applicant
P28,714.00 amount to be refunded
It appearing, however, that only respondent Career Planners Specialist(s) Int'l. Inc., took part
in the collection of the aforesaid amount, the same should be solely held liable.
We cannot likewise give credence to the Final Quitclaim signed by complainant Vicente
Manalo before he left for the Philippines and presented by respondent as defense. While its
genuineness may not be in question, we believe that it has no bearing on the issue at bar.
The aforesaid Quitclaim deals more with matters concerning complainants' employment
abroad. However, the subject of the instant claim is the refund of complainants'
expenses prior to their deployment to Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand, we hold FILMAN liable for allowing its document such as the TEP to be
used by other agency. Respondent's defense that there is nothing wrong in this because
FILMAN is a sister company of CAREER does not merit consideration because such practice
is not allowed under the POEA Rules and Regulations. A check with our records, however,
showed that respondent FILMAN had been put in the list of forever banned agencies
effective April 5, 1989.
Anent the claim for moral damages, this Office has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
WHEREFORE, . . . the Authority of Career Planners Specialist(s) International is hereby
suspended for four (4) months or in lieu thereof, a fine of P40,000.00 is hereby imposed for
illegal exaction on two counts plus restitution of the amount of P28,714.00 to herein
complainants in both instances.
Filipino Manpower Services, Inc. is hereby meted a fine of P40,000.00 for two counts of
misrepresentation. Its perpetual disqualification from recruitment activities is hereby
reiterated.
The claim for moral damages is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent Career's counterclaim is likewise dismissed or lack of merit.
Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration and on 4 February 1991, POEA issued a resolution
setting arise its earlier order stating that
It is worth mentioning at this point that our sole basis for holding respondent Career liable for
illegal exaction was the uncorroborated testimony of the complainants.
As we have consistently held, (the) charge of illegal exaction is a serious charge which may
cause the suspension or cancellation of the authority or license of the offending agency.
Hence, it should be proven and substantiated by a clear and convincing evidence. Mere
allegation of complainant that the agency charged more than the authorized fee will not
suffice to indict the agency for illegal exaction unless the allegation is supported by other
corroborative circumstantial evidence.
Thus, for lack of concrete evidence or proof to support our initial findings, we are inclined to
reconsider the penalty imposed upon respondent.
Foregoing premises, the penalty of suspension imposed upon respondent Career Planners
Specialist(s) International, Inc. pursuant to our Order dated May 7, 1990 is hereby LIFTED.
Accordingly, the alternative fine of P40,000.00 which was paid under protest by respondent
is hereby ordered refunded to them. 6
Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Labor. On 5 July 1991, then Undersecretary of Labor Ma. Nieves
Roldan-Confesor (now Secretary of Labor) sustained the reconsideration of POEA. Her Order reads in part
7, 1990 was the uncorroborated testimony of the complainants. There was no concrete
evidence or proof to support the POEA Administrator's initial findings.
We take this opportunity to inform the complainants that the charge of illegal exaction is a
serious charge which may cause the suspension or cancellation of the authority or license of
a recruitment agency. Therefore, said charge must be proven and substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence. A mere allegation will not suffice to find an agency liable for illegal
exaction unless said allegation is supported by other corroborative circumstantial evidence.
In this connection, records show that complainants could not narrate the specific
circumstances surrounding their alleged payment of the amount of P30,000.00. They could
not even remember the specific date when said amount was paid to respondent agency. In
addition, when complainants were separately questioned as to how the money was kept
bundled together prior to being handed to respondent agency for payment, Gloria Manalo
said it was wrapped in a piece of paper while Vicente Manalo said it was placed inside an
envelope. 7
On the charge of petitioners that they were given jobs (driver/domestic help) different from those advertised
by private respondents, the Undersecretary ruled that there was no misrepresentation by way of false
advertisement because it was established that private respondents also caused to be printed in the same
newspaper page a second box looking for a couple driver/domestic help.
In her Order of 9 October 1991, then Undersecretary Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor denied petitioners'
motion for reconsideration. 8
In the present recourse, petitioners claim that public respondent POEA committed a fatal jurisdictional error
when it resolved private respondents' motion for reconsideration in violation of Rule V, Book VI of the 1985
POEA Rules and Regulations directing the transmittal of motions for reconsideration to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) for determination. Consequently, for want of legal competence to act on said
motion, the Order of 4 February 1991, as well as the subsequent orders of public respondent
Undersecretary of Labor dated 5 July 1991 and 9 October 1991, is null and void.
In Aguinaldo Industries Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 9 We ruled
To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and
challenge the position he had accepted at the administrative level, would be to sanction a
procedure whereby the court which is supposed to review administrative determinations
would not review, but determine and decide for the first time, a question not raised at the
administrative forum. This cannot be permitted, for the same reason that underlies the
requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies to give administrative authorities
the prior opportunity to decide controversies within its competence, and in much the same
way that, on the judicial level, issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal.
The alleged procedural lapse by respondent POEA was raised by petitioners only before Us,
notwithstanding that such ground was already existing when they appealed to the Secretary of Labor.
Ironically, petitioners now question the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor over the appeal which they
themselves elevated to that office. When petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration with the
Undersecretary of Labor, this procedural issue was not even mentioned. Clearly, it would be the height of
unfairness and inequity if We now allow petitioners to backtrack after getting an unfavorable verdict from
public respondents whose authority they themselves involved. In Tijam v.Sibonghanoy 10 We said: ". . . we
frown upon the "undesirable practice" of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment,
only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse . . . ."
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.