ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 179792 : March 5, 2010 LNS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, Petitioner, v. ARMANDO C. PADUA, JR., Respondent. D E C I S I O N DEL CASTILLO, J.: Bare and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute substantial evidence and have no probative value.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary This petition for review on certiorari Factual Antecedents On January 6, 2003, respondent Armando C. Padua, Jr. (Padua) filed a Sworn Statement Section 2. Grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions: x x x x b. Charging or accepting directly or indirectly any amount greater than that of specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary, or making a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance; x x x x d. Collecting any fee from a worker without issuing the appropriate receipt clearly showing the amount paid and the purpose for which payment was made; e. Engaging in act/s of misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and placement of workers, such as furnishing or publishing any false notice, information or document in relation to recruitment or employment; x x x x Padua alleged that on July 12, 2002, he applied as auto electrician with petitioner LNS and was assured of a job in Saudi Arabia. He paid LNS the amounts of Padua further alleged that it was another agency, Sharikat, which processed his papers and eventually deployed him on September 29, 2002 to Saudi Arabia. However, he returned to the Philippines on December 23, 2002 because he was not allegedly paid his salaries and also because of violations in the terms and conditions of his employment contract. LNS and Sharikat filed their respective Answers.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In its Verified Answer, LNS alleged that it did not know that Padua applied with Sharikat or that he was eventually deployed by the latter to Saudi Arabia. LNS denied that it endorsed Paduas application papers to Sharikat. LNS claimed that after Padua withdrew his documents, it no longer had any knowledge whether he applied with another employment agency. LNS insisted that the contract of employment submitted by Padua to the POEA clearly indicated that the same was only between him and Sharikat and not LNS.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Thus, LNS claimed that it could not be held liable for non-issuance of receipt or misrepresentation.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary For its part, Sharikat admitted that it processed Paduas papers for employment in Saudi Arabia. In his Reply to Answer of LNS, Ruling of POEA On April 28, 2004, the POEA issued its Order finding LNS liable for non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation. As to Sharikat, the POEA found no sufficient evidence to hold it liable for the violations charged. The dispositive portion of the said Order reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, We find and so hold respondent LNS International liable for violation of Section 2(d) Rule 1, part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations and the penalty of Four (4) months suspension or fine of P40,000.00 is hereby imposed, being its first offense and for violation of Section 2(e) Rule 1, part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations, the penalty of Eight (8) months suspension or fine of P80,000.00 is hereby imposed, being its second offense.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The charges against SHARIKAT AL SAIDI INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED. Ruling of the Secretary of DOLE Only LNS filed its Appeal Memorandum with the DOLE. On December 16, 2004, the DOLE dismissed the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the ruling of the POEA. The decretal portion of the Order reads: WHEREFORE, the Appeal, herein treated as Petition for Review, filed by L.N.S. International Manpower Services is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Order dated April 28, 2004 of the POEA Administrator, finding petitioner liable for violation of Section 2 (d) and (e), Rule I, Part VI of the POEA Rules and Regulations, and imposing upon it the penalty of suspension of license for a period of twelve (12) months or, in lieu thereof, the payment of fine in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos ( SO ORDERED. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated May 12, 2005. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed in its November 30, 2006 Decision. The CA opined that the affirmative assertion of respondent that he paid petitioner a placement fee is entitled to great weight than the bare denials of petitioner; and, that respondent was made to believe that petitioner would be solely responsible for the processing of his employment abroad.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated September 12, 2007. Issue The lone issue in this petition for review on certiorari is whether petitioner is liable for non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioner contends that the CA gravely abused its discretion in giving credence to respondents claims which were all anchored on bare allegations. According to petitioner, the CA erred in ruling that its defense is purely denial since the same was corroborated by a document indubitably showing respondents withdrawal of his application for overseas employment. Considering such withdrawal, petitioner is naturally not bound to issue any receipt and could not as well be responsible for the recruitment of respondent. Petitioner likewise asserts that it never asked or received any payment from the respondent. Our Ruling We grant the petition.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As a general rule, factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality. The self-serving and unsubstantiated allegations of respondent cannot defeat the concrete evidence submitted by petitioner. We note that respondent did not deny the due execution of the withdrawal form as well as the genuineness of his signature and thumb mark affixed therein. On the contrary, he admitted signing the same. When he voluntarily signed the document, respondent is bound by the terms stipulated therein. We are not persuaded by respondents contention that he signed the withdrawal form upon representations by LNS that it would endorse his papers to Sharikat. This really makes no sense at all. Why would LNS allow Padua to withdraw his application papers, and even go through the process of making him execute a withdrawal form, if its ultimate intention is to endorse the said papers to Sharikat? If respondents allegation is to be believed, why then would LNS relinquish its possession over said documents if it will refer them anyway to Sharikat? Moreover, we are inclined to give more evidentiary weight to the allegation of petitioner that it did not receive any amount from the respondent. This conclusion is more logical considering that it has been duly established that respondent had withdrawn all his documents from LNS. Having withdrawn said documents, there is no more reason for him to pay any fees to LNS. In his Sworn Statement filed before the POEA, respondent alleged that he paid the There is likewise no basis for the POEA, DOLE, and the CAs conclusion that it was petitioner that endorsed respondents documents to Sharikat. Other than respondents self-serving claim, there is no proof whatsoever that petitioner endorsed respondents application papers to Sharikat. Bare allegations which are not supported by any evidence, documentary or otherwise, sufficient to support a claim, fall short to satisfy the degree of proof needed. No evidence whatsoever was adduced that LNS was acting as a conduit of Sharikat. Likewise, there is no evidence, other than respondents unsubstantiated claim, that petitioner endorsed his application to Sharikat. On the contrary, this was belied by the withdrawal letter the existence of which was not even denied by the respondent. In fact, he admitted its due execution and his signature which appeared thereon. There is also no denying that respondent was deployed to Saudi Arabia. In fact, Sharikat admitted in its Answer that it was the one responsible for respondents deployment to Saudi Arabia. From the foregoing, it is more logical that it was Sharikat to whom respondent eventually paid the corresponding fees. However, for failure to interpose any appeal from the judgment of the POEA insofar as it absolved Sharikat, respondent is thereby bound by it and is considered final as to him. In fine, for failure to adduce any shred of evidence of payment made to petitioner, or that petitioner referred or endorsed respondent for employment abroad to another agency, the charges of non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation against petitioner could not possibly prosper. By the voluntary withdrawal of respondents application from petitioner, the latter could not have been involved in the recruitment and placement of respondent and consequently could not be held liable for any violation.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90526 dated November 30, 2006, and its Resolution dated September 12, 2007, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint against petitioner LNS International Manpower Services is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the amounts of SO ORDERED. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
JOSE P. PEREZ A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|