4/1/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
659 Phil. 236
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 179242, February 23, 2011 ]
AVELINA F. SAGUN, PETITIONER, VS. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking
to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated March 23, 2007
and Resolution[2] dated August 16, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 89298.
The case arose from a complaint for alleged violation of Article 32 and Article 34(a) and
(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, filed by petitioner Avelina F. Sagun against
respondent Sunace International Management Services, Inc. and the latter's surety,
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, before the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA). The case was docketed as POEA Case No. RV 00-03-0261.[3]
Petitioner claimed that sometime in August 1998, she applied with respondent for the
position of caretaker in Taiwan. In consideration of her placement and employment,
petitioner allegedly paid P30,000.00 cash, P10,000.00 in the form of a promissory note,
and NT$60,000.00 through salary deduction, in violation of the prohibition on excessive
placement fees. She also claimed that respondent promised to employ her as caretaker
but, at the job site, she worked as a domestic helper and, at the same time, in a
poultry farm.[4]
Respondent, however, denied petitioner's allegations and maintained that it only
collected P20,840.00, the amount authorized by the POEA and for which the
corresponding official receipt was issued. It also stressed that it did not furnish or
publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or
employment as it was duly received, passed upon, and approved by the POEA.[5]
On December 27, 2001, POEA Administrator Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz dismissed[6]
the complaint for lack of merit. Specifically, the POEA Administrator found that
petitioner failed to establish facts showing a violation of Article 32, since it was proven
that the amount received by respondent as placement fee was covered by an official
receipt; or of Article 34(a) as it was not shown that respondent charged excessive fees;
and of Article 34(b) simply because respondent processed petitioner's papers as
caretaker, the position she applied and was hired for.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[7] with the Office of the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34161
1/6