4/1/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Secretary of Labor. The Secretary treated the motion as a Petition for Review. On
January 13, 2004, then Secretary of Labor Patricia A. Sto. Tomas partially granted[8]
petitioner's motion, the pertinent portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration, herein
treated as a petition for review, is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Order dated
December 27, 2001 of the POEA Administrator is partially MODIFIED, and
SUNACE International Management Services, Inc. is held liable for collection
of excessive placement fee in violation of Article 34 (a) of the Labor Code,
as amended. The penalty of suspension of its license for two (2) months, or
in lieu thereof, the penalty of fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) is hereby imposed upon SUNACE. Further, SUNACE and its
surety, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, are ordered to refund the
petitioner the amounts of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and
NT$65,000.00, representing the excessive placement fee exacted from her.
SO ORDERED.[9]
On appeal by respondent, the Office of the President (OP) affirmed[10] the Order of the
Secretary of Labor. In resolving the case for petitioner, the OP emphasized the State's
policy on the full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized. It
also held that it was impossible for respondent to have extended a loan to petitioner
since it was not in the business of lending money. It likewise found it immaterial that
no evidence was presented to show the overcharging since the issuance of a receipt
could not be expected.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order[11] dated March 21,
2005, which prompted respondent to elevate the matter to the CA via a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
On March 23, 2007, the CA decided in favor of respondent, disposing, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED and
the decision of the Office of the President dated 07 January 2005 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE for lack of sufficient evidence. The Order of the
POEA Administrator dismissing the complaint of respondent for violation of
Article 34(a) and (b) of the Labor Code is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The appellate court reversed the rulings of the Secretary of Labor and the OP mainly
because their conclusions were based not on evidence but on speculation, conjecture,
possibilities, and probabilities.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34161
2/6