Alindao vs Joson : 114132 : November 14, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Third D...

1 of 7



[G.R. No. 114132. November 14, 1996]

FE M. ALINDAO, petitioner, vs. HON. FELICISIMO O. JOSON, in his capacity
as the Administrator, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration;

In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
petitioner Fe M. Alindao seeks to set aside the 10 February 1994 Order of respondent Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Administrator Felicisimo O. Joson in POEA Case
No. (L) 89-08-703, which reversed the 28 November 1990 Order, for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion.
The material facts leading to the instant petition are not disputed.
Petitioner applied, was interviewed and qualified for employment in Saudi Arabia as a
laboratory aide, for a term of one year and with a monthly salary of US$370.00, through private
respondent Hisham General Services Contractor (hereinafter Hisham).
She paid Hisham
P15,000.00 as a placement fee, but no receipt was issued. She did not insist on a receipt as she
saw her name written in a logbook to record the transaction and Hisham assured her of
employment by presenting her passport already stamped with a visa and her plane ticket.
Petitioner left for Saudi Arabia on 9 March 1988. Upon arrival, she was met by a
representative of her employer, the Dahem Clinic. She was told she would stay at Alcobar until
Two weeks later, the petitioners employer brought her to his residence and was made to
work as a domestic helper. Her employer did not treat her well and paid her only 660 Saudi
riyals. The unfair working conditions prompted the petitioner to ask that she be sent home, but
she was merely returned to Alcobar. She worked for only a month and six days. From there, she
worked at several residences until she saved enough money to return home.
She arrived in the Philippines on 7 July 1989, and filed with the POEA a complaint against
Hisham for breach of contract, violation of the terms and conditions of its authority as a service
contractor, and violation of the following provisions of the Labor Code: Article 32 (requiring
issuances of receipts for fees paid), Article 34 (a) (prohibiting one from charging an amount
greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees), and Article 34(b) (prohibiting one
from furnishing false information in relation to recruitment or employment [misrepresentation]).
The case was docketed as POEA Case No. (L) 89-08-703.
A request for verification revealed that Hishams license as a service contractor was to expire
on 7 March 1991.
After appropriate proceedings, POEA Administrator Jose N. Sarmiento handed down on 28

1/20/2016 2:10 PM

Select target paragraph3