Alindao vs Joson : 114132 : November 14, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Third D...
2 of 7
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/114132.htm
November 1990 in POEA Case No. (L) 89-08-703: (a) a Decision on the petitioners money
claims; and (b) an Order pertaining to the administrative aspect (recruitment) of the case.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:
In view of the foregoing, respondent Hisham General Services Contractor is hereby ordered to
pay complainant the following:
1. US$3,120 or its peso equivalent based on the current rate of exchange representing the total
salary differentials for 12 months at US$260.00 a month.
2. P20,603.00 refund of the plane ticket.
SO ORDERED.
[4]
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Hisham General Services is hereby ordered to
refund complainant the amount of P13,500.00 representing the excess amount of her placement
fee. (as Hisham was licensed merely as a service contractor, it was authorized only to recruit
workers for its own employment abroad and to charge a maximum of P1,500.00 as
documentation expenses.
Further, respondent is hereby ordered suspended for two (2) months or pay a penalty fine of
P20,000.00 for illegal exaction, and an additional penalty of suspension for two (2) months or
fine of P20,000.00 for misrepresentation.
It is understood that the penalty of suspension shall be cumulatively served.
SO ORDERED.
[5]
On 27 December 1990, Hisham appealed the Decision to the National Labor Relations
[6]
Commission (NLRC),
which docketed the appeal as NLRC NCR CA 00150291, and filed a
[7]
motion for reconsideration of the Order with the POEA.
[8]
In its resolution of 30 July 1992,
the NLRC affirmed in toto the challenged Decision.
[9]
Hishams motion to reconsider the NLRC resolution was denied by the NLRC in its resolution of
[10]
17 February 1993.
The NLRC resolution became final and executory on 4 April 1993 and the
[11]
corresponding entry of judgment was made on 18 May 1993.
On 22 April 1993, the petitioner filed with the POEA a motion for execution of the Decision on
[12]
the money claims,
which Hisham opposed on 29 April 1993 on the ground that Dahem Clinic
[13]
was already accredited with another agency.
On 10 September 1993, the POEA granted the
[14]
[15]
petitioners motion
and on 7 October 1993, it issued a writ of execution
which was,
however, for execution of both the Decision on the money claims and the Order in the
administrative aspect of the case.
On 14 October 1993, Hisham then filed a motion for clarification and/or modification of the
writ of execution, asserting that the Order in the administrative case could not be enforced as the
motion for reconsideration of the Order was still pending with the POEA and remained
[16]
unresolved.
1/20/2016 2:10 PM