Alindao vs Joson : 114132 : November 14, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Third D...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/114132.htm
On 10 February 1994, respondent POEA Administrator Felicisimo O. Joson issued the Order
subject of this petition, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:
Complainant failed to establish or even show the details of how, when, and where and to whom
she paid the amount of P15,000.00. [W]e subscribe to the Jurisprudence on this matter that mere
general allegations of payment of excessive placement fees cannot be given merit as the charge of
illegal exaction is considered a grave offense which could cause the suspension or cancellation of
the agencys license and should be proven and substantiated by clear, credible and competent
evidence which is not obtaining in the case at bar.
We likewise find unmeritorious the charge of misrepresentation under Article 34 (b) of the Labor
Code, as amended. We understand that complainant worked beyond the term of her employment
contract which was sixteen (16) months while she was hired for twelve (12) months. We find it
improbable that if there was really a violation of the contract, complainant could not have waited
for the expiration of said contract much more extended her stay with her employer. Complainants
allegations are contrary to the normal reaction of a person who was aggrieved. Taking into
consideration her applied position as a laboratory aide which calls for a higher educational
qualification than a domestic helper, she could have well asserted her rights and availed of the
remedy if not immediately but within a reasonable length of time.
We noted that the alleged change of complainants position was without the knowledge and
consent of respondent agency. It was shown that respondent never knew or learned that
complainant had a complaint not until after the filing of the instant case. Based from the
foregoing circumstances respondents liability is limited if there is substantial evidence that it has
committed representation in the processing of complainant which is not obtaining in this case.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, we find the Motion for Reconsideration
meritorious and this case is hereby ordered dismissed.
[17]
Respondent Joson took cognizance of Hishams Motion for Reconsideration of the 28
November 1990 Order because it was filed prior to the effectivity of the 1991 POEA Rules and
Regulations; hence, it was governed by the 198[5] POEA Rules and Regulations.
On 16 March 1994, the petitioner filed this petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus,
with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, Damages, and
Disbarment with this Court. In the main, the petitioner asserts most strongly that the 28
November 1990 Decision had become final and executory, thus respondent Josons 10 February
1994 Order which had the effect of modifying the said decision, was issued with grave abuse of
discretion. She maintains that respondent Joson should have applied the 1991 POEA Rules and
Regulations, for, being rules of procedure, they may be applied retroactively. She further
contends that Hishams appeal of the money claims case carried with it the appeal of the
recruitment case, as the POEA could not have disposed of one without disposing of the other;
[18]
moreover, citing Nual vs. Court of Appeals,
a final and executory judgment may not be
modified even if the modification was meant to correct what was perceived to be erroneous
conclusions of fact. As to the propriety of this petition, despite the absence of a motion for
reconsideration, the petitioner alleges inadequacy of an appeal or a motion for reconsideration,
and the patent nullity of the 10 February 1994 Order. She concludes with a prayer for the
reversal of the questioned order, immediate execution of the 28 November 1990 Decision, an
award of P100,00.00 as exemplary damages, and the disbarment of respondent Joson for
[19]
professional misconduct.
On 28 July 1994, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment contending that the 28
November 1990 Order imposing administrative disciplinary sanctions for violations not arising
from an employer-employee relationship was immediately executory and inappealable pursuant
3 of 7
1/20/2016 2:10 PM