5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly withdrawn, no evidence on [record] appear to support it. The same holds true with appellants[’] claim that respondent Nahas was no longer connected with respondent Royal Dream when complainant was deployed abroad. The fact that complainant was finally deployed thru the intercession of [respondent] Nahas with the aid of both respondent agencies, convinces us, as the Labor Arbiter ruled, that both agencies, indeed did so in recognition of the former’s authority. Suffice it to [state] therefore that We find no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the Labor Arbiter a quo, and finding the same in order, [affirm] it en toto. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal should be, as it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[15] Nahas filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] which was denied in a Resolution[17] dated June 30, 2003. Hence, the recourse to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Nahas advanced the same arguments she raised before the labor tribunals, but failed to convince the CA as in its Decision[18] dated April 29, 2005 it ruled in this wise: Private respondent Olarte unequivocally declared at the [outset] that it was Nahas who interviewed her and facilitated her application for work abroad as a domestic helper by instructing the former to sign the Contract of Employment. Nahas, in her Position Paper, her Reply to Olarte’s Position Paper and her Rejoinder, admitted to having interviewed Olarte for her application to work abroad. Though she quickly added that she did so only because Olarte applied with PETRA first and that the latter eventually withdrew the same, Nahas subsequently recanted this and instead admitted that her agency PETRA was only granted a license by the POEA on 16 July 1999 or after Olarte accomplished and filed her application form with ROYAL on 18 May 1999. In the same vein, Nahas likewise admitted being connected with ROYAL before and that she was the one who met and entertained Olarte when the latter applied with ROYAL. While Nahas claim[s] that she is neither the proprietress nor one of the officers of ROYAL at that time, her role or position with ROYAL was undeniably significant considering that she took charge [of] interviewing Olarte and eventually made her sign the Contract of Employment. Clearly, Nahas exercised discretion in determining who among the applicants of ROYAL should be accepted and deployed. It is elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56962 4/10