4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly ATTY. MONTERO (to witness): Q: A: Now what was the reply of Harmony Electronics Company when you questioned them about the use of your company? They wrote back to me and they told me that "never mind, we only need Cenon To-ong and Domingo Tersenio." But I told them that I am not in the position to employ these people because I am not a licensed agency for that matter and they said that "I would just send you an authority and show this to the pertaining government agency who could at least send these two people." Q: A: So what did you do after that? I told them to send me something if I can do the way out of it, I will ask anybody from my colleagues to do the hiring of these people. Q: Did you ask anybody from your colleagues to do the hiring of these two? I did but Alcamojar was not also licensed. A: Q: A: So what happened after that? I told Cenon because Cenon is much better to understand that, he looked for one company who could just or whom I can transfer the authority that the Harmony Electronics would be sending me, so I will just transfer the authority to any agency who could send them back to Taiwan.[27] Appellant cannot now claim that she was a genuine holder of authority from the Secretary of Labor and Employment to recruit factory workers for Harmony Electronics Company based in Taiwan. As to her claim of denial of the constitutional right to compulsory process, we find the same to be without merit. The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions expanded the right to compulsory process which now includes the right to secure the production of evidence in one's behalf.[28] By analogy, U.S. vs. Ramirez[29] which laid down the requisites for compelling the attendance of witnesses, may be applied to this expanded concept. Thus, the movant must show: (a) that the evidence is really material; (b) that he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining the production of such evidence; (c) that the evidence will be available at the time desired; and (d) that no similar evidence could be obtained. In the case at bar, the trial court correctly denied appellant's motion for the production of the records which were the basis in issuing the POEA Certification dated February 3, 1994,[30] as the same would not in any way alter the undisputed fact that appellant was not issued a license until then.[31] WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the appealed decision in toto, with costs against https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51175 9/11