Despite complainant’s retraction, POEA cancels license of erring recruiter deploying HSWs to Hong Kong
Labor and Employment Secretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz yesterday said even the
retraction of a complainant and the withdrawal of a case filed against a licensed
overseas recruitment agency deploying household service (HSWs) workers to Hong
Kong did not spare it from the harsh penalty of the law which was the cancellation of the
agency's license.
Baldoz made this observation as she cited the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration on its decision last week to cancel the license of ABC Manpower
Corporation, after investigation and due process proceedings found it liable of excessive
charging of fees and other malpractices, in violation of Section 2 par. (b), and
subparagraphs (d), and (e) of Rule I, Part VI of the POEA Rules and Regulations
Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based Workers.
Sec. 2 par. (b) prohibits the charging or accepting directly or indirectly any amount
greater than that specified in the schedule of prescribed allowable fees, or making a
worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance.
POEA chief Hans Leo G. Cacdac reported that for violation of Sec. 2 par. (b) of the
rules, the respondent was imposed the penalty of cancellation of license. The POEA
also ordered the company, together with surety, Country Bankers Insurance
Corporation, to refund to complainant Mary Jean Amistad the amount of P66,000
representing the placement fee she had actually paid to the agency.
"As a result of the cancellation of its license, the respondent’s officers and directors are
disqualified from engaging in the business of recruitment of workers for overseas work.
Furthermore, Cacdac said that for violation of Section 2 subparagraphs (d) and (e) also
of Rule I, Part VI of the same rules, respondent was imposed the fine of P400,000.
Amistad applied with the respondent agency sometime in July 2011 for a domestic work
in Hong Kong. She was required to pay P90,000 in placement fee, of which she initially
paid P15,000 in August, and followed by a payment of P60,000 that she secured
through a loan. No receipt was issued for all these payments.
Amistad started in her job on 3 October 2011, but came home on 25 December of the
same year. Subsequently, she filed a complaint before the POEA alleging that the
recruiter had required her to pay excessive placement fees.However, POEA said that on 9 March 2012, Amistad submitted an Affidavit of
Desistance and Retraction, voluntarily withdrawing the case in favor of the respondent,
citing “lapses in judgment” when she initiated the case. On 14 March 2012, respondent
ABC Manpower Agency, Inc. categorically denied the charges, citing that complainant
“failed to present evidence” and had “voluntarily retracted her allegations.”
Nonetheless, despite the retraction, the POEA decided to pursue the case, stating that
the retraction and withdrawal does not preclude the Administration from continuing with
the investigation, specifically citing Section 11, Rule III, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules
and Regulations, which provides, thus:
“The withdrawal of complaint/desistance shall not bar the Administration from
proceeding with the investigation of the recruitment violation/s. The Administration shall
resolve the case on the merits and impose the appropriate penalties.”
On this basis, the POEA found the respondent liable as charged.
Cacdac emphasized that the complainant was an applicant for a household service
worker position, hence, her application is covered by the Household Service Workers’
Reform Package Rules, particularly Governing Board Resolution No. 6, Series of 2006,
which prohibits the collection of placement fee from household workers, whether
collected prior to their deployment or on-site through salary deduction.”
On the charge of non-issuance of official receipt under Section 2 paragraph (d), the
POEA found respondent liable, saying this was clearly a flagrant provision of the
provision which calls for complete transparency in the recruitment process especially
those involving financial transactions.
In addition, the POEA declared respondent liable for violation of Section 2 (e) which
prohibits engaging in acts of misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and
placement of workers.
Comments