POEA cancels repeat-offender recruitment agency’s license
A recruitment agency had its license canceled by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration over its alleged repeated submission of forged documents.
Crystal Fallah-Ville International Manpower Services incurred such a penalty after it had three or more misrepresentation offenses, the POEA said.
POEA administrator Hans Leo Cacdac rejected the firm's claim that the infractions were an honest mistake and that it acted in good faith.
“Honest mistake, oversight or even good faith, assuming they are true, cannot be considered as an exculpating defense. Such explanation or admission does not change the fact that the recruiter deceived both the government and OFWs, and violated the POEA rule on misrepresentation,” he said.
He added the recruitment agency has the responsibility to ensure the authenticity and validity of documents submitted to the POEA.
The POEA said one case was filed motu propio against the agency after documents it submitted for processing - including a visa for a teacher - was found altered.
An investigation showed the visa was originally issued to another sponsor for a servant or household service worker.
But the agency denied involvement in the tampered visa, adding its submission of the visa, which it said was personally acquired by the applicant, was an "innocent mistake."
A second case of misrepresentation involved Crystal Fallah-Ville submitting a forged request or endorsement for processing of employment documents to the POEA.
One signature in the document turned out to be falsified, but the firm's liaison officer claimed he did not know about it, and that he delivered the document to the POEA in good faith.
The third case involved an Arabic visa submitted to the POEA for processing together with documents of a dressmaker bound for Saudi Arabia.
But the POEA's official translator of Arabic visas found the skill category was not for a dressmaker but a domestic helper.
The agency representative claimed this was a clerical error and an honest mistake, and submitted a dressmaker visa, which the agency claimed was the true position of the worker.
A scrutiny of the two visas showed they had the same entries such as dates, validity and visa number. — Joel Locsin/LBG, GMA News
Crystal Fallah-Ville International Manpower Services incurred such a penalty after it had three or more misrepresentation offenses, the POEA said.
POEA administrator Hans Leo Cacdac rejected the firm's claim that the infractions were an honest mistake and that it acted in good faith.
“Honest mistake, oversight or even good faith, assuming they are true, cannot be considered as an exculpating defense. Such explanation or admission does not change the fact that the recruiter deceived both the government and OFWs, and violated the POEA rule on misrepresentation,” he said.
He added the recruitment agency has the responsibility to ensure the authenticity and validity of documents submitted to the POEA.
The POEA said one case was filed motu propio against the agency after documents it submitted for processing - including a visa for a teacher - was found altered.
An investigation showed the visa was originally issued to another sponsor for a servant or household service worker.
But the agency denied involvement in the tampered visa, adding its submission of the visa, which it said was personally acquired by the applicant, was an "innocent mistake."
A second case of misrepresentation involved Crystal Fallah-Ville submitting a forged request or endorsement for processing of employment documents to the POEA.
One signature in the document turned out to be falsified, but the firm's liaison officer claimed he did not know about it, and that he delivered the document to the POEA in good faith.
The third case involved an Arabic visa submitted to the POEA for processing together with documents of a dressmaker bound for Saudi Arabia.
But the POEA's official translator of Arabic visas found the skill category was not for a dressmaker but a domestic helper.
The agency representative claimed this was a clerical error and an honest mistake, and submitted a dressmaker visa, which the agency claimed was the true position of the worker.
A scrutiny of the two visas showed they had the same entries such as dates, validity and visa number. — Joel Locsin/LBG, GMA News
Comments