G.R. No. 210308 - Asian International Manpower Services, Inc. vs. Department of Labor and Employment

Asian International Manpower Services, Inc. (AIMS) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to assail the Decision dated July 9, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123565.
The petition targeted the CA action that sustained the Order dated April 12, 2011 and Resolution dated December 22, 2011 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in OS-POEA-0142-1013-2008.
The DOLE rulings affirmed the administrative action arising from the POEA proceedings against AIMS for alleged recruitment-related misrepresentation.

Administrative regulatory framework invoked by the POEA and applied in the case

The 2002 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based Overseas Workers (2002 POEA Rules) authorized the POEA, on its own initiative, to file a complaint against a recruitment agency suspected of violations of its rules.
The Court recited the authority for the filing of a complaint under Rule II, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules.
The Court specifically quoted the ground for administrative sanctions under Section 2(e), Rule I, Part VI, covering acts of misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and placement of workers, including furnishing or publishing false notice, information, or document related to recruitment or employment.

On November 8, 2006, the Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch of the POEA, pursuant to Surveillance Order No. 033, Series of 2006, conducted surveillance of AIMS at 1653 Taft Avenue corner Pedro Gil Street, Malate, Manila to determine whether AIMS was operating despite the cancellation of its license on August 28, 2006.
The operatives reported that the first surveillance did not reveal the information needed, and another surveillance was recommended.
On February 20, 2007, the POEA conducted a second surveillance pursuant to Surveillance Order No. 011.
During the second surveillance, the POEA operatives observed people standing outside AIMS’ main entrance and announcements of job vacancies posted on the main glass door.
The POEA operatives posed as applicants and inquired about requirements for an executive staff position.
AIMS’ lady clerk handed them a flyer.
Through the flyer, the operatives learned that AIMS was hiring:

The operatives also saw applicants inside the office waiting to be attended to.
Using the POEA Verification System, the operatives later confirmed that AIMS had regained its license and good standing on December 6, 2006 but had no existing approved job orders at that time.
On March 26, 2007, the POEA issued a Show Cause Order directing AIMS and its covering surety, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, to submit an answer or explanation to the Surveillance Report dated November 8, 2006.
No copy of the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007 was attached to the Show Cause Order.

In compliance with the Show Cause Order, Danilo P. Pelagio, AIMS President, wrote to the POEA on April 3, 2007.
Pelagio maintained that AIMS was not liable for any recruitment misrepresentation.
He relied on the operatives’ own admission in the Surveillance Report dated November 8, 2006, asserting that during the first visit posing as applicants, AIMS staff advised the operatives that AIMS had no job vacancies for waiters and that its license had been cancelled.
Pelagio invoked that the notice issued to AIMS cancelling the license had been set aside on December 6, 2006, and that the POEA Adjudication Office circulated an advise to its operating units on the restoration of AIMS’ license.
During the hearing on May 9, 2007, AIMS’ representative Rommel Lugatiman appeared.
Lugatiman averred that AIMS had already filed its answer and moved for the resolution of the complaint.

In an Order dated June 30, 2008, the POEA Administrator Rosalinda Baldoz held AIMS liable for misrepresentation under Section 2(e), Rule I, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules.
The POEA Administrator’s ruling relied on the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007 of the POEA operatives.
The POEA Administrator found that POEA records showed AIMS had no job orders to hire hotel workers for Macau, nor grape pickers for California, as the flyer allegedly advertised.
The POEA imposed the penalty of suspension of AIMS’ license for four (4) months, or a fine in lieu of suspension of PHP 40,000.00.

AIMS filed a motion for reconsideration before the DOLE.
AIMS alleged that due process was violated because the POEA did not furnish it with a copy of the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007, which served as the basis for the POEA Administrator’s factual findings.
In an Order dated April 12, 2011, the DOLE affirmed the POEA order and held that due process was observed.
The DOLE cited:

AIMS’ letter-answer to the POEA Show Cause Order dated April 3, 2007, which denied POEA’s charge of misrepresentation, and
the hearing held on May 9, 2007, where Lugatiman appeared and moved that the case be submitted for resolution rather than availing o...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether AIMS was denied due process when POEA and DOLE relied on the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007 without furnishing AIMS a copy

Whether the failure to provide AIMS with the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007 violated the constitutional and procedural requirements of due process in administrative proceedings.

Whether AIMS’ liability for misrepresentation was supported by substantial evidence

Whether, in the absence of the furnishing of the February 21, 2007 report and in view of the evidence issues raised by AIMS, there was substantial evidence to support the POEA and DOLE findings of misrepresentation.

Whether AIMS’ advertising activity could be treated as permissible under the POEA rules on advertisements for overseas jobs/manpower pooling

(Subscriber-Only)