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

AIMS, a recruitment agency, was under surveillance by the POEA following reports of possible misrepresentation in its recruitment practices.
The surveillance was conducted pursuant to the 2002 POEA Rules which authorize the POEA to initiate a complaint against an agency when violations are suspected.

On November 8, 2006, the POEA’s Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch conducted its first surveillance of AIMS at its Malate office to determine whether it was operating without a valid license.
A follow-up surveillance on February 20, 2007, revealed that:

People were seen waiting outside the office and announcements for job vacancies were posted on the premises.
POEA operatives, posing as applicants, inquired about job vacancies and received a flyer from an AIMS employee indicating openings for hotel workers in Macau and grape pickers in California.

The POEA verified that AIMS had its license restored on December 6, 2006, but it had no approved job orders at the time the flyer was distributed.
On March 26, 2007, the POEA issued a Show Cause Order directing AIMS and its covering surety to respond to the surveillance findings.
AIMS, represented by its president and later by its representative Lugatiman during a preliminary hearing on May 9, 2007, submitted its answer denying any misrepresentation.
However, AIMS maintained that it only responded to the Surveillance Report dated November 8, 2006, since the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007 was not furnished to it.

The POEA Administrator, in an Order dated June 30, 2008, ruled AIMS liable for misrepresentation under Section 2(e) of Rule I, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules and imposed a penalty of a four-month suspension or a PHP40,000 fine.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by AIMS with the DOLE; however, the DOLE, in its Order dated April 12, 2011 and subsequent denial on December 22, 2011, affirmed the POEA’s finding.
Dissatisfied, AIMS filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 3, 2012 challenging both the substantial evidence supporting the misrepresentation charge and the violation of its right to due process.

AIMS argued that its right to due process was violated because it was not furnished with the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007, which contained the core factual allegations against it.
It also contended that the absence of the actual flyer and identification of the personnel who distributed it further compounded the lack of clear and complete notice of the charges.

The CA held that AIMS was evidently informed of the charges during the May 9, 2007 preliminary hearing where its representative appeared.
The CA ruled that despite AIMS’ claim regarding the missing Surveillance Report, the agency had been given an opportunity to be heard and answer the allegations.
Accordingly, the CA found that the misrepresentation charge was supported by what it considered substantial evidence.

Whether AIMS’ right to due process was violated when the POEA failed to furnish it with a copy of the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007.
Whether the failure to fully apprise AIMS of the factual allegations and evidence effectively denied it the opportunity to mount a complete defense.

Whether the evidence, particularly the two surveillance reports (with one missing from AIMS’ file), is adequate to sustain the imposition of administrative sanctions for misrepresentation.
Whether AIMS’ failure to rebut the allegations constitutes a valid defense given the incomplete notice of the charges.

Whether the POEA and DOLE acted within their jurisdiction and followed proper administrative procedures when they imposed sanctions on AIMS based on the available evidence.
Whether the conduct of the proceedings, including the preliminary hearing where AIMS’ representative merely moved for resolution, is consistent with the requirements of procedural fairness.