Case Digest (G.R. No. 109583)
Facts:
Trans Action Overseas Corporation, G.R. No. 109583, September 05, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenged the Secretary of Labor and Employment's authority to cancel the license of a private fee-charging employment agency.From July 24 to September 9, 1987, petitioner Trans Action Overseas Corporation conducted recruitment in Iloilo City for alleged jobs in Hong Kong. Private respondents (individual applicants) applied through petitioner's local representatives — Luzviminda Aragon and the spouses Ben Hur and Cecille Domincil — and paid placement fees ranging from P1,000 to P14,000. The petitioner failed to deploy the applicants and refused refund demands, prompting the aggrieved applicants to file complaints for violations of Article 32 and Article 34(a) of the Labor Code, as amended.
Investigations revealed conflicting accounts about fee collection: POEA Regional Extension Unit Coordinator Edgar Somes testified that some applicants insisted on paying fees and that petitioner’s representative Honorata Manliclic left presigned receipts with Aragon; Manliclic denied this and claimed Somes instructed that receipts be left behind. Petitioner denied authorizing those collectors and maintained it warned applicants not to pay unauthorized persons.
On April 5, 1991, then Labor Undersecretary Nieves R. Confesor issued an order finding petitioner liable on multiple counts, awarding specified money claims to many complainants, imposing suspension penalties aggregating sixty-six months, and ordering the license of Trans Action Overseas Corporation cancelled effective immediately. Petitioner moved for temporary lifting of the cancellation and offered to post a bond; Undersecretary Confesor provisionally lifted the cancellation pending reconsideration. On May 6, 1991 petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on January 30, 1992, reinstating the April 5, 1991 cancellation order.
Petitioner then brought the "instant petition" to the Supreme Court seeking relief on two principal grounds: (1) that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) has exclusive and original jurisdiction over illegal recruitment and license cancellation, precluding the Secretary of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary of Labor and Employment have jurisdiction to suspend or cancel petitioner’s license to recruit for overseas employment?
- Was the April 5, 1991 cancellation order invalid because the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties was not filed with th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)