Title
Asian International Manpower Services, Inc. vs. Department of Labor and Employment
Case
G.R. No. 210308
Decision Date
Apr 6, 2016
AIMS' license suspension overturned due to due process violation and lack of substantial evidence for misrepresentation charges under POEA rules.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210308)

Applicable Law

The applicable law is the 2002 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based Overseas Workers, specifically Rule II, Part VI, which outlines the grounds and procedures for administrative sanctions against recruitment agencies.

Factual Background

On November 8, 2006, the POEA conducted a surveillance operation of AIMS following the cancellation of its recruitment license on August 28, 2006. Initial surveillance did not provide sufficient evidence of violations, leading to a second surveillance on February 20, 2007. During this operation, POEA operatives, posing as applicants, noted that AIMS was actively advertising job openings for hotel workers in Macau and grape pickers in California, despite having no valid job orders.

Following this, on March 26, 2007, the POEA issued a Show Cause Order requiring AIMS to explain the findings of the surveillance. AIMS's president, Danilo P. Pelagio, responded on April 3, 2007, asserting that AIMS was not liable for misrepresentation, highlighting the provisional nature of the surveillance findings.

Administrative Proceedings

In an order dated June 30, 2008, the POEA found AIMS liable for misrepresentation based on the February 21, 2007 Surveillance Report, which was not provided to AIMS. The decision imposed a four-month suspension of AIMS’s license or a fine of PHP 40,000. AIMS filed for reconsideration citing a violation of its right to due process, claiming it was not provided with the relevant Surveillance Report.

DOLE Ruling

In an Order dated April 12, 2011, the DOLE affirmed the POEA's ruling, arguing that AIMS was afforded due process given its opportunity to respond during the May 9, 2007 hearing. AIMS’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on December 22, 2011, prompting AIMS to petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA dismissed AIMS’s claims of denied due process, concluding that substantial evidence supported the misrepresentation charges. It determined that AIMS was informed of the allegations during the May 9 hearing, despite the lack of the February 21 report.

Supreme Court Rulings

Upon review, the Supreme Court granted AIMS's petition, emphasizing that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The Court noted that AIMS was not given access to the February 21 report, which contained critical allegations against it. This omission constituted a grave violation of AIMS's right to due process, as it did not have adequate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.