G.R. No. 102358 November 19, 1992
SPOUSES VICENTE and GLORIA MANALO, petitioners, vs. HON. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity as Undersecretary of Labor and Employment, JOSE SARMIENTO as POEA Administrator, CAREERS PLANNERS SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and SPOUSES VICTOR and ELNORA FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Vicente and Gloria Manalo responded to a newspaper advertisement by respondent Career Planners Specialists International, Inc. (CPSI), a licensed service contracting firm owned by spouses Victor and Elnora Fernandez, for a couple to work as driver and tutor cum baby sitter in Saudi Arabia. After interviews and testing, they were hired for a monthly salary of US$350.00 each. Petitioners alleged that a placement fee of P40,000.00 was imposed as a precondition; they paid P30,000.00 in cash and executed a promissory note for the balance, but no receipt was issued. Before departure, petitioners discovered Gloria’s contract changed to domestic help, but a CPSI employee assured her it was only to facilitate departure and her role as tutor remained. CPSI provided petitioners with the Travel Exit Pass (TEP) of Filipino Manpower Services, Inc. (FILMAN), another licensed agency. In Saudi Arabia, Gloria worked as a domestic help, not a tutor, and returned to Manila after 25 days. Vicente later resigned due to unbearable conditions, but before leaving, he executed a promissory note for his advanced plane fare and signed a quitclaim in favor of CPSI and his employer. On February 29, 1988, petitioners sued private respondents before the POEA for illegal exaction, false advertisement, and other violations, demanding refund, moral damages, and administrative sanctions. Private respondents countered that Gloria applied as domestic help, the promissory note was for a placement fee not initially paid, petitioners were experienced and unlikely to pay without a receipt, the quitclaim was authenticated, and using FILMAN’s papers was proper as it was a sister company. The POEA initially ruled in favor of petitioners on May 7, 1990, ordering CPSI to refund P28,714.00 and suspending its authority, and fining FILMAN for misrepresentation. However, upon reconsideration on February 4, 1991, the POEA lifted the penalty, citing lack of corroborative evidence for the illegal exaction charge. The Undersecretary of Labor sustained this on July 5, 1991, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on October 9, 1991. Petitioners then filed the present recourse.

ISSUE

Whether the POEA and the Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering and setting aside the initial POEA Order dated May 7, 1990, which found private respondents liable for illegal exaction and misrepresentation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the challenged Orders of the Undersecretary of Labor dated July 5, 1991, and October 9, 1991, and the POEA Resolution dated February 4, 1991, and reinstated and affirmed the original POEA Order dated May 7, 1990. The Court held that the charge of illegal exaction was substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, not merely by uncorroborated testimony. The POEA’s initial evaluation found petitioners’ version spontaneous and convincing, and the subsequent reversal based on lack of corroboration was a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that administrative agencies must decide based on the evidence before them, and the POEA’s initial findings were supported by the facts, including the payment of placement fees, the change in job designation, and the use of another agency’s TEP. The reinstated order held CPSI liable for illegal exaction, ordering restitution of P28,714.00 and imposing a fine or suspension, and held FILMAN liable for misrepresentation.