GR 109583; (October, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109583 September 5, 1997
TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, ROSELLE CASTIGADOR, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Trans Action Overseas Corporation, a private fee-charging employment agency, recruited private respondents for alleged job vacancies in Hong Kong as domestic helpers from July 24 to September 9, 1987. The applicants paid placement fees ranging from P1,000.00 to P14,000.00 through petitioner’s employees, but petitioner failed to deploy them. Their demands for refund were unavailing, leading to complaints for violation of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. Petitioner denied liability, claiming the employees who collected the fees were not authorized and that it had warned applicants not to pay unauthorized individuals. POEA Regional Extension Unit Coordinator Edgar Somes testified he was aware of the fee collections, and that a petitioner representative left presigned receipts with an employee. On April 5, 1991, Labor Undersecretary Nieves R. Confesor ordered petitioner to refund the fees and cancelled its license based on multiple violations, applying the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 30, 1992. Petitioner contends the Secretary of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion, arguing that the POEA has exclusive jurisdiction over such cases and that the POEA Schedule of Penalties was invalid for non-registration with the U.P. Law Center.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor and Employment has jurisdiction to cancel or revoke the license of a private fee-charging employment agency.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the power to suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment is concurrently vested with the POEA and the Secretary of Labor. Article 35 of the Labor Code, as amended, expressly grants this power to the Minister (now Secretary) of Labor. This power was affirmed in prior jurisprudence. The Court also rejected the argument that the 1987 POEA Schedule of Penalties was ineffective due to non-registration, holding that the schedule merely amplified existing violations and specified penalties, and that the license was cancelled under the authority of Article 35 of the Labor Code itself. The petition was dismissed and the decision of the Secretary of Labor was affirmed.