G.R. No. 97896 June 2, 1997
TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, acting through Hon. Undersecretary MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR; HON. ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA); and ROSANNA L. DE LEON, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Rosanna de Leon applied with petitioner Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc., a licensed recruitment agency, for a job as a nursing aide. Petitioner had no job order for nursing aides but had vacancies for janitresses. On February 10, 1988, private respondent was deployed to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, as a janitress with a monthly salary of U.S.$300.00. Her Travel Exit Pass (TEP), given on her departure date, indicated her position as a janitress. In Saudi Arabia, she worked as a baby sitter at a ‘social nursery’ or orphanage. After one month, she was paid only SR581.00 Rials, and she was terminated after barely two months of service. Upon her return to Manila on April 6, 1988, she filed a complaint against petitioner, leading to two cases: one for money claims and another for administrative charges of illegal exaction of excessive placement fees and acts of misrepresentation. The POEA dismissed the illegal exaction charge for lack of evidence but found petitioner guilty of misrepresentation for processing private respondent’s TEP as a janitress when she had applied and was hired as a nursing aide. The POEA penalized petitioner with a two-month license suspension or a fine of P20,000.00. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal to the Secretary of Labor and Employment were denied.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is guilty of acts of misrepresentation in violation of POEA rules and regulations.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the POEA and the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Court ruled that petitioner committed misrepresentation by submitting false and deceptive information to the POEA regarding private respondent’s deployment. The TEP indicated the job position as janitress, but the actual work waiting for her in Jeddah was as a baby-sitter or nursing aide, which was the position she originally applied for. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that there was a prior agreement with private respondent or that she was promoted upon arrival, noting that the misrepresentation was committed against the POEA when petitioner declared the worker would be deployed as a janitress while the truth was she was hired as a nursing aide. This act violates Section 2(c), Rule VI, Book II of the POEA Rules and Regulations. The petition was dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion by the POEA and the Secretary of Labor.