CA affirms fines vs. recruitment firm over misrepresentation

In a decision dated February 18, the appellate court’s Special 8th Division denied the petition filed by recruitment agency Finest Asia Resources Inc. against Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). (File Photo By Ramon FVelasquez/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0)

MANILA — The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the authority of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to sanction recruitment agencies which misrepresent the employment position to be taken by a worker once deployed in another country.

In a decision dated February 18, the appellate court’s Special 8th Division denied the petition filed by recruitment agency Finest Asia Resources Inc. against Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

The firm is questioning Bello’s decision to impose a fine of PHP100,000 against the recruitment agency for violating the 2002 POEA rules and regulations governing the recruitment of land-based overseas workers upon the complaint of OFW Rosana Barqueros whose employment was processed by the agency.

Barqueros claimed that under the standard employment contract approved by the POEA, she was to work for two years as a translator assigned at Global Al-Mashfa Est. in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with a monthly salary of 3,500 Saudi riyal (around PHP47,000).

When she arrived in the country, Barqueros started her employment with Al-Mashfa Hospital where she was assigned the position of secretary and where her work was mainly clerical but received the same salary as in her contract.

Her payslip indicated that her position was that of a nursing secretary.

After working for one and a half years, she returned to the country and filed a complaint.

The CA noted while Barqueros’ employment contract, pre-departure orientation seminar certificate and overseas employment contract categorically state that her position was that of a translator, her payslip and OFW information sheet indicate that she worked in Saudi Arabia as a secretary.

“The discrepancy substantially established that her application for employment was processed for a position different from that which she actually performed upon deployment,” the court said, adding that this is “tantamount to misrepresentation” on the part of the recruitment agency.

The CA added that notwithstanding the worker ‘s alleged consent to be processed as a translator, the recruitment agency can still be held liable for violation of POEA rules and regulations since under these, among the grounds that would warrant the imposition of administrative sanction upon a recruitment agency is “engaging in acts of misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and placement of workers, such as furnishing or publishing any false notice, information or document in relation to recruitment or employment.”