SC should void ruling which favors erring recruiters - OSG

MANILA, Philippines - Government lawyers on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to void a 2006 decision which grants an erring recruitment agency the right to continue operating until the order suspending its license had attained finality. The plea was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in behalf of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) in connection with the case of recruitment firm Philmare which continued to operate despite a finding by the POEA that the firm was guilty of illegal recruitment and other violations. The case stemmed from a pre-employment dispute instituted by a prospective recruit who accused Philimare of serious violations of POEA Rules, making it liable for the ultimate penalty of cancellation of license. The complainant - Merwin Constantino, a walk-in client - alleged that he was promised employment as a deck cadet in a foreign vessel by a certain Hector Perreira, who required the complainant to pay P30,000. However, Constantino was never deployed despite the lapse of one year and six months, prompting him to lodge a complaint with POEA on June 5, 2006. In its defense, Philimare claimed that Perreira was no longer connected with the recruitment agency at the time that Constantino paid the amount. By December 19, 2007 POEA found Philimare guilty of illegal collection of fees and acts of misrepresentations defined under Sections 2(a) and (b), respectively under Rule II Part V of POEA's 2003 Rules. POEA meted out for Philimare the penalty of cancellation of license and a fine of P20,000. This was contested by Philimare who appealed POEA's order with the Labor Secretary on January 10, 2008. Philmare followed this up by filing on January 14, 2008 a case before the Mandaluyong RTC. In this case, Philmare claimed POEA acted with grave abuse of discretion. Philimare also asked for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary mandatory injunction against POEA, claiming it was entitled to continue operating until its appeal is decided with finality. The case was raffled to Judge Umali, who issued a TRO dated January 21, 2008 allowing Philimare to operate for a period of 20 days, anchoring her ruling on the Principalia ruling of the SC, promulgated on April 19, 2006. In that Principalia case, the SC affirmed the grant of injunctive relief to enjoin the immediate enforcement of a POEA order suspending respondent's license during the pendency of its appeal with the Labor Secretary. POEA filed a motion to lift TRO and a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Mandaluyong judge has no jurisdiction over the case as it is one exclusively cognizable by the Labor secretary on appeal. The government agency further said that Philimare is guilty of forum shopping for instituting before the RTC its petition for certiorari which raises the same issue in its appeal -- the lifting of POEA's order of cancellation. On January 29, Judge Umali denied POEA's urgent motion to lift and motion to dismiss, prompting POEA to institute a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court. In its 47-page petition before the high court, the OSG also asked the SC to lift the temporary restraining order issued by the Mandaluyong regional trial court stopping the cancellation of license of the recruitment firm, Philimare Inc. According to Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, respondent Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali of Mandaluyong RTC branch 212 acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she granted the TRO and preliminary mandatory injunction to Philimare. Devanadera also said that the judge abused her discretion in directing the POEA to allow the recruitment firm to continue its operating until POEA's December 19, 2007 order became final. The OSG rested its arguments on the fact that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Secretary. "Having no jurisdiction over the principal action in the present case, respondent Judge correspondingly had no authority to grant, much less pass upon Philimare's application for a TRO and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction," said Devanadera. State lawyers added that even if the trial court indeed has jurisdiction over the case, it should still have been outrightly dismissed for being a "collateral attack" on the validity of the POEA's 2003 Rules which have the force and effect of law. "The validity of administrative rules cannot be questioned, except via a direct proceeding praying that such rules be declared unconstitutional, not via a collateral or indirect attack as in this case. POEA merely acted in the exercise of its official functions when it effected immediate execution," said the OSG. In the same petition, the OSG also asked the high court to review its ruling in Republic v. Principalia Management and Personnel Consultants Inc., saying this was being used by Philimare to elude the law and continue luring unsuspecting workers who want to work abroad. The OSG said that Philimare is not similarly situated as Principalia in the SC's 2006 decision, thus the ruling in that case cannot apply to the present case and the RTC cannot rely on this case, being of different circumstances.- GMANews.TV