REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment

PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION
Adjudication Office
Mandaluyong City

CHARDAN A. GUMANGAN,
Complainant,

- versus - POEA Case No. RV 13-02-0323

H.O. Atty. Harvey A. Dumbab

MECTAP INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED, ET. AL.,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED ANSWER

Respondent MECTAP INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES,

INCORPORATED, by counsel, unto this Honorable Administration, by way
of answer to the charges filed against it, respectfully states THAT:

1. Respondent is being made to answer in this Administrative

recruitment proceedings for alleged violation of Section 2 (b) and (e), Rule
1, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations;

2. Respondent vehemently and specifically denies the aforesaid

charges because said charges are all false. The truth of the matter are
those set forth below:

3. Respondent is a licensed recruitment agency that religiously

and faithfully complies with the Rules and Regulations of this Honorable
Administration and abides by the proper procedure in connection with its
recruitment activities;

4. Respondent did not commit any misrepresentation to anyone

in the conduct of its recruitment business; respondent has valid and
existing job orders and it did not cause any publication or notice that may
cause and lead misrepresentation to anyone, much less with the herein
complainant;

5. It is not true that complainant was processed to a different

position. Complainant’s contract of employment was for “Beautician” and
her employment contract and visa were processed and she was deployed
also as “Beautician”. A photocopy of complainant’s employment contract
with her position as “Beautician” is hereto attached and marked as Annex
“A”;

6. Complainant was properly deployed in accordance with the

terms and conditions of her approved employment contract and pursuant
to a valid and duly verified job order from a verified principal. In fact as
admitted by complainant in paragraph 4 of her complaint form, she
acknowledged that her position was for a “BEAUTICIAN”.

7. Respondent had never charged nor collected placement fee

from complainant, it was “Muneerah Abdullah Abdulaziz Al Shanan” the
employer of complainant who paid the respondent for its services in
deploying complainant to Middle East. The said “Muneerah Abdullah
Abdulaziz Al Shanan”, the employer of complainant, paid respondent the
Service Fee in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty (US$ 350.oo) US
DOLLARS, as evidenced by the attached Official Receipt Number 0009,
dated June 13, 2012, a photocopy of which is hereto attached and marked
as Annex “B”;

8. The above mentioned payment is hereto supported by the

affidavit of respondent cashier, Miss Aida M. Guerrero, as to the veracity of
the said payment, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked as
Annex “C”;

9. The above documentary evidence proved the fact that

respondent has no reason and intention to collect or charge placement fee
from complainant whether here or abroad. It is respectfully submitted that
aforesaid evidence is incontrovertible and afforded full faith and credit
considering that said document is issued in the ordinary course of
business of respondent.

10. Complainant in this case has nothing but plain allegations not
supported by concrete and convincing evidence to support her claims. In
the case of “Susa vs. Pena, 411 SCRA 621, the Supreme Court held: “in
administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.”

11. The fact that complainant has only allegations to offer, this
case must therefore be dismissed. As held in Reyes vs. Court of Appeals,
383 SCRA 471, the Court ruled that: “an allegation is not evidence but
is a declaration that has to be proved by evidence”.

12. As shown herein by respondent’s evidence, the allegations of

complainant for collection of fee are clearly devoid of merit. As between the
evidence presented by respondent which is officially authorized and as
against that of the plain allegations in the complaint of complainant, the
former should prevail.

13. The filing by complainant of the present case is a plain

mistake and it is causing damage and prejudice to respondent agency.
Complainant had nothing to lose in filing this case against the respondent
agency but she has everything to gain because this case can even be filed
without paying any filing fee. Procedural and substantial due process
demand that complainant must prove all of the accusations that indeed
respondent violated the POEA Rules and Regulations, absence of such
proof the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit. Other than
complainant’s bare allegation of alleged payment, no iota or direct and
relevant evidence exists to sustain complainant’s accusation against
respondent. A recruitment violation, similar to the present case, is a serious
charge that must be proven by means of clear and convincing evidence,
such that insufficiency or absence of said evidence warrants the dismissal
of any charge. In fact as held by this Honorable Administration, the
charges of recruitment violations are serious since they may cause the
suspension of the authority or license of any private charging employment
agency. It follows therefore that such charges must at the very least, be
substantiated and proven by clear and convincing, credible and competent
evidence. Absent this evidence required, such charges must necessarily
fail. (Roger Ramos, et. al. vs. EMS Manpower and Placement Services,
Inc., et. al. POEA Case No. RV 96-12-1913).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved

that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. Other reliefs just and
equitable in the premises are likewise sought.

Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, April 29, 2013.

Atty. ROGER ALIM RODRIGUEZ

Counsel for Respondent
Unit 319 San Rafael Condominium
San Rafael corner San Ignacio Streets
1550 Mandaluyong City, Philippines
P.T.R. No. 8439481 * Pasig City * January 11, 2013
I.B.P No. 882584 * Pasig City * January 10, 2013
MCLE No. III 14549 * Pasig City * April 26, 2010
Roll No. 47673
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

MANILA ____________________) SS.

VERIFICATION

I, METELINA B. FORMENTO, of legal age and Filipino, after having

been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

I am the president of MECTAP INTERNATIONAL

PLACEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, the respondent in the
above-entitled case; I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Answer and I have read the same and the contents of which are true
and correct of my own knowledge and/or on the basis of authentic
documents.

AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this April 29, 2013.

METELINA B. FORMENTO
Affiant
Company I.D. No. 001

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____________;

affiant exhibited to me her Company I.D. Number 001.

DOC. NO. ____

PAGE NO. ____ NOTARY PUBLIC
BOOK NO. ____ Notarial Commission Serial Number____
Series of 2013. Office Address __________________
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

MANILA ____________________) SS.

AFFIDAVIT

I, AIDA M. GUERRERO, of legal age and Filipino, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

1. I am the Cashier of Mectap International Placement Services

Incorporated with office address at Rooms 105 - 106 VIR Bldg., 1840 E.
Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City;

2. I am in custody of Official Receipts of our company, and on

June 13, 2012, one of our employers, Muneerah Abdullah Abdulaziz Al
Shanan paid our company in the amount of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY
(US$350.oo) US DOLLARS representing as payment for our company’s
service fee for recruiting and deploying one applicant, Ms. Chardan
Gumangan, to the Middle East, and by reason of such payment, I issued
Official Receipt Number 0009;

3, I am executing this affidavit to attest the veracity and

truthfulness of all the foregoing facts.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this April ___

2013.

AIDA M. GUERRERO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________;

affiant exhibited to me her I.D. Number ___________________;

DOC. NO. ____

PAGE NO. ____ NOTARY PUBLIC
BOOK NO. ____ Notarial Commission Serial Number____
Series of 2013. Office Address __________________