60. Manalo v.
Roldan-Confessor their money without securing a receipt, that a quitclaim had been
G.R. No. 102358 | November 19, 1992
Topic: Clear and Convincing Evidence
Facts:
Petitioners Vicente and Gloria Manalo responded to a newspaper
advertisement looking for a couple to work as a driver and
tutor/babysitter and went to Career Planners Specialists
International, Inc. (CPSI) to do so. CPSI was owned by herein
private respondents spouses Fernandez. Petitioners were hired to
work for a family in Saudi Arabia for a monthly salary of US$350
each, and allegedly had to pay a placement fee of P40,000 as a
precondition for the processing f their papers. The managed to pay
P30,000 upfront and executed a promissory not for the balance.
They were not issued a receipt despite their demand.
It was subsequently found by the petitioners that their positions
had been misrepresented. Before boarding, Gloria Manalo noticed
that her position was changed to that of domestic help, but a CPSO
employee assured her that the change was only to facilitate her
departure. CPSI provided spouses Manalo with their Travel Exit
Passes(TEP) of Filipino Manpower Services (FILMAN), a duly
licensed recruitment agency.
Both of the spouses Manalo were forced to return home after
finding that Gloria was made to work as a maid, and that the work
conditions of Vicente’s employment was unbearable. However,
before leaving, Vicente had to execute a promissory note to cover
his plane fare and sign a quitclaim in favor of CPSI and his
employer.
POEA: Spouses Manalo sued private respondents, charging them
with illegal exaction, false advertisement, and other violations.
They demanded the refund of the amount exacted from them plus
moral damages.
Private respondents filed in their Answer that Gloria had applied as
domestic help fully aware that she could not be a tutor due to the
language barrier, that the promissory note was required because
the spouses had been hired without paying placement fees, that
the spouses were well educated and would not have parted with
executed by Vicente, and that the employment papers from
FILMAN were valid as it was a sister company of CPSI.
POEA ruled in favor of spouses Manalo, finding that their version of
the case was more convincing that CPSI’s.
Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
granted. The resolution issued by POEA, however, stated that the
sole basis of POEA holding herein respondent liable for illegal
exaction was the uncorroborated testimony of the complainants.
Secretary of Labor: Sustained the reconsideration of POEA.
Issues:
1. Whether or not herein public respondents gravely abused
their discretion when they required clear and convincing
evidence to establish the charge of illegal exaction.
Held:
1. Yes, there was grave abuse of discretion.
In the administrative proceedings for cancellation, revocation or
suspension of Authority or License, no rule requires that
testimonies of complainants be corroborated by documentary
evidence, if the charge of unlawful exaction is substantially proven.
All administrative determinations require only substantial proof
and not clear and convincing evidence.
Clear and convincing proof is more than mere preponderance but
not to extent of such certainly as is required beyond reasonable
doubt as in criminal cases.
Substantia evidence consists of more than a scintilla of evidence
but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt > clear and convincing evidence >
preponderance of evidence > substantial evidence.
PETITION GRANTED.