REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Interior and Local Government

BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY
REGIONAL OFFICE XIII - CARAGA
Doongan Road, Butuan City
Tel No. (085) 341-2648

BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT Admin. Case No. 2019-05-R13

AND PENOLOGY, For: Frequent Unauthorized Absences
Complainant,

- versus -

JO1 GILBERTO L ENTING JR,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED ANSWER

Respondent JO1 GILBERTO L ENTING JR, by counsel, unto this

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

1. Respondent is a Filipino, of legal age, and with residence and postal

address at __________ where I may be served with summons and other
processes;

2. Respondent is a Jail Officer 1 assigned at Surigao City Jail since

______, with Employee No. ________;

3. Respondent is being made to answer in this administrative

proceeding for alleged violation of Section 18, Rule V of the 2017
Comprehensive Administrative Disciplinary Machinery, for Frequent Unauthorized
Absences;

4. While respondent admits that he did not report on duty on March 27-
April 30, 2018 (30 days), July 7-October 7, 2018 (66 days), and January 12-
March 12, 2019 (42 days), respondent vehemently and specifically avers that
said circumstances were brought about by valid justifications worth mentioning
and thus set forth as follows;

a. With respect to my failure to report on duty for the period staring

March 27, 2018 to April 30, 2018

5. 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 __________________