Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice National Prosecution Service OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Manila GLOBREC MANPOWER SERVICES, INC. Complainant, -versusIBRAHIM T. MAMANTUC, JR, Respondent.
I.S. No. XV-07-INV-14G04397 For: Estafa and Illegal Recruitment
x…………………………. x COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT I, IBRAHIM T. MAMANTUC, JR., of legal age, married, and with residence or postal address at 1029 Marquez St., Ph 5 Gatchalian, Manuyo 2, Las Pinas City after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that: I am the respondent in the above-entitled case. The complaint is anchored mainly on perjurious statements and being filed for harassment purposes only. For this reason, this complaint should be dismissed outright. To rebut and contradict Globrec Manpower Services, Inc.’ malicious lies. I set forth the true circumstances leading to the incident: 1. To begin with, I have learned about Globrec Manpower Services, Inc., through the person in the name of Nancy Benabenti and someone named Remy since they are the one who processed the papers of my relatives who went abroad to Middle East. 2. That, On November 2013, A friend from Dubai came and asked me to look for an agency to process his job orders and I recommended Globrec Manpower Services, Inc. to do the processing. 3. That, there is no truth to the allegations in the complaint of Globrec Manpower Services, Inc. There is no factual nor legal basis to charge me with Estafa and Illegal Recruitment in Relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and RA 8042 as amended by RA10022. 4. That, The Elements of Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 more particularly in Paragraph 2 (a) of RPC are as follows: a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 5. That, Paragraphs 11, 15 and 16 contains allegations of the first element of Estafa by means of “false pretenses” which is the existence of a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. 6. That, Paragraphs 11 and 15 use the phrases “deception and fraud” and “fraud and deception” respectively. These phrases refer to the acts imputed to respondent in paragraph 16 which are the “false representation” employed on Abdullah that the respondents have the authority to recruit and deploy Filipino workers to him and the “false representation” applied to KSA Embassy that the respondent was authorized to act on behalf of GMSI with respect to the stamping of 3 passports. 7. That, Respondent vehemently denies the allegation in paragraph 11 that he in his letter attached to the complaint as Annex D admitted to any deception and fraud. No such admission was made in said letter. The letter is merely an acknowledgment that a problem involving the 3 stamped passports indeed occurred in the KSA Embassy and that GMSI agency had no involvement in the collection of the amount of $14,000.00 from Abdullah. The problem consisted in the delay in the stamping of the passports for recruits of Vicky brought about by lack of compliance with the documentary requirements prescribed by the KSA Embassy. 8. That, Paragraphs 7, 14 and 15 is allegations of the fourth element of Estafa under Art. 315 (2a) of the Revised Penal Code which is “damages”. Respondent admits that allegation in paragraph 7 that the KSA Embassy suspended the transactions of GMSI with its offices but denies the claim that GMSI incurred damages due to the suspension by the KSA Embassy of its transactions. GMSI submitted no evidence of the existence of the transactions pending at the time of the suspension and the extent of the damages corresponding to each of the transactions suspended. Respondent further denies the allegation in the same paragraph 15 that it incurred damages when it paid Abdullah the amount of $14,000.00 in order for the KSA Embassy to lift the order of suspension on its transactions as this payment is not substantiated by any receipt or other documentary evidence. The truth is that Abdullah refused to be reimbursed the said amount and insisted only on having his transactions processed. Assuming that such damages were substantiated, they are not the kind of damages contemplated by the Revised Penal Code. The damages contemplated are those which arise when the offended party parts with his money as a result of the commission of fraud or false pretenses. Here, the damages that could have been incurred by GMSI do not result from any fraud but rather from the unilateral suspension made by the KSA Embassy on its transactions. 9. That, the undersigned counsel discovered that prior approval of the Department of Labor and Employment for the appointment of personnel as required under Art. 29 of the Labor Code have not been secured in the case of respondent. However, it is
respectfully submitted that the requirement presupposes the existence of an employeremployee relationship between the agency and the appointee. Assuming that the requirement applies squarely to an agent under a contract of agency, the responsibility for the omission lies more on GMSI which is presumed to be more knowledgeable of the requirements prescribed by the Labor Code on recruitment and placement activities. 10. That, The respondent denies the allegation in paragraph 16 that Respondent has no authority to recruit for the same reasons discussed in paragraph 6 of this counteraffidavit. Hence, the ruling of the Supreme Court in a plethora of illegal recruitment cases that persons who give the impression of having the ability to send workers abroad for employment thereby commit the offense of illegal recruitment does not find application to respondent's case. 11. The respondent cannot be considered a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Section 10 Rule II Book II of the Rules and Regulation Governing Overseas Employment (1991) requires that every change, termination or appointment of officers, representatives and personnel of licensed agencies be registered with the POEA. Agents or representatives appointed by a licensed recruitment agency whose appointments are not previously approved by the POEA are considered "nonlicensee" or "non-holder of authority" and therefore not authorized to engage in recruitment activity. (Abaca vs. CA, 290 SCRA 657 (1998). However, it must be shown that the employee or representative is aware that the agency failed to secure POEA approval of their appointment and that despite this knowledge, the employee or representative engaged in recruitment and placement activities in order that he may be held liable for illegal recruitment. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. (People of the philippines v. Chowdury G.R. No. 129577-80 February 15, 2000 In this case, the respondent was unaware of GMSI's failure to register his name with the POEA and that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. On the contrary, respondent is justified in believing that he had the authority to recruit on behalf of GMSI because the latter allowed him to establish an office in room 611 in L & S building under GMSI's name. In fine, the respondent cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment because he had no knowledge of the failure of GMSI to register his appointment with the POEA. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit. Other relief just and equitable are also prayed. __________________at ____________________, Metro Manila.
IBRAHIM T. MAMANTUC, JR. Respondent /Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ 2014 at ________City. I further certify that I have examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he has read and fully understood the contents of her affidavit.
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR
