REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION
MANDALUYONG CITY

SUSAN RADOC,
Complainant.

- versus - POEA CASE NO. DAW 06-02-0149

For: Disciplinary Action
Hearing Officer Atty. Tabuzo
JUNMARIE G.RADOC,
Respondent.
x------------------ x

ANSWER

RESPONDENT, JUNMARIE G.RADOC through counsel, and unto this

Honorable office, respectfully states:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Respondent admits the following statements of complainant as

indicated in her complaint dated February 7, 2006 filed before this Honorable

Office : (a.) that she is the legal wife of the respondent (b) that they got married

on January 22, 1999 and (c) that she gave birth to their daughter, Shekainah Yari

Dawh Radoc

2. Respondent specifically denies the rest of the allegations stated in

her complaint for being false, baseless, inaccurate, misleading and/or not

statements of ultimate facts but mere conjectures and gratuitous conclusions

devoid of factual and legal bases, the truth being those alleged in the special

and affirmative defenses hereinafter set forth.

1
 SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3. Respondent repleads by reference the foregoing allegations and

incorporates the same herein.

4. There is no truth to complainants allegation that respondent

indicated in the Seafarer Information Sheet dated June 11, 2003 attached to the

complaint that he is single. The fact remains that it was not the respondent who

prepared said Seafarer Information Sheet and later filed it at the POEA but it was

prepared by the manning agency. Nowhere in said document can one find

respondents signature. It is possible that due to typographical error, he was

identified as single rather than married by the representative of the manning

agency who prepared said document. Due to the fact that a third person

prepared said document, respondent cannot be held liable if an error occurred

in the preparation of said information sheet, if ever.

5. In contrast, he identified himself as MARRIED in the allotment

slips which were signed by the respondent. Copies of the Allotment Slips are

attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes A and B,

respectively. Therefore, there is no truth to the allegations that respondent

concealed the fact that he was married to herein complainant.

6. Moreover, the Seafarer Information Sheet indicated that he was

hired as junior seaman for the vessel SPLENDOUR OF THE SEA. However, he

was actually hired for the vessel RADIANCE OF THE SEAS wherein he was on

board from September 7, 2002 until April 5, 2003. A copy of pertinent portion of

respondents Seafarers Identification and Record Book is attached hereto and

made an integral part hereof as Annex C. Said seafarer information sheet did

not reflect accurate facts on the employment of the respondent with the manning

2
agency since it contained information that are not consistent with the evidence

given herein by complainant. It is possible that there was another Seafarer

Information Sheet that was prepared and filed by the manning agency in order

to address the aforesaid discrepancies. What complainant might have furnished

this Honorable Office could have been the earlier version, to which respondent

should not be faulted for containing said errors.

7. Complainant failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to

support her claim that respondent contracted a second marriage. A perusal of

her complaint will clearly reveal that what she has are only self-serving and

uncorroborated declarations and allegations which utterly fail the substantiality of

evidence testa basic requirement in administrative adjudication. In the absence

of clear and convincing evidence, complainants accusations are nothing but

empty words not worthy of consideration by this Honorable Office.

8. The Complaint in this case is bereft of any factual and legal basis

and reveals itself as wanting in any cause of action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office to dismiss the instant complaint for utter lack of merit.

Respondent prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under the

premises.

3
 Makati City for Mandaluyong City, March 29, 2006.

SAPALO & VELEZ

Counsel for Respondent
11th Floor, Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue
Makati City
By:

DENNIS R. GORECHO
PTR NO. 4195983E-Makati-Jan. 11, 2006
IBP NO. 671075-PPLM-Jan. 11, 2006
ROLL NO.44352
Copy Furnished:

Susan C. Radoc
Jagnaya, Jamindan
5808 Capiz