Consulate warns OFWs vs. investment scams

By The SUN

Filipino workers in Hong Kong are being warned by the Consulate against falling prey to scammers who offer investment plans.

“Beware of financial fraud and investment scams in Hong Kong,” the Consulate says in a public advisory dated Nov 13 that is posted in strategic areas of the Consulate at United Centre in Admiralty, and on its website.

The warning was welcomed by Hong Kong-based workers, who also gave their own advice against heeding glib-tongued people who approach them with investment plans promising high and quick returns.

Ironically, at least three sales networking operators joined the online discussions to plug their own businesses.

The Consulate urged the Filipino community in Hong Kong to be vigilant and cautious in dealing with any person or company that approaches them with investment offers.

“Do not deal with any financial company that is not licensed by the Philippine authorities to avoid (becoming) a victim of scams,” the advisory said.

The Consulate said any information about investment scams and related activities in Hong Kong should be reported to the hongkong.pcg@dfa.gov.ph or at telephone number +852 9155 4023.

But when contacted for any recent reports of such scamming cases, a female staff at the Consulate’s assistance to nationals section said the warning was not based on any new case.

“The Consulate has been issuing warnings against financial scams regularly and the workers are warned about the problem in their pre-departure seminars by still some of them fall victims to such schemes,” she said.

Commenters added their input to the advisory.

 

“Puwede umattend ng mga financial literacy (seminars) kung paano mag-invest pero avoid na lang na magbigay ng pera,” said one Magdalena Celoso.

She suggested OFWs should just put up their own businesses even if they have only a little capital, which they could save up for within five years.

Other commenters warned that some offers are too good to be true. Still, others advised their fellow workers not to fall for promises of instant wealth but rely on hard work.

“Iiingat ingat lang, mga kabayan. Huwag magpadala sa magandang salita. Siguraduhing ang pinaghirapan ay di mapunta sa wala. Walang masama ang sumali sa mga networking business. Pero maging alerto. May tunay at may peke. Hindi po tayo maging milyunaryo sa isang kisapmata lang,” Raiche Albaceno Ozalda

Commenter Marycone Castres said it is best to invest in property like farm lands, or vehicles for public transport. But one must be patient in saving up for this. 

Suportahan natin ang ating mga sponsor:

HK OFW claims losing P300k to ‘friendly’ thief at Manila airport

Martin (with back turned) hits suspect Zamora (with hood) after the latter's arrest

By The SUN

Martin

A Hong Kong-based domestic helper who flew home for a vacation has reportedly lost more than P300,000 in cash and personal belongings to a thief who befriended her inside the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 in Pasay City.

The victim, Germelie Martin, immediately reported the theft to police at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 and identified the thief through a rogues’ gallery.

Zamora

A follow-up operation by the police led to the arrest of the suspect, a certain Kay Juvy Macalalad Zamora of San Jose del Monte City in Bulacan, investigators said.

Zamora allegedly sweet-talked Martin into withdrawing money from a nearby ATM, then handing over her bag containing Php270,000 and HK$10,000 cash, jewelry, passport, and cell phone. The suspect then slipped away with the bag.

The recovered loot

The officers who arrested Zamora reportedly recovered some of the stolen items and cash amounting to Php65,000.

The alleged theft not only ruined Martin’s vacation, it also deprived her of the chance to redeem a property that her family had mortgaged to secure a loan.

“Pinaghirapan ko po ang pera bilang isang DH pero ninakaw lang po nang walang kapagud-pagod,” media reports from Manila quoted her as saying.

Martin said in a complaint filed with the Airport Police that Zamora approached and engaged her in a friendly chat as she was waiting in the departure area for her connecting flight to Tuguegarao City.

ABS-CBN News reported that airport officials found out Zamora was also involved in other incidents that victimized returning OFWs.

Suportahan natin ang ating mga sponsor:

 

Sandiganbayan nearing decision on P200-B forfeiture case vs Marcoses

After declaring Imelda Marcos guilty, the anti-graft Sandiganbayan is nearing resolution of another case against the Marcoses: forfeiture of P200-billion from the family.

The case enrolled as Civil Case No. 0002 filed in 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against former first lady Imelda Marcos, her children Imee, Bongbong and Irene was already submitted for decision last August.

The Marcoses and the government have submitted their respective memoranda containing the summary of their arguments, testimonies of witnesses and documentary evidence presented in the course of the trial, which lasted about 20 years.



Fourth Division records show that the PCGG, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its memorandum on May 8, 2018 while the Marcoses filed their memorandum on July 31, 2018.

The PCGG filed the civil suit in July 1987; the information of the case has undergone three amendments until 1998.

Based on the amended case information, the Marcoses illegally amassed from government coffers a total of P200 billion during the martial law regime.



The PCGG said the Marcoses also obtained massive loans, guarantees and other types of financial accommodations from government banks through overpriced projects; received kickbacks, commissions and bribes from persons and corporations entering into contracts with the government; established monopolies in commerce particularly in agriculture and gambling; and illegal sale of various government corporations and properties.

The PCGG also accused that the Marcos couple stashed the illegally acquired wealth in several banks locally and abroad, as well as in several foundations. The PCGG said the couple used the funds in the purchase of real estate and shares of stocks.

Among the supposed ill-acquired assets of the Marcoses identified by the PCGG in its complaints were deposits at the Security Bank and Trust (P976 million) and Traders Royal Bank (P711 million); 33 parcels of residential properties with an estimated value of P18 million and a 21,700-hectare agricultural land in Leyte with estimated value of P33 million; shares of stock in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) estimated at P1.6 billion; deposits in several banks in the United States estimated at $292 million; investments in financial houses, industrial and mining corporations in the US at approximately $98 million; as well as unvalued real properties in Manhattan, Long Island and Fifth Avenue in New York, a penthouse in London, residential houses in Honolulu in Hawaii, Beverly Hills in California and Cedars in Mississippi.

Apart from seeking the forfeiture from Mrs. Marcos and her children a total of P200 billion in actual damages representing the alleged ill-gotten wealth, the PCGG is also praying to the court to order the Marcoses to reimburse the government P250 million representing the expenses incurred in its efforts to recover the wealth.

Likewise, the PCGG is seeking P50 billion in moral damages and P1 billion in exemplary damages. The PCGG said the Marcoses must also be compelled to pay temperate damages, nominal damages and other judicial costs, the amounts of which will be set by the court.

Civil Case No. 0002 is among the 43 civil cases that PCGG filed at the Sandiganbayan against Mrs. Marcos and her children since her husband’s ouster in 1986 through a people’s revolt.

The Sandiganbayan has dismissed 19 of the cases, one was indefinitely archived, while 23 others including Civil Case No. 0002 are pending. 

Suportahan natin ang ating mga sponsor:

Battered wives, children given ample protection under VAWC law

Consulate officials join the delegation from Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City chapter and OFWs for the “Idulog Mo kay Atorni 7” forum at the Consulate on Nov 11.

By Vir B. Lumicao

Victims of domestic violence in the Philippines, specifically women and their children, can seek protection from an abusive husband or partner under Republic Act 9262 or the Violence against Women and Children Act.

RA9262, which became law in 2004, offers protection in a wide range of cases that fall within the definition of “violence against women and their children”, said lawyer Mark Anthony Gaviola, who discussed the legislation in the “Idulog Mo kay Atorni 7” forum at the Consulate on Nov 11.

The forum was organized by the PCG and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City chapter as a legal outreach to members of the Filipino community in Hong Kong, particularly migrant workers.

Gaviola said the law, more popularly called VAWC, protects women and minor children under their care against physical, sexual, economic and psychological violence from their husbands, or any other party, including fellow women.

He said this is possible in cases of gender to gender or same-sex relationships in which a woman partner, or former partner, assaults the other and/or her children.

Victims of violence under the VAWC can seek relief through a barangay protection order valid for 15 days; a temporary protection order valid for 30 days; and a court protection order, which is permanent.

Gaviola said victims can sue for damages and file criminal cases for violation of the VAWC law. The offender may be imprisoned or made to pay PhP100, 000 to PhP 300,000 in damages.

A tricky side of the issue is protection for battered husbands because VAWC is intended only to protect women and children, Gaviola said.

However, the Supreme Court cleared the issue some years back when it ruled that remedies for battered men cannot be sought under VAWC but in the Revised Penal Code and other criminal laws, Gaviola said.

 “Kung ikaw ang lalaki, dapat maniguro ka rin, may babae rin kasing nag-aabuso ng VAWC. May cases kami na na-encounter na ang nagluluko ay ang babae at bago nakabalik ang asawa ay nag-file na ng protection order yung babae,” Gaviola said.

A victim, her parent or guardian, child or grandchild, relatives, local officials, police DSWD social workers;, lawyers; barangay councilors, therapists, health care providers or any two people from the community who know personally what happened can file for protection order.

Anyone who files for a protection order under VAWC must be personally present for the hearings, said Gaviola. However, an overseas Filipino worker can ask another woman she has designated as her children’s guardian to apply for a protection order on her own.

The 14 lawyers led by Cebu City IBP president Jose Glenn Capanas held consultations on Nov 10 and 11 with OFWs who have marital issues, family abandonment and lack of support by husbands, and property disputes, among other problems.

The one-and-a-half-hour forum capped the two-day mission, held simultaneously at the Consulate and at the Philippine Overseas Labor Office.

Suportahan natin ang ating mga sponsor:

Pregnant Pinay seeks compensation for dismissal

By Vir B. Lumicao

A 44-year-old pregnant Filipina helper and her former employer have failed to settle their dispute in the Labour Tribunal when the latter insisted only on $10,000 as settlement, prompting the officer to set the case down for trial next year.

That means a long wait with an uncertain outcome for the claimant, Alma (not her real name), who is seven months pregnant and due to give birth on Jan 24.

Presiding officer Eric Tam told Alma and her former employer Ng Fong Yu Fanny on Nov 2 to return on Apr 21 next year and argue their cases in another court.

Tam directed them to each present a witness who can support their claim that it was the other party who terminated their work contract.

He gave them until Dec 15 to submit additional statements.

The helper said she would be asking her employment agent to be her witness while the defendant said she would ask her brother to give evidence for her.

The Filipina is claiming a $14,500 compensation including arrears in wages, one month’s wage in lieu of notice, paid maternity leave and the $4,500 security deposit that the court ordered the defendant to put up.

In a counterclaim, the employer is seeking from the maid $9,000 representing one month’s wage in lieu of notice and damages allegedly due to the claimant’s abrupt departure on Aug 30 that left the employer’s ailing elderly father without any caregiver.

The Filipina insisted it was the employer who ordered her out of the house at the height of an argument that night over where the helper’s coming baby would stay.

The defendant denied sending the maid away. She said she was even very happy about her pregnancy.

“You said you were very happy about her pregnancy, but you told her you can’t accept the baby in your house?” the presiding officer blurted.

The employer denied that, but Tam replied, “You sent her a lot of warning letters.”

The defendant told the court she had a video to prove it was the Filipina who insisted to leave while the employer was asking her to stay.

But the maid said that video was just made up by the employer, who allegedly pretended to beg her to stay in front of police officers whom she had called.

At the hearing, Tam called for a break four times in a vain attempt to get the parties to settle. At the third break, he sent them to the tribunal officer to try to work out a deal.

When they returned, the employer agreed to drop her claims against the Filipina and upped her offer to $10,000. But the helper insisted on $10,500 plus the security deposit.

The presiding officer suggested that the employer raise her offer to $12,500 but both sides rejected this, prompting Tam to set the case for trial in April next year.

 Suportahan natin ang ating mga sponsor: