Employer barred from hiring aliens over forged document

An employer was barred from hiring new alien workers in the Commonwealth after submitting a permit application that included a forged document.

Emanuel D. Pamintuan was disqualified for one year from employing nonresident workers “for his negligent conduct in submitting an inherently false document,” according to an Oct. 22 labor administrative order.

Department of Labor hearing officer Jerry Cody ordered the bar against Pamintuan, as he affirmed the permit application submitted by the employer to hire Samuel P. Amigable.

The prospective worker, who forged his work experience certification, currently resides in the Philippines. Amigable is not a party in the case, and therefore, was not subjected to any sanctions.

However, Cody urged the Division of Labor to carefully scrutinize any permit application submitted in the future to employ Amigable.

Records showed that Pamintuan submitted an application on June 11, 2004 to hire Amigable as a mason. In order to establish the worker’s prior work experience, Pamintuan submitted a certificate from the worker’s former employer in Saudi Arabia, stating that Amigable had worked in the maintenance section of the company from 1993 to 1999.

Later, the Labor Department required a document showing that Amigable had worked as a mason in his former job in Saudi Arabia.

In response, Pamintuan submitted a copy of a second certification from the same employer. The second application stated that Amigable had been working as a mason for the company from 1993 to 1999.

After reviewing the second certification, the department concluded it was a forgery, and subsequently denied the application.

Cody affirmed that the document was a forgery. “There are no less than five distinctive, incidental markings on the original certification that also appear on the second certification at precisely the same spot on the page. The only plausible explanation for the perfect match-up of these markings is that the first certification was used to generate a copy of the company’s letterhead, which then was used to fabricate the second certificate,” Cody noted.

During the hearing, Pamintuan placed all the blame on Amigable, saying that he simply received the document from the worker and forwarded it to the department.

Cody, however, said it was possible that either the employer or the worker—or both acting together—created and submitted the false document.

“The submission of false documents to the department remains a serious problem in the CNMI. At a minimum, this employer should be sanctioned for negligently reviewing this false document and submitting it as ‘true,’” Cody said.