On May 24, 2006, the POEA issued a preventive suspension order against SRA. However, Sentosa’s political patron, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, on June 2, 2006, wrote then Labor Secretary Pat Sto. Tomas and POEA Administrator Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz. Not long after those letters were sent, then Presidential Chief of Staff Mike Defensor called up NY Consul General Cecilia Rebong and POEA Administrator Baldoz. A day after Defensor called up Baldoz, or on June 8, 2006, Baldoz lifted the preventive suspension order – just a couple of weeks after she issued the same. The nurses’ Philippine-based lawyer filed a motion to reissue the preventive suspension order, but the POEA denied the motion on September 11, 2006, because there were allegedly no other complaints of similar nature filed against respondent agency. So, in November 2006, a second batch of complaints was filed against SRA before the POEA. A preventive suspension order was requested. This request has not been acted upon. Recently on September 4, 2007, POEA Administrator Baldoz dismissed the first batch of complaints, stating that there was no violation of POEA recruitment rules and regulations by SRA, as it made a factual finding that there was allegedly a Recruitment Agreement between SRA and Sentosa Care LLC. And because of this alleged Recruitment Agreement, Sentosa Care LLC could assign the recruited nurses to any of its healthcare facilities. It also found that Prompt or Sentosa Services was but a payroll company for Sentosa Care. This September 4, 2007 Order was appealed on time before the Secretary of Labor. It is still pending resolution. And most recently, a third batch of complaints was filed before the POEA against SRA. A similar request to issue a preventive suspension order was made. We hope the POEA gives meaning to its mandate to protect the rights of Filipino migrant workers by suspending SRA, if not actually revoking its recruitment license.
As to the discrimination charges we filed before the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Philipson and Sentosa Care somehow managed to convince the OSC to delay its investigation. More than a year after we filed the charges, the OSC had not made any decision yet. Thus, on May 14 and May 15, 2007, the nurses filed the discrimination complaints before the OCAHO Judge, without waiting for the OSC to file the complaints. This was allowed by federal regulations – that if the OSC does not file any complaints to the OCAHO Judge within 120 days upon its receipt of the discrimination charges, the injured parties could file directly with the OCAHO Judge. After the Judge had taken jurisdiction over the discrimination complaints, OSC issued its August 31, 2007 Order finding that there was insufficient evidence to file discrimination charges against the Sentosa facilities. Well, the OSC Order is moot and academic anyway. It is our belief that the OSC may have been influenced by Sentosa’s political patrons, thus the delay in its investigations and its August 31, 2007 Order. This OSC Order notwithstanding, the OCAHO Judge issued an Order of Inquiry requiring OSC to explain why it took it so long to finish its investigation, and to explain at whose initiative the Tolling Agreements were entered into.
As to the civil cases, the Supreme Court Justice denied Sentosa’s application for preliminary injunction on July 5, 2006, finding that Sentosa Care and the other nursing home facilities were not likely going to win the case on the merits. On reargument, the Supreme Court Justice again denied Sentosa’s application for preliminary injunction in a January 7, 2007 Order stating that Sentosa was not likely going to win the case on the merits.
As to the administrative cases filed against the nurses, the Office of Professional Discipline communicated to me on September 13, 2006 that the administrative cases had been closed, finding that the nurses did not do anything improper, and that there was no basis for the complaint that the nurses had abandoned their patients.
Using again its political connections in Suffolk County where ten of the Sentosa 27++ nurses used to work (at the Avalon Gardens nursing home facility), Philipson and Sentosa’s influential lawyers (Howard Fensterman) were able to convince the District Attorney’s Office to investigate the ten nurses for having allegedly conspired to endanger the lives of children and disabled patients when they resigned together on April 7, 2006. I was also included as part of the alleged conspiracy. Last March 22, 2006, the ten nurses and I (Avalon 11) were indicted before a criminal court judge in Suffolk County.
NSB: What are the new developments in the case? Are there any new evidences that will support the case against the culprits?
AFV: The Federal discrimination cases – discovery proceedings are going on.
Civil cases – examination before trial (EBT) stage. Parties are being deposed. We had just deposed Luyun who admitted that Prompt/Sentosa Services is not one of SRA’s accredited principals; that Sentosa Care, LLC is not one of SRA’s accredited principals, and; that there was NO recruitment agreement between SRA and Sentosa Care, LLC (which admission should debunk POEA’s factual finding that there was one)
Criminal cases – Gomberg motion on Dec. 17.
The Judge would ask the nurses if they understood they had the right to secure their respective defense counsel.
