V.V. ALDABA ENGINEERING, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; HONORABLE ADMINISTRATOR OF PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION; RIZALINA SADANG; B…

In this petition for certiorari, with a prayer for preliminary
injunction, V.V. Aldaba Engineering seeks the nullification of the 4th March
1986 decision of the then Ministry of Labor and Employment (“MOLE”)
which affirmed the 11th April 1985 modified Order of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (“POEA”).

Sometime in May 1983, private respondents, numbering a total of
two hundred eighty six (286), applied with, and were recruited by, petitioner
V.V. Aldaba Engineering, through one Rizalina Sadang of SLS Business Management
and Consultant Services (“SLS”), for employment abroad. Private respondents were made to pay amounts
ranging from P1,500.00 to P2,000.00 each for the processing of passports and
from P2,500.00 to P5,000.00 for the processing of applications and placement
fees. On 19 July 1983, private
respondents were also required, at their expense, to each undergo trade test,
medical examination and psychological evaluation. They were advised to resign from their respective local
employments. Later, contracts for
overseas work were signed and travel exit passes were issued. All the foregoing notwithstanding, no work
deployment ever took place.

After almost a year of waiting, or on 07 May 1984, private
respondents finally filed a complaint against V.V. Aldaba Engineering (docketed
LRO-RRD-Case No. 84-05-0085 and entitled “Boy Alido, et al. vs. V.V.
Aldaba Engineering”) for violation of Articles 32 and 34 of the Labor
Code.

The POEA narrated what transpired during its proceedings on the
case, now hereunder quoted:

“During the investigations conducted in this office both
respondents V.V. Aldaba and Mr. Mario Lumagui for Rizalina Sadang
appeared. Respondent thru counsel
denied complainants’ claim alleging that the agency is a licensed overseas
construction contractor and has never been a placement and/or recruitment
agency; it has never employed or guaranteed any overseas employment to any
person nor to any of the complainants, it has not received any single centavo
from any person in connection with an overseas employment; that the agency has
not authorized anyone to recruit and/or to approve the employment of overseas
workers. Respondent contended that it
has a valid, lawful and legitimate contract of manpower service with the Abu
Shrook Establishment for contracting and trading. Respondent however admitted having entered into an agreement with
SLS Management represented by Rizalina Sadang, Manila Booking Agency, Inc. and
Allied Ventures and General Services but the same is merely referral and
recommendatory and that the agency has the exclusive right to accept or reject
any applicant who shall not meet the agency’s requirements, a copy of the
authorization issued to Rizalina Sadang was presented by the agency as its
evidence.

“Respondent further alleged that Rizalina Sadang who is
presently doing business under the name and style SLS Business Management and
Consultant Services and formerly M.M. General Services and Placement Office is
a separate and distinct entity from V.V. Aldaba Engineering. An agreement to refer and recommend applicants
for final selection by the agency was entered into between the two upon the
alleged representation of Rizalina Sadang to the effect that her agency has a
reservoir of applicants for overseas employment. It is further claimed that the agency has never received nor
collected from Rizalina Sadang any fee in connection with said agreement,
neither did respondent authorize Ms. Sadang to collect money from the
complainants or any applicants.

“Respondent Rizalina Sadang was represented by her company’s
operations’ Manager Mr. Lumagui who admitted all the claims of complainant
particularly the receipt of complainants’ money. He claimed that Ms. Sadang has been issued a written authority by
the agency which had likewise entered into a verbal agreement with Ms. Sadang
to the effect that the agency will receive P2,500.00 for every applicant
referred and accepted by said agency. Respondent Aldaba denied said allegation.

“He further claimed that Miss Rizalina Sadang advanced the
amount of P100,000.00 to V.V. Aldaba. A
receipt purportedly signed by Engr. Vicente Aldaba was presented by respondent
Sadang to support its defense. Said
document was shown to respondent V.V. Aldaba who countered that the same is in
the form of a loan and has nothing to do with this case. Subsequently, respondent Sadang thru Mr.
Lumagui in connection with its admission of all complainants’ claims offered to
settle complainants’ claims and requested until July 17, 1984 within which to
settle all claims. However, said offer
did not materialize.”^[1]

On 28 November 1984, the POEA issued an order,^[2]
directing, among other things, petitioner V.V. Aldaba Engineering and Rizalina
Sadang/SLS Business Management and Consultant Services to refund, in solidum,
the money claims of private respondents. The second paragraph of the dispositive portion of the Order provided:

“In view of the foregoing, and considering that respondent
agency is deemed liable for the acts of Rizalina Sadang in violation of Art. 32
and 34(b) of the Labor Code, the latter having charged and collected fees
before obtaining employment for complainants by means of false information as
to the existence of available jobs abroad, the license of V.V. Aldaba
Engineering is hereby suspended for a period of six (6) months and until full
satisfaction of the claims of complainants.”

Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, a modified Order,^[3]
dated 11 April 1985, was issued by the POEA. The pertinent portions of this order read:

“x x x However, in view of the withdrawal of the following
complainants, namely, Boy Alido, Efrendo Austria, Victor Abando, Ananias Cabal
and Domingo Honrado, their claims should be dismissed. As regards the claims
of the other listed complainants who either
have not appeared or though appearing
during the proceedings are not included
in the list of complainants as well
as those whose claims cannot be determined
due to their failure to allege the
amount of their claim, respondent cannot be held liable
therefor without prejudice, however, to the right of said complainants to file
another complaint we also do not consider the withdrawal of Boy Alido, et al.,
as valid and binding upon the other complainants considering that they have no
express and special authorization from the other complainant to withdraw the
claim of the latter. The Motion to Set
Aside the Order dated November 28, 1984 for a New Trial should be denied for
lack of merit.

“Wherefore, premises considered, the Motion to Set Aside the
Order dated November 28, 1984 or for a New Trial/Re-Investigation is hereby
denied for lack of merit. However, this
Office deems it proper to reconsider the award of claims under such order and
hereby modifies the dispositive portion thereof to read as follows:

“V.V. Aldaba Engineering and Rizalina Sadang/SLS Business
Management and Consultant Services are hereby held solidary liable for the
claims of the following complainants: (List
of applicants’ names and amount of their claims followed.)

“The claims of the other complainants are hereby dismissed
without prejudice. Respondent V.V.
Aldaba Engineering being considered liable for the acts of Rizalina Sadang in
violation of Article 32 and 34(b) of the
Labor Code, as amended, the latter having charged and collected fees from
applicant workers before obtaining employment for complainants by means of
false information as to the existence of available jobs abroad, its license
remains suspended for a period of six (6) months from November 28, 1984 and
until full satisfaction of complainants’ claims. This is without prejudice to the investigation of respondent to
be conducted by this Office in relation to a possible violation of Article 29
of the Labor Code, as amended arising out of the grant of authority issued to
Rizalina Sadang.” (Underlining found in the text)

The MOLE, on appeal interposed to it by petitioner, affirmed the
modified Order of the POEA.^[4]
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and its subsequent motion for leave to
admit a second motion for reconsideration were denied. Hence, the recourse to this Court. The petition was given due course by the Court
on 22 August 1988.

When respondents were required to comment on the petition, the
Solicitor-General, in behalf of public respondents (MOLE and POEA),
complied. Counsel for private
respondents failed to file comment within the reglementary period; hence, on 03
February 1988, he was directed by the Court to show cause and comply. When, however, the copy of the resolution
was returned unserved, with the notation “no longer holding office at
given address,” the Court resolved to instead serve the aforesaid
resolution directly on private respondents.^[5] The
service on respondent Rizalina Sadang also proved to be futile. No comment on the petition was received from
private respondents.

Finally, on 11 July 1994, the Court issued a resolution requiring
the parties to move in the premises to determine whether supervening events
might have, in fact, rendered the case moot and academic.^[6] The
Court, not having been favored with a response by all of the parties, opted to
issue this resolution on the basis of the pleadings heretofore submitted to it.

The core issue in this petition is whether or not public
respondents, the MOLE and the POEA, have acted with grave abuse of discretion
in holding petitioner liable for violation of Articles 32 and 34(b) of the
Labor Code, the relevant provisions of which express:

“ART. 32. Fees to be paid by workers. – Any person applying with a private
fee-charging employment agency for employment assistance shall not be charged
any fee until he has obtained employment through its efforts or has actually
commenced employment. Such fee shall be always covered with the
appropriate receipt clearly showing the amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a schedule of allowable
fees.

“ART. 34. Prohibited
practices. – It shall be unlawful for
any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority:

“x x x                                                   x
x x                                                          x
x x

“(b) To furnish or publish any
false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or
employment;” (Emphasis supplied.)

There is no dispute that herein private respondents have each
paid amounts ranging from P1,500.00 to P2,000.00 for processing of passports,
an additional sum of from P2,500.00 to P5,000.00 for placement charges and for
processing of applications, and various other fees for medical examination,
psychological evaluation and trade test. These payments have been made by private respondents on the assurance
that they would, through petitioner, secure employments abroad. The indubitable fact is that private respondents
have found themselves ultimately with nothing but, truth to tell, merely with
vain expectations.

In an effort to extricate itself from liability, petitioner
asserts that it did not charge or receive from private respondents any amount
in their application for overseas employment and denies having given any
authority to SLS for the purpose. Petitioner claims that the agreement it entered into with SLS,
represented by Rizalina Sadang, has only authorized the latter to refer and to
recommend prospective employees, leaving to petitioner the exclusive right to
accept or reject any application for overseas employment.

Neither of public respondents, however, found petitioner’s
assertions to have been factually established. In finding for private respondents, POEA, affirmed by the MOLE, said:

“We do not find merit in respondent agency’s allegation that
it has not violated any POEA Rules and Regulations as it has no involvement in
the illegal activities of Rizalina Sadang and that it has not received any single
centavo from her. While respondent
might not have directly collected from complainants still under recruitment
rules and regulations, it is deemed liable for any and all acts of its agent
relating to recruitment and placement. Respondent’s contention that the authorization he issued in favor of
Sadang is only for purposes of referral or
recommendation is not a valid defense. What POEA rules prohibits is an appointment of whatever nature of a
representative without its prior approval, as long as it relates to overseas
employment. The purpose behind such
rule is to prevent the indiscriminate issuance of authority which could result
in harm to the general public as in the instant case. By allowing Rizalina Sadang to recruit workers under its job
order, respondent company made it possible for her to dupe complainants. Moreover, the authority issued to respondent
company to recruit workers was meant to be strictly used by it alone thru its
designated employee as reported to and recognized by the POEA. Referral of workers for overseas employment
is also part and parcel of recruitment. Respondent was fully aware of the strict requirement for the issuance of
a license, hence, it should not have allowed/authorized SLS Overseas Management
and Consultant Services, an unlicensed placement agency to recruit workers by
giving it an authority to refer/recommend workers to fill up its job order.

“We do not agree that respondent company cannot be held liable
for the claims of complainants. It is
true that the terms of the authorization issued to Rizalina Sadang explicitly
limit her authority aside from providing that respondent company shall not be
held liable for Miss Sadang’s illegal acts. However, under recruitment rules and regulations, licensed
entities/agencies are held liable for any and all acts of their agents,
representatives and/or employees. Although respondent claims that Ms. Sadang is not its agent, still by
giving it the authority to refer/recommend workers to it, it impliedly
authorized it to recruit applicants, interview them and assure them of
employment abroad, under the approved job order of respondent company. Moreover, the limitation upon the authority
of respondent not having been made public, respondent also made it possible for
Ms. Sadang to misrepresent her authority and to collect fees from applicant
workers. Under Art. 1911 it is also
provided that ‘Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is
solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as
though it had full authority.’ By allowing Ms. Sadang to recruit workers for
referral to it, respondent indirectly made it appear that she was also
authorized to collect the necessary fees in relation thereto.”

Substantial evidence is not so wanting as to decry the findings
of fact of public respondents from which their conclusions have aptly been
drawn. Absent any showing of
arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion, we must accord the highest respect,
if not finality, to factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial
agencies specializing in their respective fields. We see no compelling reason in the case at bench to deviate from
the rule. Inevitably, on the basis of
those findings, petitioner must be rightly held to be accountable for the liabilities
incurred by SLS in the ostensible discharge of the agency adverted to.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of 22 August 1988 giving due
course to the petition for certiorari
is RECONSIDERED and RECALLED, and the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero, and
Melo, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 23-24.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 23-30.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 31-39.

^[4]
Annex “C”, Ibid., pp. 40-44.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 124.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 173.