FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ABDULGANI SALIK, BALABAGAN AMPILAN, ALI KUBA, GANDHI PUA, DAUD MALANAO, THE ADMINISTRATOR, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS AND EMPLOYME…

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul 1) the
Order dated March 18, 1988 of the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment
in POEA, LRO/RRD Case No. 87-09-1022-DP entitled Abdulgani Salik, et al. v. Pan
Pacific Overseas and Recruiting Services and Finman General Assurance
Corporation, which directed herein petitioner to pay jointly and severally with
Pan Pacific the claims of herein private respondents amounting to P25,000.00
and 2) the Order dated June 7, 1988, which denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration (Rollo, p. 2).

The facts of the case are as follows:

Abdulgani Salik et al., private respondents, allegedly applied
with Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
Pan Pacific) on April 22, 1987 and were assured employment abroad by a certain
Mrs. Normita Egil. In consideration
thereof, they allegedly paid fees totalling P30,000.00. But despite numerous assurances of
employment abroad given by Celia Arandia and Mrs. Egil, they were not employed
(Ibid., p. 15).

Accordingly, they filed a joint complaint with the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (herein referred to as POEA) against Pan
Pacific for Violation of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, as amended,
with claims for refund of a total amount of
P30,000.00 (Ibid.).

The POEA motu proprio impleaded and summoned herein petitioner
surety Finman General Assurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
Finman), in the latter’s capacity as Pan Pacific’s bonding company.

Summons were served upon both Pan Pacific and Finman, but they
failed to answer.

On October 9, 1987, a hearing was called, but only the private respondents
appeared. Despite being deemed in
default for failing to answer, both Finman and Pan Pacific were still notified
of the scheduled hearing. Again they
failed to appear. Thus, ex-parte
proceedings ensued.

During the hearing, herein private respondents reiterated the
allegations in their complaint that they first paid P20,000.00 thru Hadji Usop
Kabagani for which a receipt was issued signed by Engineer Arandia and
countersigned by Mrs. Egil and a certain Imelda who are allegedly employed by
Pan Pacific; that they paid another P10,000.00 to Engr. Arandia who did not
issue any receipt therefor; that the total payment of P30,000.00 allegedly
represents payments for herein private respondents in the amount of P5,000.00
each, and Abdulnasser Ali, who did not file any complaint against Pan Pacific (Ibid.,
pp. 15-16).

Herein private respondents presented as their witness, Hadji Usop
Kabagani who they identified as the one who actually financed their application
and who corroborated their testimonies on all material points including the
non-issuance of a receipt for P10,000.00 by Engr. Arandia.

Herein petitioner, Finman, in an answer which was not timely
filed, alleged, among others, that herein private respondents do not have a
valid cause of action against it; that Finman is not privy to any transaction
undertaken by Pan Pacific with herein private respondents; that herein private
respondents’ claims are barred by the statute of frauds and by the fact that
they executed a waiver; that the receipts presented by herein private
respondents are mere scraps of paper; that it is not liable for the acts of
Mrs. Egil; that Finman has a cashbond of P75,000.00 only which is less than the
required amount of P100,000.00; and that herein private respondents should
proceed directly against the cash bond of Pan Pacific or against Mrs. Egil (Ibid., pp. 16-­17).

On March 18, 1988, the Honorable Franklin M. Drilon, then the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, upon the recommendation of the POEA hearing
officer, issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises
considered, both respondents are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally the claims of complainants, as
follows:

1. Abdulgani Salik – – – – – – – – P 5,000.00

2. Balabagan Ampilan – – – – – – 5,000.00

3. Ali Kuba – – – – – – – – – – – – 5,000.00

4. Gandhi Dua – – – – – – – – – – 5,000.00

6. Daud Malanao – – – – – – – – – 5,000.00

Based on the records of this
Administration, respondent agency is presently serving a total period of suspension
of seventeen (17) months imposed in three (3) separate orders issued on June 2,
1987, August 17, 1987 and September 23, 1987. Under the new schedule of penalties published on January 21, 1987 in the
Philippine Inquirer, the penalty of cancellation shall be imposed when the
offender has been previously penalized with suspension the total period of
which is 12 months or more. Moreover,
the penalty imposable in the case at bar is two (2) months suspension for each
count of violation or a total period of suspension of ten (10) months as the
acts were committed in April 1987. Thus, whether under the old schedule of penalties which required a total
period of suspension of twenty-four (24) months for cancellation to be imposed or under the new schedule
which provides for a twelve (12) month total suspension period, the penalty of
cancellation may be properly imposed upon the herein respondent agency.

In view thereof, the license of Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services is hereby cancelled,
effective immediately.

SO ORDERED.” (Ibid. pp. 20-21).

A motion for
reconsideration having been denied (Ibid., p. 22),
herein petitioner instituted the instant petition for certiorari,
raising the following assigned errors:

I

THE HONORABLE
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF LABOR ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
IN MOTU PROPRIO IMPLEADING FINMAN AS CORRESPONDENT OF PAN PACIFIC IN POEA
LRO/RRD CASE NO. 87-09-1022 DP WHICH WAS FILED BY ABDULGANI SALIK, ET. AL.;

II

THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF LABOR ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DIRECTING FINMAN TO PAY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH PAN
PACIFIC THE CLAIMS OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE
SURETYSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN FINMAN AND PAN PACIFIC AND THE PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION
(POEA FOR SHORT); AND

III

THE FINDINGS OF
FACT MADE BY THE POEA AND UPON WHICH THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR BASED ITS
QUESTIONED ORDERS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND
ARE CONTRARY TO LAW.

(Ibid., p.
101)

As required by this Court, herein public respondents filed their
memorandum on July 28, 1989 (Ibid., p. 84); while that of petitioner and
private respondents were filed on September 11, 1989 (Ibid., p. 89) and
March 16, 1990 (Ibid., p. 120), respectively.

The petition is devoid of merit.

In its first and second assigned errors, petitioner maintains
that POEA has no jurisdiction to directly enforce the suretyship undertaking of
FINMAN (herein petitioner) under the surety bond (Ibid., p. 104).

In the case at bar, it remains uncontroverted that herein
petitioner and Pan Pacific entered into a suretyship agreement, with the former
agreeing that the bond is conditioned upon the true and faithful performance
and observance of the bonded principal (Pan Pacific) of its duties and
obligations. It was also understood
that under the suretyship agreement, herein petitioner undertook itself to be
jointly and severally liable for all claims arising from recruitment violation
of Pan Pacific (Ibid., p. 23), in keeping with Section 4, Rule V, Book I
of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, which provides:

“Section
4. Upon approval of the application,
the applicant shall pay to the Ministry (now Department) a license fee of P6,000.00, post a cash bond of
P50,000.00 or negotiable bonds of equivalent amount convertible to cash issued
by banking or financial institution duly endorsed to the Ministry (now
Department) as well as a surety bond of P150,000.00 from an accredited bonding
company to answer for valid and legal
claims arising from violations of the
conditions of the license or the contracts
of employment and guarantee compliance with
the provisions of the
Code, its implementing rules and regulations
and appropriate issuances of the Ministry
(now Department).” (Underscoring
Supplied)

Accordingly, the nature of Finman’s obligation under the
suretyship agreement makes it privy to the proceedings against its principal
(Pan Pacific). As such Finman is bound,
in the absence of collusion, by a judgment against its principal even though it
was not a party to the proceedings (Leyson v. Rizal Surety and Insurance Co.,
16 SCRA 551 (1966). Furthermore, in
Government of the Philippines v. Tizon (20 SCRA 1182 [1967]), this Court ruled
that where the surety bound itself solidarily with the principal obligor, the
former is so dependent on the principal debtor “that the surety is
considered in law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever
is adjudged touching the obligation of the latter.” Applying the foregoing
principles to the case at bar, it can be very well said that even if herein
Finman was not impleaded in the instant case, still it (petitioner) can be held
jointly and severally liable for all claims
arising from recruitment violation of Pan Pacific. Moreover, as correctly stated by the Solicitor General, private
respondents have a legal claim against Pan Pacific and its insurer for the
placement and processing fees they paid, so much so that in order to provide a
complete relief to private respondents, petitioner had to be impleaded in the
case (Rollo, p. 87).

Furthermore, Finman contends that herein respondent Secretary of
Labor cannot validly assume jurisdiction over the case at bar; otherwise,
proceedings will be railroaded resulting in the deprivation of the former of
any remedial measures under the law.

The records of the case reveal that herein Finman filed a motion
for reconsideration of the adverse decision dated March 18, 1988 of respondent
Secretary of Labor. In the said motion
for reconsideration, no jurisdictional challenge was made (ibid., p. 22). It was only when it filed this petition that it
assailed the jurisdiction of the respondent Secretary of Labor, and that of the
POEA. But then, it was too late. Estoppel had barred herein petitioner from
raising the issue, regardless of its merits (Akay Printing Press v. Minister of
Labor and Employment, 140 SCRA 381 (1985)).

Hence, Finman’s contention that POEA’s and respondent Secretary’s
actions in impleading and directing herein petitioner to pay jointly and
severally with Pan Pacific the claims of private respondents constitute a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction has no basis. (Ibid.,
p. 101).

As regards the third assigned error, herein petitioner maintains
that the findings of fact made by the POEA upon which respondent Secretary of
Labor based his questioned Orders are not supported by substantial evidence and
are contrary to law, is likewise untenable.

Herein petitioner, in raising this third issue, is, in effect,
asking this Court to review the respondent Secretary’s findings of facts.

Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts of the respondent
Secretary are generally accorded great weight unless there was grave abuse of
discretion or lack of jurisdiction in arriving at such findings (Asiaworld
Publishing House, Inc. v. Ople, 152 SCRA 219 (1987).

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that when the case was first
set for hearing, only the private respondents appeared, despite summons having
been served upon both herein petitioner and Pan Pacific. This, notwithstanding, both herein
petitioner and Pan Pacific were again notified of the scheduled hearing, but,
as aforestated they also failed to appear (Rollo, p. 15). Accordingly, owing to the absence of any
controverting evidence, respondent Secretary of Labor admitted and considered
private respondents’ testimonies and evidence as substantial. Under the circumstances, no justifiable
reason can be found to justify disturbance of the findings of facts of the
respondent Secretary of Labor, supported as they are by substantial evidence
and in the absence of grave abuse of discretion (Asiaworld Publishing House,
Inc. v. Ople, supra); and in line with the well established principle
that the findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally
accorded not only respect but at times even finality. (National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Ople, 143 SCRA 124
[1986])

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned Orders of respondent
Secretary of Labor are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.