G & P MANPOWER SERVICES, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ORLANDO S. JIMENEZ AND ARMANDO S. JIMENEZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari seeking reversal
of the decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated
December 22, 1988, which held petitioner G & P Manpower Services and Shibh
Al-­Jazira Contracting Establishment jointly and solidarily liable to private
respondents Orlando S. Jimenez and Armando S. Jimenez; and its resolution dated
February 21, 1989, which denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of
merit.

The antecedent facts are, as follows:

On August 11, 1986, private respondents Orlando S. Jimenez and Armando
S. Jimenez filed a complaint for breach of contract, reduction and delayed
payment of salaries, and damages (Case No. L-86-05-432-A); also for refund of
placement fee and cost of plane fare (Case No. L-86-05-432-B) against
petitioner G & P Manpower Services and Shibh Al-Jazira Contracting
Establishment before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.  They alleged therein that they were hired as
Road Foreman with a monthly salary of U.S. $300.00 (Orlando Jimenez) and as
Paver Operator with a monthly salary of U.S. $240.00 (Armando Jimenez) starting
sometime in December, 1985; that they were made to sign another contract upon
arrival in Saudi Arabia with reduced salaries in Saudi Rial currency by their
foreign employer, Shibh Al-Jazira; and that due to the poor working conditions,
long hours of work, and delay in payment of salaries, they left their work at
Qassim Road Project in Saudi Arabia and were repatriated to the Philippines on
April 31, 1986 at their own expenses, thus, they were unable to complete their
two-year contracts.  They claimed salary
(short­-change) differentials in the sum of $112.00 (Orlando Jimenez) and
$96.00 (Armando Jimenez) for a period of eight months; salaries corresponding
to the unexpired portion of their employment contracts; refund of excess
placement fees in the sum of P7,000.00 each;
and reimbursement of plane fares from Saudi Arabia to the Philippines in the
sum of P11,140.00 each.

Petitioner contended, among other things, that the Qassim Road
Project, a Saudi Arabian operation and maintenance project, was financed by the
government and payment of the salaries of the workers was released by the
government, through the sub-contractor, Shibh Al­-Jazira Contracting
Establishment and therefore if ever there was occasional delay of salary
payments, it was beyond its control; that the contract workers (including
private respondents) at the project were provided with air-conditioned
port-a-cabins but as the project progressed, the workers’ camp had to be
transferred from one location to another; that medical facilities were provided
to the workers in the Saudi Arabian government hospital indiscriminately; and
that private respondents are the ones guilty of breach of contract for having
suddenly resigned allegedly due to personal problems, thus, they did not
complete their periods of employment.

The records show that apart from the filing of this case with the
POEA Adjudication Department, private respondents also filed a formal complaint
with the POEA Recruitment Regulation Division charging petitioner and Shibh
Al-Jazira Contracting Establishment with violation of Article 34 (a) and (b) of
the Labor Code, as amended, invoking practically the same causes of action as
contained in this case, specifically, alleged falsified travel documents,
contract substitution which includes demotion in rank and salary, refund of
excess placement fee and for disciplinary and/or administrative action against
petitioner.  The formal complaint was
docketed as LRO/RRD Case No. 86-07-643 HT. 
In an order dated February 23, 1987, the POEA Administrator directed
petitioner to refund P7,000.00 each to private respondents representing excess
placement fee and suspension of its license for a period of six (6) months or a
fine of P40,000.00 until full satisfaction of private respondents’ claims.  Not satisfied with this ruling, private
respondents filed a motion for reconsideration on March 4, 1987, contending
that petitioner should be meted the penalty of cancellation of license instead
of only suspension but said motion was denied for lack of merit in an order
dated April 10, 1987.  Thus, with respect
to the charges of excessive placement fees, contract substitution, and other
prohibited labor practices under Article 34 (a) and (b) of the Labor Code, these
have been adjudicated in the order dated February 23, 1987.

The remaining issues then to be resolved by the POEA are whether
petitioner and Shibh Al-Jazira Contracting Establishment are liable for breach
of contract, short-changing of salary and refund of plane fare.

On August 3, 1987, the POEA dismissed the case for lack of
merit.  The counterclaim was likewise
dismissed (p. 35, Rollo).  On
appeal by private respondents, public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission ruled in their favor.  It rationalized
that (pp. 25-27, Rollo):

“A perusal of the records shows that the position paper with
annexes ‘1’ to ‘8’ submitted by the respondent-appellee was not at all verified
by any of its officers, hence, the POEA should not have entertained the same for
being a mere scrap of paper as correctly urged by the herein
complainants-appellants in their Reply to Position Paper (Rollo, pp. 158-159).

“x x x.

“Consequently, the POEA committed a reversible error in
according undue consideration to the unverified position paper of the
respondents-appellees.

“While it is true that under Article 221 of the Labor Code, as
amended, We are not bound by the technical rules on evidence, We cannot close
our eyes to the mandatory requirement provided by the aforecited rule which is
not only procedural but also jurisdictional.

“x x x.

“x x x. We give
credence to complainants-appellants’ claims that they were forced to terminate
their employment contract by reason of inhuman and unbearable
treatment accorded the employees by the
employer or his representative. 
(Ibid, p. 94), and
respondents-appellees failed to refute the same by any admissible
evidence.  x x x.”

The dispositive portion of its decision, reads (p. 28, Rollo):

“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a
new one entered ordering the respondents-appellees jointly and solidarily to
pay the following:

“1. The salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
employment contract of complainant Orlando S. Jimenez at U.S. $300.00 per month
or its peso equivalent at the current rate of exchange plus the refund of his
airplane ticket to the Philippines from Saudi Arabia;

“2. The salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
contract of employment of complainant Armando S. Jimenez at U.S. $240.00 per
month or its peso equivalent at the current rate of exchange plus the refund of
his airplane ticket to the Philippines
from Saudi Arabia;

“3. Plus, ten (10%) per cent of the total
monetary award as and for attorney’s fees.

“No other pronouncement.

“SO ORDERED.”

On February 21, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was denied
for lack of merit.  Hence, the present
petition filed solely by petitioner G & P Manpower Services.

On April 17, 1989, We issued  a temporary restraining order enjoining
the NLRC from enforcing, implementing or otherwise executing its decision dated
December 22, 1988 (pp. 68-69, Rollo).

Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC in reversing the decision of tile POEA on the flimsy pretext that its
position paper filed with the latter was not verified and consequently, in
finding it liable to private respondents.

Petitioner asseverates that the NLRC erroneously anchored its
ruling on Section 2, Rule VII of its Revised Rules.  A perusal of this provision shows that the
requirement of a verified position paper is applicable only in proceedings
before the Labor Arbiters.  On the other
hand, Sections 2 and 5, Rule III, Book VI of the POEA Rules and Regulations do
not require verification of position papers. 
The requirement of verification applies only to an answer.  The filing of a verified answer by petitioner
before the POEA is a matter of record. 
Granting arquendo that it was
still necessary for petitioner to verify its defenses and allegations in
the position paper, the verified answer was in substantial compliance with
Section 2, Rule VII of the Revised Rules of the NLRC.  After all, the averments and defenses raised
in its position paper are mere clarifications of averments and defenses in the
answer.  The evidence presented by it
before the POEA consists of, among other things, the resignation letters of
private respondents attesting to the fact that they resigned voluntarily from
their employment due to family problems and wherein they manifested their
willingness to shoulder the expenses of their trip back to the Philippines (pp.
55-56, Rollo).  It is worthy to
stress that private respondents, in the proceedings before the POEA and the
NLRC, failed to controvert the due execution and existence of their resignation
letters.  Furthermore, the co-workers of
private respondents who were similarly deployed by Shibh Al-Jazira Contracting
Establishment executed joint statements to the effect that they were satisfied
with the terms and conditions of their employment in Saudi Arabia, thereby
negating private respondents’ claim of “inhuman and unbearable
treatment.”

Petitioner correctly invokes the applicability in this case of
Sections 2 and 5, Rule III, Book VI of the POEA Rules and Regulations, which
provide:

“Section 2.  Filing of
Answer.  Within the period indicated in
paragraph 1 of Section 1 hereof, the respondent shall file a verified answer,
not a motion to dismiss,
incorporating therein all pertinent documents in support of his defense.

“x x x.

“Section 5.  Judgment
Based on Position Paper.  Whenever
summary judgment is not appropriate, the Hearing Officer shall direct the
parties to the case to simultaneously submit their position papers and/or
memoranda within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice after which the case
shall be deemed submitted for decision.”

instead of Section 2, Rule VII of the
Revised Rules of the NLRC which provides:

“Section 2.  Submission
of position papers.  – During the initial
conference/hearing, or immediately thereafter, the Labor Arbiter shall require
the parties to simultaneously submit to him their respective verified position
papers, which shall cover only the issues raised in the complaint, accompanied
by all supporting documents then available to them and the affidavits of their
witnesses which shall take the place of their direct testimony.  The parties shall thereafter not be allowed
to allege, or present evidence to prove, facts not referred to and any cause or
causes of action not included in their complaint or position papers, affidavits
and other documents.  The parties shall
furnish each other with copies of the position papers, together with the
supporting affidavits and documents submitted by them.”

Sections 2 and 5, Rule III, Book VI of
the POEA Rules and Regulations are the governing provisions because this case
concerns adjudication proceedings before the POEA, which has the “original
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all cases involving
employer-employee relation arising out of or by virtue of x x x (a) contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas employment x x x” (Section 1, Rule
I, Book VI of the POEA Rules and Regulations). 
As pointed out by petitioner, verification of the position paper is not
required therein; only the answer is required to be verified.  Now, the Revised Rules of the NLRC were
adopted and promulgated precisely to govern arbitration proceedings before the
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC.  These are
the explicit wordings of the first paragraph of said rules.  How could the NLRC have misapplied its own
rules?

There is a need to rectify another faux pas of the
NLRC, namely, that Section 2, Rule
VII of its Revised Rules is “not only procedural but also
jurisdictional” (supra). 
Even prior to the questioned decision of the NLRC, We have had an
occasion to rule squarely that the lack of verification of the position paper
is a formal, rather than a substantial defect. 
It is not fatal in this case.  It
could have been easily corrected by requiring an oath.  We are referring to the case of Del Rosario
and Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 64204, May 31,
1985, 136 SCRA 660.  This doctrine was
later reiterated in the cases of Murillo, et al. v. Sun Valley Realty, Inc., et
al., G.R. No. 67272, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 271 and Precision Electronics
Corporation v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 86657; October 23, 1989, 178 SCRA 667.

We quote with favor the ratiocination of the POEA, inasmuch as it
is supported by substantial evidence (pp. 32-33, Rollo):

“After a careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced and the
arguments presented by both parties, we find that the ‘compelling
circumstances’ referred to by the complainants that allegedly forced them to
resign from their jobs and to go back to the Philippines were not clearly substantiated and established.  The alleged poor working conditions, lack of
medical facilities, and long hours of employment have not been substantiated by
further evidence except on the bare allegations of the complainants.  Upon the other hand, the same were explained
by the respondents to be not really the case as in fact out of the forty four
(44) workers deployed to work with the Shibh-Al-Jazira Contracting
Establishment, no other complaint had been lodged against respondents similar
to what have been allegedly experienced by the complainants, and on this point,
the latter failed to refute except the bare allegation that the filing of this
case was personal to complainants alone. 
While complainants claim that their resignation from their job hardly
qualify as ‘voluntary’, we find no concrete evidence to prove the contrary,
like testimony from complainants’ co-workers or any other evidence to prove
that by reason of threats, malice, fraud, or intimidation on the part of the
respondents, complainants were forced to resign and to assume payment of their
repatriation expenses.  Upon the other
hand, the hand-written resignations of the complainants, both tendered in the
month of March, 1986, show that they were resigning because they have serious
family problems that needed their presence and in connection therewith they
were willing to shoulder their travel expenses. 
Respondents also presented in evidence the joint statements of the
remaining workers in the project expressing their contentment with their jobs
and the regularity of the working conditions, including payment of salaries, in
connection therewith, the same marked as Annexes ‘5’ and ‘6’ to respondents’
Position Paper.”

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED.  The decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission dated December 22, 1988 and its resolution dated February 21, 1989
are SET ASIDE.  The decision of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration dated August 3, 1987 is
REINSTATED.  The temporary restraining
order issued on April 17, 1989 is made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, and
Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.