RAMON PRIETO, PACIFICO CANILLO AND WILFREDO AZUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AR AND SONS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., SAUDI SERVICES AND OPERATI…

The petitioners seek modification of the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission dated May 31, 1990, reversing the decision of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration dated July 24, 1989. It is averred that the public respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of the private
respondents, contrary to the evidence on record.

This case arose from a complaint filed by Ramon Prieto, Pacifico
Canillo and Wilfredo Azuela against AR and Sons International Development
Corporation, Saudi Services and Operations Co. Ltd., and Saudi Arabian
Morrison.^[1]
Their claim was for non-payment of wages, illegal dismissal, illegal exaction
of placement fees, illegal imposition of performance bond, substitution of
contract and deployment of workers to an unaccredited principal.

The complainants alleged they were recruited by AR and Sons
International Development Corporation (AR and Sons) for employment for a period
of 24 months with Saudi Services and Operating Co., Ltd. (SSOC) in Saudi
Arabia. The corresponding Agency Worker
Agreements, which were duly approved by the POEA, provided for their respective
positions and salaries as follows:

Later, however, taking advantage of their need for employment,
the respondent placement agency coerced them into signing another employment
contract with Saudi Arabia Morrison (SAM) without the knowledge and approval of
the POEA. The second contract gave all
three of them the lower positions of assistant cook with a salary of only
SR625.00 per month for a period of three years.^[2]

The complainants said that when they reached Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, in November 1987, they were asked to sign still another employment
contract by a certain Muhammad Abbas, a representative of SAM, which would
further lower their salary to SR250.00 a month. When they refused, they were not assigned any work but were
confined in a small room in a villa and given spoiled food for their
sustenance. On December 22, 1987, they
were summarily dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines.^[3]

The respondents denied the charges and said that the complainants
entered into separate uniform Agency Worker Agreements where it was stipulated
that they would be employed by SSOC for 24 months upon departure from the
Philippines. When the petitioners
arrived in Jeddah, it was discovered that Prieto and Azuela were not qualified
as mechanics and that Canillo was not qualified as clerk, so all three of them
were rejected. The complainants then
requested SSOC to help them secure employment as assistant cooks with SAM,
which at that time was also a foreign principal of AR and Sons. Taking pity on them, SSOC referred them to
the latter agency but they also failed to pass the trade tests for assistant
cooks. It was for this reason that they
were finally repatriated to the Philippines at the expense of the latter
agency.

After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, the
POEA held in favor of the complainants. The dispositive portion of its decision decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering AR & SONS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and SAUDI
ARABIAN MORRISON to pay jointly and severally complainants Ramon Prieto,
Pacifico Canillo and Wilfredo Azuela the following amounts to be paid in
Philippine Currency at the prevailing rate of exchange at the rate of actual
payment:

1. for Ramon Prieto

a)     
SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN US DOLLARS AND 67/100 (US$616.67)
representing his salaries from November 2, 1987 to December 22, 1987;

b)     
EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THREE US DOLLARS AND 33/100
(US$8,263.33) representing his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract.

2. for Pacifico Canillo

a)     
SIX HUNDRED TEN US DOLLARS (US$610.00) representing his
salaries from November 12, 1987 to December 22, 1987;

b)     
NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY US DOLLARS (US$9,470.00)
representing his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

3.  for
Wilfredo Azuela

a)     
SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN US DOLLARS AND 67/100 (US$616.67)
representing his salaries from November 2, 1987 to December 22, 1987;

b)     
EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THREE US DOLLARS AND 33/100
(US$8,263.33) representing his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract; and

4. FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000.00) as and for attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.

This decision was reversed by the NLRC, which ordered the
dismissal of the complaint. The NLRC found
that the complainants had misrepresented themselves as mechanics and cooks when
they were not qualified for these positions and so had only themselves to blame
if they were subsequently rejected by the foreign employer.

The factual findings of administrative bodies are as a rule
binding on this Court, but this is true only when they do not come under the
established exceptions. One of these is
where the findings of the POEA and the NLRC are contrary to each other,^[4]
as in this case, and there is a necessity to determine which of them should be
preferred as more conformable to the established facts.

A study of the two decisions, together with the evidence and the
arguments adduced by the parties, inclines the Court in favor of the POEA.

We reject the respondents’ argument that the petitioners’
services were terminated because they were not qualified either as mechanics or
as assistant cooks. It is presumed that
before their deployment, the petitioners were subjected to the trade tests
required by law to be conducted by the recruiting agency to insure employment
of only technically qualified workers for the foreign principal. There was no misrepresentation on the part
of the petitioners. They had applied as
A/C mechanics and clerk, and we may assume that the trade tests conducted on
them were for these positions and not for the position of assistant cook. If they fell short of the employer’s
expectations, the fault lies not with the petitioners but with the recruiting
agency for deploying them even if they did not possess the skills necessary for
the positions they were seeking.

As we said in one case:^[5]

x x x Moreover, before the private respondents were hired they were
lengthily interviewed by a representative of the foreign employer, Modern
System. They must have passed,
otherwise, they would not have been hired. They must have also been subjected to a trade test because this is one
of the requirements for employment abroad. Thirdly, the private respondents were not given sufficient time to prove
their fitness for the positions they were hired. Two weeks for this purpose is not enough.

The private respondents point to the petitioners’ allegation in
their complaint that they were mere assistant cooks and argue that this belies
their representation that they did not apply for these positions. The argument has no merit. The petitioners were not assisted by lawyers
when they filed their complaint and must have had in mind the positions
stipulated in the second contract. In
the amended complaint, this statement was rectified. At any rate, the slight error must not be taken against the
petitioners. As we held in Cuadra v.
NLRC,^[6]
“our overseas workers are mostly ordinary laborers not conversant with legal
principles and with the manner they can assert and protect rights. They have no compatriot lawyers to consult
and no labor unions to support them in the foreign land. x x x The claims of our overseas workers
should therefore be received with sympathy and allowed, if warranted,
conformably to the constitutional mandate for the protection of the working
class.”

We find no basis either for the conclusion of the NLRC that there
was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The record shows that the petitioners became
employees of Saudi Services and Operating Company, Ltd., and later of Saudi
Arabian Morrison, both entities being represented by AR and Sons International
Development Corporation, which admitted in its Comment that the petitioners
were “hired and deployed abroad…” This relationship is even more firmly
supported by the Agency Worker Agreements between the petitioners and AR and
Sons acting for SSOC which were approved by the POEA under Accreditation
Certificate No. 8181,^[7]
and by the second contract under which the petitioners were deployed to SAM,
its other principal, by AR and Sons.^[8]

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 279. Security of
Tenure – In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the
services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this
title. An employee who was unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and to his backwages computed from the time his compensation
was withheld from him up to the time of reinstatement.

Where the employer-employee relationship has been established,
the burden of proof in termination cases lies with the employer.^[9]
This burden was not discharged by the private respondents. It is clear from the record that the
petitioners were hired as mechanics and clerk (or as assistant cooks under the
second contract) after presumably having passed the corresponding trade tests
conducted by the recruiting agency prior to their deployment. If AR and Sons felt they were not qualified
for these positions, it should have rejected their applications outright
instead of accepting their recruitment fees just the same and assuring them
that their employment had already been approved by the foreign principal. It was the fault of AR and Sons for holding
the petitioners to its foreign principal as qualified when they were found
later to be deficient. As a result of
its negligence, if not its deliberate misrepresentation, the petitioners found
themselves stranded in a foreign land, without the employment and income that
they hoped would give them a better life.

The principle of “no work, no pay” does not apply in this case
for, as correctly pointed out by POEA, the fact that the complainants had not
worked at the jobsite was not of their own doing. If they were not able to work at all, it was because they refused
to sign the third contract providing for another lowering of their salaries in
violation of their first agreement as approved by the POEA. They had a right to insist on the higher
salaries agreed upon in the original contract and to reject the subsequent
impositions of SAM, which obviously thought the petitioners would have to
accept because they had no choice.

Rule V, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
defines the duties and obligations of a duly licensed placement and recruitment
agency. Section 2(e) requires a private
employment agency to assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the
contract of employment of an overseas worker. Section 10(a)(2) provides that a private employment agency can be sued
jointly and severally with the principal or foreign-based employer for any
violation of the recruitment agreement or the contract of employment.

Book II, Rule II, Section 1(f)(3) of the new Rules and
Regulations Governing Overseas Employment promulgated by the Governing Board of
the POEA substantially reiterates Rule II of Book II, Section 1(d)(3) of 1985
POEA Rules, which governs this case. It
provides that a private employment agency shall assume joint and solidary
liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities that may arise in
connection with the implementation of the contracts including but not limited
to payment of wages, health and disability compensation and repatriation. There is no doubt that, under the facts
established in this case, AR and Sons is jointly and solidary liable with
overseas employer SAM for the claims of the petitioners.

The Court is not unaware of the many abuses suffered by our
overseas workers in the foreign land where they have ventured, usually with
heavy hearts, in pursuit of a more fulfilling future. Breach of contract, maltreatment, rape, insufficient nourishment,
sub-human lodgings, insults and other forms of debasement, are only a few of the
inhumane acts to which they are subjected by their foreign employers, who
probably feel they can do as they please in their own country. While these workers may indeed have
relatively little defense against exploitation while they are abroad, that disadvantage
must not continue to burden them when they return to their own territory to
voice their muted complaint. There is
no reason why, in their very own land, the protection of our own laws cannot be
extended to them in full measure for the redress of their grievances.

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the NLRC dated May
31, 1980 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
POEA decision dated July 24, 1989 is REINSTATED, with costs against the private
respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 14-21.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 25-27.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 5.

^[4]
Rapiz, et al. v. Modern Asia Shipping Corporation, 207 SCRA 243.

^[5]
Alga Moher International Placement Services v. Atienza, 166 SCRA 174.

^[6]
207 SCRA 279.

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 22-24.

^[8]
Rollo, pp. 25-27.

^[9]
Reyes and Lim Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA 772; Manggagawa ng
Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. NLRC, 194 SCRA 573; Samahang Manggagawa ng
Rizal Park v. NLRC, 198 SCRA 480; Pan Pacific Industrial Sales, Co.,
Inc. v. NLRC, 194 SCRA 633.