FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NLRC (POEA), ROMEO GALIZA AND MILAGROS BUMANGLAG, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner seeks to annul the Order dated August 3, 1989 of
the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment, denying its appeal from the
Order dated May 31, 1989 of the POEA Administrator in POEA (L) RRB Case No.
88-03-474 entitled, “Romeo Galiza and Milagros Bumanglag vs. Pan Pacific
Overseas Recruitment/Finman General Assurance Corporation” directing the
respondents to pay jointly and severally the complainants’ claims, reiterating
the ban earlier imposed on Pan Pacific Overseas Recruitment, and imposing a
penalty fine of P40,000 on it.

The record shows that on July 23, 1987, Romeo Galiza and Milagros
Bumanglag applied with Pan Pacific Overseas Recruitment, a placement agency
with office registered at Feros Building, 176 Salcedo Street, Makati, Metro Manila,
for jobs as airport porter and domestic helper, respectively.

Galiza was required by the agency’s General Manager, Engr. Celia
Aranda, to pay a placement fee of P6,000 which he paid on July 23, 1987 to the
Recruitment Director of the agency, Normita Egil, evidenced by a receipt issued
in his favor.

Milagros Bumanglag was required to pay P3,000 as “processing
fee” for which no receipt was issued to her by the agency.

After several months, Bumanglag followed up her application with
the agency. Since the latter failed to
deploy her, she withdrew her travel documents on January 23, 1988 and demanded
a refund of her P3,000 placement fee. Instead of returning her money, the agency advised her to return on
March 12, 1988 for the refund of P2,400 only, explaining that deductions had
been made from her initial deposit of P3,000 to cover expenses for her
pictures. The agency issued in her
favor a note scheduling such refund.

When it appeared that the recruitment agency merely furnished
false information relating to their recruitment and placement for jobs
overseas, Galiza and Bumanglag filed individual complaints against Pan Pacific
before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) [(L) RRB Case
No. 88-03-474)] for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as
amended, which provide:

“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 approved receipt clearly showing the amount paid. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a
schedule of allowable fees.”

“ART. 34. Prohibited practices. – xxx xxx xxx

“(a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount
greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than actually
received by him as a loan or advance.”

Motu proprio, POEA impleaded as party-respondent,
Pan Pacific’s surety, FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION (FINMAN for
brevity), which had bound itself to be jointly and severally liable for claims
that may arise should the recruitment agency violate the conditions of its
license. Summons were sent to the
respondents at their respective official addresses. However, the summons for Pan Pacific was returned unserved with a
notation “Company moved out.”

FINMAN filed an Answer denying liability for the claims, and
alleging POEA’s lack of jurisdiction to enforce the surety’s undertaking. During the hearing that followed, FINMAN
further alleged that the note which the agency issued to Bumanglag indicating her
refund schedule, was not a receipt because it did not acknowledge payment of
any fee.

On May 31, 1989, POEA Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued an
Order finding Pan Pacific liable for violation of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the
Labor Code, as amended. He observed
that the agency’s note scheduling the refund of Bumanglag’s P2,400 placement
fees, while not strictly a receipt was sufficient proof that she had indeed
paid that amount to the agency, particularly since it had been established in
several other cases in the POEA against the respondent agency that it issued
such “notes” to applicants claiming refund of fees paid to the
agency. On the other hand, a receipt
for P6,000 and a similar note scheduling the refund for the same amount issued
by the agency to Galiza substantially established his payment of P6,000 which
was in excess of the allowable recruitment fee of P5,000 from each hired
worker. That the agency furnished false
information relating to recruitment and placement to the complainants when it
promised available employment for them, was established beyond cavil. The respondents were ordered to pay jointly
and severally the sum of P6,000 to Galiza and P2,400 to Bumanglag. Pan Pacific was ordered to pay a fine of
P40,000 and the ban earlier imposed upon it was reiterated.

FINMAN appealed the POEA Order of May 31, 1989 to the Department
of Labor and Employment. On August 3,
1989, DOLE Secretary Franklin Drilon dismissed the appeal for lack of
merit. A writ of execution was issued
by the POEA.

FINMAN filed this petition for certiorari with preliminary
mandatory injunction and/or restraining order to stop the implementation of the
Orders of the POEA Administrator and the Secretary of Labor.

FINMAN alleges that the POEA acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction:

1. in motu proprio
impleading FINMAN as a co-respondent with Pan Pacific in POEA (L) RRB Case No.
88-03-474; and

2. in directing
FINMAN to pay jointly and severally with Pan Pacific the claims of Galiza and
Bumanglag on the basis of the suretyship agreement executed by FINMAN, Pan
Pacific and the POEA.

Petitioner alleges that the POEA has no authority under its own
Rules and Regulations to implead the surety of any recruitment or placement
agency in actions and/or complaints for suspension, cancellation or revocation
of license or authority of the latter; that, on the contrary, the authority of
the POEA is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient cause for
an action upon the agency’s license; that POEA’s jurisdiction to hear and decide
money claims is confined to employer-employee relations arising out of, or by
virtue of, any law or contract, and not money claims arising from
pre-employment or during recruitment conducted by the respondent agency; and
finally, that if ever the surety bond may be held liable for infractions or
violations of the Labor Code and POEA rules and regulations, it shall be
answerable only for the sanctions, penalties or fines imposed upon the agency
but definitely not for money claims of applicants not arising from employment
contracts.

The petition for certiorari is without merit. The POEA Administrator did not exceed his
jurisdiction nor act with grave abuse of discretion in impleading FINMAN as a
co-respondent in (L) RRB Case No. 88-03-474 and directing it to pay jointly and
severally with Pan Pacific the claims of the private respondents, Galiza and
Bumanglag, on the basis of the surety bond it issued for Pan Pacific. Said surety bond guarantees the faithful
compliance by Pan Pacific of all laws relating to the use of its license and
its recruitment activities. The bond is
conditioned upon the true and faithful performance and observance by Pan
Pacific of its duties and obligations as a licensed placement agency (Art. 31,
Title I, Book One, Labor Code of the Phils.). Accordingly, the nature of FINMAN’s obligation under the suretyship
agreement makes it privy to the proceedings against its principal, Pan
Pacific. FINMAN is bound by a judgment
against its principal even though it was not a party to the proceedings, for a
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, and their
liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable (PNB vs. Hon. Pineda, 197 SCRA
1, citing Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. vs. SSS, 153 SCRA 338 and Gov’t. of the
Phil. vs. Tizon, 20 SCRA 1187; Finman General Assurance Corporation vs. Salik,
188 SCRA 740).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.