UNITED PLACEMENT INTERNATIONAL, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CESAR VILLARAN, DOMINADOR VIDALLO AND ORLANDO GELLIDO, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner United Placement International (UPI) seeks to annul
and set aside the Resolution of public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) dated August 16, 1991 (Annex A, p. 19, Rollo) and prays for
the reversal of the Decision of POEA Administrator Thomas D. Achacoso dated
March 1, 1990 (Annex B, p. 26, Rollo) insofar as it ordered petitioner to pay,
jointly and solidarily with the foreign employer, Pacific Beverages, the
alleged unpaid wages of individual respondents Cesar Villaran, Dominador
Vidallo, and Orlando Gellido.

Private respondents are complainants in POEA Cases No. (L)
89-05-246, (L) 89-05-416 and (L) 89-05-428 against petitioner UPI, Pacific
Beverages, Inc. (a duly POEA-accredited foreign employer), and Afisco Insurance
Corporation, UPI’s surety, for alleged illegal dismissal, non-payment of
salaries, and recruitment violations.

On March 1, 1991, the POEA Adjudication Office promulgated its
Decision which upheld private respondents’ claim in the aforementioned cases
for unpaid wages. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

Wherefore, premises considered, respondent United Placement
International and Pacific Beverages are hereby held jointly and solidarily
liable for complainants’ claim for unpaid wages, and are hereby ordered to pay
as follows:

1. Cesar Villaran – US
$173.30 representing his unpaid salaries for 10 days of actual services;

2. Orlando P. Gellido – US
$173.30 representing his unpaid salaries for 10 days of actual services;

3. Dominador Vidallo – US
$173.30 representing his unpaid salaries for 10 days of actual services.

or a total of US$519.90 or its pesos
equivalent at the time of actual payment, plus 5% thereof as and for attorney’s
fees. (pp. 33-34, Rollo.)

Within the reglementary period, or on March 30, 1991, UPI appealed,
limiting the issues on appeal to the following:

I.         
THE POEA ADMINISTRATOR ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT UPI LIABLE
FOR PAYMENT OF ALLEGED UNPAID WAGES OF COMPLAINANTS BECAUSE IT IS A MERE
PLACEMENT AGENCY AND IS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF THE SAID COMPLAINANTS.

II.       
THE LIABILITY OF AN ACCREDITED PRINCIPAL, IF ANY, MUST NOT BE
SHIFTED TO A PLACEMENT AGENCY. THE POEA
ACCREDITATION CARRIES WITH IT THE ASSURANCE THAT A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL OR
EMPLOYER IS REPUTABLE. CONSEQUENTLY,
THE FAILURE OF SUCH AN ENTITY TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS TO FILIPINO
OVERSEAS WORKERS SHOULD NOT BE MADE AN OBLIGATION OF THE LOCAL PLACEMENT
AGENCY. (p. 68, Rollo.)

Respondents did not appeal from the POEA decision. However, in their comment on UPI’s appeal,
dated February 18, 1991, respondents contended that the POEA erred in deciding
that they are entitled only to unpaid wages when they should have been paid
their individual claims for the 9 months’ and 7 days’ unexpired portion of
their contract and further, they should have been each refunded US$269.00 as
repatriation expenses (p. 43, Rollo). Respondents, through counsel, thus prayed that the NLRC reverse the
decision of the POEA and order petitioner to pay, among other claims, “9
months and 7 days unexpired portion of their contract plus US$269 repatriation
expenses” (p. 45, Rollo). Petitioners also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order against the execution
of the disputed resolution dated August 16, 1991.

In disposing of the appeal, public respondent sustained the
finding of the POEA that private respondents’ services were terminated without
prior notice and that both UPI and Pacific Beverages are jointly and solidarily
liable for private respondents unpaid wages. Moreover, the NLRC ruled on respondents’ non-appealed claim for payment
of their unexpired portion of the contract, as follows:

For those reasons, the complainants whose contracts of employment
are for a period of 12 months are entitled to be paid for 9 months and 7 days
representing the unexpired portion of their contract, as well as the refund of
plane tickets in the amount of US $269.00 each, and excess payment of placement
fees in the amount of P14,500.00 each, as correctly pointed out in their
comment to the appeal. There is, as in
this case substantial albeit reversible error committed in ordering the
dismissal of those money claims so earnestly sought by the complainants, hence
we proceed to correct/amend the error to avoid a miscarriage of labor justice
under Article 218 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended.

WHEREFORE, subject to the modification as above indicated, let the
decision appealed from be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. (p. 24, Rollo.)

Hence, this petition on the ground that public respondent NLRC
acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion when it
resolved issues not raised by petitioner in its appeal but in private
respondents’ “Comment” to the appeal.

We issued a temporary restraining order on November 11, 1991.

On the issue of joint and solidary liability of UPI with Pacific
Beverages for payment of unpaid wages of respondents, this is no longer a
disputable matter. Pursuant to Section
10, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book I of the Labor Code:

Before recruiting any worker, the private employment agency shall
submit the following documents: x x x (2) Power of the agency to sue and be
sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreign-based employer
for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement, and the contracts of
employment. (Emphasis ours.)

Thus, it has been ruled that a recruitment agency was solidarily
liable for the unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment in Saudi
Arabia (Ambreque International Placement and Services vs. NLRC, et al.,
157 SCRA 431 [1988]; Catan vs. NLRC, 160 SCRA 69 [1988]).

As the Solicitor General correctly points out, Rule II, Section
1-d(3) requires every applicant for license to operate a private employment
agency for overseas recruitment and placement to undertake “joint and solidary
liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in
connection with the implementation of the contract of employment”, thus:

Section 1. Requirements for
Issuance: License and Authority. Every
applicant for license or authority to operate a private employment agency,
private recruitment entity or manning agency shall submit a written application
together with the following requirements:

x                    x                      x

x                    x                      x

x                    x                      x

(d) A verified undertaking
stating that the applicant:

x                    x                      x

x                    x                      x

x                    x                      x

(3) Shall assume joint
and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities which
may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract of employment. (p. 71, Rollo; underscoring supplied.)

The POEA, therefore, did not err in declaring UPI and Pacific
Beverages jointly and solidarily liable for the unpaid wages of respondents.

With respect to NLRC’s cognizance of respondents’ non-appealed
claims for payment of their unexpired portion of their contract and for refund of repatriation expenses, we agree
with the Solicitor General and petitioner that respondent Commission committed
grave abuse of discretion when it resolved these issues which were raised only
by way of comment to the appeal, not in an appeal interposed by private
respondents themselves.

Rule VI, Section 3-C of the New (1990) Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC limits the review powers of the NLRC in cases of perfected appeals, to
those issues raised on appeal, thus:

RULE VI

APPEALS

x x x                 x x x                x x x

Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. x x x

(c) Subject to the
provisions of Article 218, once the appeal is perfected in accordance with
these rules, the Commission may limit itself to reviewing and deciding specific
issues that were elevated on appeal.

In the present case, since only petitioners interposed a timely
appeal from the POEA decision, respondents’ non?appealed claims on those
not raised on appeal may thus no longer be taken up and discussed by public
respondent NLRC.

In the case of Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC (188
SCRA 370 [1990]), we emphasized:

When petitioner limited the issue on appeal, necessarily the NLRC
may review only that issue raised. All
other matters, including the issue of the validity of private respondent’s dismissal,
are final. If private respondent wanted
to challenge the finding of a valid dismissal, he should have appealed his case
seasonably to the NLRC. By raising new
issues in the reply to appeal, private respondent is in effect appealing his
case although he has, in fact, allowed his case to become final by not
appealing within the reglementary period. A reply/opposition to appeal cannot take the place of an appeal. Therefore, in this case, the dismissal of
the complaint for illegal dismissal and the denial of the prayer for
reinstatement, having become final, can no longer be reviewed. (at p. 374.)

Public respondent’s reliance on Article 218(c) of the Labor Code
“to avoid a miscarriage of labor justice” for its action in delving
on issues not properly raised was struck down by this Court in Del Monte,
in this manner:

Justifying its right to review the entire case and not just the
sole legal question raised, public respondent relied on Article 218(c) of the
Labor Code. In the resolution denying
the motion for reconsideration, public respondent quoted that portion which
provides that the NLRC may in the exercise of its appellate power
“correct, amend or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in
substance or in form.”

Such reliance is misplaced.

The Labor Code provision, read in its entirety, states that the
NLRC’s power to correct errors, whether substantial or formal, may be exercised
only in the determination of a question, matter or controversy within its
jurisdiction [Art. 218, Labor Code]. Therefore, by considering the arguments and issues in the
reply/opposition to appeal which were not properly raised by timely appeal nor
comprehended within the scope of the issue raised in petitioner’s appeal, public
respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. (Ibid.)

To be sure, even in ordinary civil cases, it has been the uniform
and long standing doctrine followed in this jurisdiction not to afford or
extend any affirmative relief to an appellee who is not himself an appellant.

WHEREFORE, the
Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated August 16,
1991 is hereby MODIFIED by DELETING that portion directing payment of wages
corresponding to 9 months and 7 days representing the unexpired portion of private
respondents’ contract, as well as the refund of plane tickets in the amount of
US $269.00 each, and excess payment of placement fees in the amount of
P14,500.00 each. Respondent
Commission’s affirmance of the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration dated March 1, 1990 ordering petitioner United
Placement International to pay jointly and severally with the foreign employer
the unpaid wages of respondents is hereby AFFIRMED.

The temporary restraining order issued on November 11, 1991 is
hereby LIFTED.

No special pronouncement is made as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., (Acting Chairman), concurring
and dissenting opinion.