SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97369. July 31, 1997]

P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECON I!ISION", #$% NORBERTO
C&ENTA, SR., respondents.
E C I S I O N
MENO'A, J.(
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the decision of the NLRC,
affirming the decision of the POEA dated Apri !", #$$" %hich hed petitioner P&I&
'anpo%er Pacements Inc&, LP( Enterprises Inc& )no% ADDISC Enterprises Inc&* and
foreign empo+er A (indan Contracting and Trading Estabishment ,oint+ and soidari+
iabe to pri-ate respondent Norberto C.enta, Sr&, for the s.m of /S0#",12"&""
representing his .npaid saaries and the .ne3pired portion of his contract, as %e as the
reso.tion of the NLRC den+ing reconsideration&
The facts of the case, as fo.nd b+ the NLRC, are as foo%s4
On September !$, #$55, pri-ate respondent Norberto C.enta, Sr&, appied to
petitioner P&I& 'anpo%er Pacements Inc& )P&I& 'anpo%er* for o-erseas empo+ment as
traier dri-er& Dann+ Aon6o, representing himsef as an agent of petitioner, accompanied
C.enta to the office of Teresita Ri-era, Operations 'anager of petitioner& C.enta %as
as7ed to s.bmit his 8LT certificate, sec.re a -aid passport, .ndergo medica
e3amination and pa+ a pacement fee of P#",5""&""& Teresita Ri-era %rote the 8.rea.
of Land Transportation in behaf of C.enta to faciitate iss.ance of the 8LT certificate&
9hen the re:.irements %ere amost compete, Ri-era, in an .rgent etter dated
October !;, #$55, tod C.enta to come to her office as soon as possibe& <or ac7 of
f.nds, pri-ate respondent reported on+ on No-ember 1, #$55 and made a partia
pa+ment of P=,"""&""& Ri-era ao%ed C.enta to pa+ the baance of P;,5""&""
ater& Thereafter, she iss.ed a receipt and made C.enta sign in ban7 the Agenc+>
9or7er Agreement, ass.ring C.enta that the terms and conditions of his empo+ment
as agreed %o.d be stated in the contract, partic.ar+ C.enta?s saar+ at 0@@"&"" a
month&
On No-ember !", #$55, pri-ate respondent %as ad-ised of his fight to Dharan,
Sa.di Arabia& According+, on No-ember !=, #$55, he paid the baance of P;,5""&"",
atho.gh no receipt %as iss.ed to him e-en after he had eft& It %as %hen he %as
aread+ on the pane that he %as abe to read his empo+ment papers as the same %ere
handed to him b+ Ri-era on+ before he boarded the pane& To his s.rprise, C.enta
fo.nd o.t that his depo+ing agent %as LP( Enterprises, not P&I& 'anpo%er, and that his
month+ saar+ %as SR$2"&"", and not 0@@"&"", %hich %as ess than %hat he and
Teresita Ri-era had agreed&
/pon arri-ing in Dharan, Sa.di Arabia, C.enta %as assigned b+ A (indan
Contracting and Trading Estabishment )A (indan* to dri-e a traier& Ae %as ater
informed that he %o.d recei-e an ao%ance of SR!""&"" for the first t%o months b.t
none in the third, beca.se he %as on probation& On 'arch !=, #$5$, %itho.t prior
notice and in-estigation C.enta %as dismissed and tod to pac7 .p and s.rrender his
%or7ing permit )Ig.ama*&
After arri-ing home in the Phiippines, he immediate+ sa% a certain 'r& Depsi,
o%ner of P&I& 'anpo%er& C.enta %as tod, ho%e-er, that nothing co.d be done b+ P&I&
'anpo%er beca.se the obigation of the agenc+ %as on+ to depo+ %or7ers, i7e
C.enta&
In (.+ #$5$, pri-ate respondent C.enta fied a compaint in the POEA for iega
dismissa, non>pa+ment of %ages and recr.itment -ioations against P&I& 'anpo%er
Pacements Inc&, LP( Enterprises Inc&, and A (indan Contracting and Trading
Estabishment and their respecti-e bonding companies& In addition, he fied crimina
charges against Teresita Ri-era, Issan E Debs, Benera 'anager of P&I& 'anpo%er, and
Dann+ Aon6o for estafa and iega recr.itment, b.t the cases %ere dismissed after the
fisca fo.nd no deceit and misrepresentation on the part of the acc.sed&
C#D
On Apri !", #$$", the POEA, rendered a decision, the dispositi-e portion of %hich
reads4
C!D
WHEREFORE, respondents P.I. Manpower Placement Inc., and LPG Enterprises,
Inc., (Addisc Enterprises) and Al indan !ont. and "radin# Est. are $ere%& $eld 'ointl&
and se(erall& lia%le to pa& complainant )or%erto !*enta t$e +ollowin#,
-. ./01,122.22 3 representin# salaries +or t$e *ne4pired portion o+ t$e contract5 and
6. ./0-,782.22 3 representin# $is *npaid salaries +or 9 mont$s o+ act*al ser(ice.
or t$e total amo*nt o+ 0-2,:82.22 or its peso e;*i(alent at t$e time o+ act*al pa&ment.
8oth parties appeaed to the NLRC %hich, on No-ember !", #$$", affirmed the
decision of the POEA&
On (an.ar+ !, #$$", petitioner fied a motion for reconsideration b.t its motion %as
denied on (an.ar+ !#, #$$#&
C=D
Separate petitions forcertiorari %ere thereafter fied b+
petitioner and the LP( Enterprises, :.estioning the decision of the NLRC&
On (.+ #1, #$$#, this Co.rt?s <irst Di-ision, in a reso.tion of that date, modified the
decision of the NLRC& The dispositi-e part of the reso.tion in B&R& No& $;51; reads4
C@D
WHEREFORE, t$e petition is <I/MI//E< wit$ costs a#ainst petitioner. "$e
c$allen#ed decision is AFFIRME<, wit$ t$e modi+ication t$at t$e amo*nt o+ /R922
or its e;*i(alent in P$ilippine pesos, representin# t$e +ood allowance paid to t$e
pri(ate respondent +or two mont$s, s$all %e ded*cted +rom t$e total amo*nt awarded
to $im. "$e temporar& restrainin# order dated Ma& 8, -==-, is LIF"E<.
On December ##, #$$#, a %rit of e3ec.tion %as ser-ed .pon the petitioner& In an
/rgent 'otion for the Iss.ance of a Temporar+ Restraining Order
C1D
fied on (an.ar+ !,
#$$!, petitioner so.ght to en,oin the POEA from enforcing the decision against it in -ie%
of the pendenc+ of this petition& Its motion %as granted on (an.ar+ !", #$$!&
C2D
Petitioner contends that the reso.tion of the NLRC has no fact.a and ega basisE
that pri-ate respondent?s dismissa %as for a ,.st ca.se beca.se, as stated in the
teegram
C;D
dated Apri 1, #$5$ of the foreign empo+er, C.enta %as .n%iing to %or7 and
%as threatening to harm others if he %as gi-en other assignments& In an+ e-ent, it is
contended that C.enta cannot :.estion the termination of his empo+ment beca.se he
%as on probation and th.s can be dismissed for faiing to meet the minim.m standards
re:.ired b+ his empo+er&
Petitioner aso arg.es that p.bic respondent improper+ constr.ed the r.es on the
,oint and soidar+ iabiit+ of the pacement agenc+ and the foreign empo+er for caims
and iabiities arising from -ioations of the terms and conditions of the
contract& Petitioner caims that C.enta %as a %a7>in appicant %hose appication %as
accepted on+ for Fmanpooing p.rposesG and that Ri-era on+ referred C.enta to her
friend Dann+ Aon6o of LP( Enterprises beca.se C.enta %as in a h.rr+ to get a ,ob& It
denies iabiit+ .nder the contract of empo+ment beca.se the Agenc+>9or7er
Agreement and the tra-e e3it pass )TEP* sho% LP( Enterprises to be the oca
depo+ing agent of pri-ate respondent&
Den+ing it %as g.it+ of misrepresentation, petitioner caims that C.enta read the
doc.ments before he eft for abroad&
Petitioner disp.tes the NLRC?s assessment that FreprocessingG of appications %as
e-i and asserts that agencies, i7e itsef, %hich refer appicants to other agencies for
empo+ment, hep red.ce .nempo+ment in the co.ntr+& Petitioner maintains that its
s.spension for fo.r months sho.d be s.fficient to ans%er for its FmisrepresentationG or
for %hate-er indiscretions it ma+ ha-e committed in the .se of its icense&
The petition has no merit& The facts of this case amp+ s.pport the NLRC?s findings
that C.enta %as not dismissed for ca.se and that petitioner %as pri-+ to C.enta?s
contract of empo+ment b+ ta7ing an acti-e part in the atter?s recr.itment, ,.stif+ing
thereb+ the finding that petitioner is ,oint+ and soidari+ iabe %ith LP( Enterprises and
A>(indan&
First& In termination cases, the b.rden of pro-ing ,.st and -aid gro.nds for
dismissa rests .pon the empo+er&
C5D
Considering this r.e and the e-idence of petitioner,
partic.ar+ the teegram sent b+ C.enta?s foreign empo+er to Dann+ Aon6o, %e find no
reason to dist.rb the NLRC?s findings that C.enta %as denied a hearing before he %as
dismissed from empo+ment& In fact, petitioner does not den+ that pri-ate respondent
%as as7ed to ea-e his ,ob %itho.t an+ notice and in-estigation at a& The
teegram
C$D
caimed to ha-e been sent b+ 'ohd Ab. Da%ood, genera manager of A
(indan, has no probati-e -a.e to pro-e ,.st ca.se for C.enta?s dismissa& There is no
proof of its d.e e3ec.tion and no concrete e-idence to s.pport its contents& It does not
pro-e the charge that C.enta %as a dangero.s person %ho carried dead+ %eapon to
%or7 and %ho faied to meet the minim.m re:.irements set b+ his empo+er& Petitioner
faied to add.ce s.bstantia e-idence to pro-e its aegations&
Nor is there an+ merit in petitioner?s caim that pri-ate respondent %as a
probationar+ empo+ee %ho co.d be dismissed an+ time& Pri-ate respondent %as an
empo+ee hired for a fi3ed term %hose empo+ment %as to end on+ at the e3piration of
the period stip.ated in his contract&
C#"D
8.t e-en if he %as a probationar+ empo+ee, he is
nonetheess entited to constit.tiona protection of sec.rit+ of ten.re that no %or7er sha
be dismissed e3cept for ca.se pro-ided b+ a%
C##D
and after d.e process&
C#!D
Second& C.enta %as accepted for immediate depo+ment& This is sho%n b+ the
foo%ing .ndisp.ted facts4 Ri-era %rote a etter to the 8.rea. of Land Transportation to
faciitate the processing of C.enta?s papers, recei-ed from the atter the P=,"""&"" as
partia pa+ment of the re:.ired fees, and the P;,"5"&"" baance thereof, signed the
order of pa+ment accepting the partia pa+ment made b+ him and appro-ing C.enta?s
appication for processing, and dei-ered to C.enta his empo+ment and tra-e
doc.ments at the airport&
C#=D
As pointed o.t b+ the Soicitor Benera, certain
circ.mstances in this case s.ch as the fact that Ri-era sent C.enta a etter informing
him that an empo+er %as as7ing for his )C.enta?s* empo+ment papers as soon as
possibe and the iss.ance b+ petitioner of the order of pa+ment sho%ing that C.enta?s
papers %ere appro-ed for processing indicate that Ri-era indeed recr.ited C.enta
%ithin the meaning of the Labor Code, %hich defines recr.itment as Fan+ act of
can-assing, enisting, contracting, transporting, .tii6ing, hiring or proc.ring %or7ers,
and inc.des referras, contract ser-ices, promising or ad-ertising for empo+ment,
oca+ or abroad, %hether for profit or not & & &G
C#@D
Petitioner does not :.estion these facts attrib.ted to Ri-era& Instead, it a-ers that
Ri-era acted in her persona capacit+ and denies that it recei-ed the mone+ paid b+
pri-ate respondent& Petitioner caims that its genera manager did not appro-e the order
of pa+ment beca.se no position %as a-aiabe to accommodate pri-ate respondent?s
appication&
This is a sef ser-ing caim& The mere fact that the order of pa+ment %as not signed
b+ petitioner?s genera manager does not pro-e that petitioner did not recei-e the mone+
paid b+ C.enta to Ri-era or that petitioner had no 7no%edge and did not consent to the
acts of Ri-era& The fact is that Ri-era %as a responsibe officer of petitioner& No
e-idence %as add.ced to sho% that the p.bic %as proper+ %arned that %itho.t the
genera manager?s appro-a no order of pa+ment %as -aid& The fact that pri-ate
respondent %as recei-ed in the petitioner?s b.siness address and that petitioner?s
name, sea and address %ere imprinted in the etters sent b+ Ri-era for the processing
and competion of C.enta?s papers s.fficient+ ma7e petitioner iabe for these
transactions& That these doc.ments are accessibe to an+ person is immateria& 9hat is
important is that Ri-era, as operations manager of petitioner PI 'anpo%er, .sed them in
the co.rse of petitioner?s b.siness, i.e&, recr.itment& Indeed, e3cept for its denia,
petitioner has not presented e-idence sho%ing that it diso%ned Ri-era?s representations
to pri-ate respondent&
Third. Petitioner?s caim that it had no opening and co.d not ha-e considered
C.enta?s appication does not negate the fact that petitioner %as instr.menta in his
depo+ment& As obser-ed b+ the NLRC, LP( Enterprises acted as a confederate
agenc+ of P&I& 'anpo%er& 9ith Ri-era and Aon6o agreeing to send C.enta abroad as
tr.c7 dri-er for A (indan )LP(?s foreign principa*, it %as immateria that P&I& 'anpo%er
did not ha-e a foreign empo+er for C.enta& This f.rther e3pains %h+ the Agenc+>
9or7er Agreement and tra-e e3it pass )TEP* indicate LP( Enterprises and not to P&I&
'anpo%er to be the recr.iter& The POEA?s appro-a co.d not ha-e been obtained had
the name of petitioner appeared therein&
The NLRC correct+ fo.nd petitioner g.it+ of misrepresentation& Indeed, C.enta
co.d not ha-e 7no%n that LP( Enterprises %as his oca empo+ing agent beca.se he
had been deaing %ith petitioner& Ais empo+ment doc.ments %ere gi-en to him on+
%hen he %as abo.t to board the pane, and therefore he had no time to e3amine them
compete+& As the NLRC, pointed o.t4
"$e tr*e relations$ip %etween t$e applicant and t$e a#enc& is *s*all& re(ealed onl&
w$en t$e +ormer is at t$e airport and is a%o*t to depart or is alread& a%road, at t$e time
and place w$ere no matter $ow disad(anta#eo*s t$e contract o+ emplo&ment ma&%e,
in terms o+ salaries and %ene+its, pr*dence wo*ld deter t$e applicant +rom %ac>in# o*t
+rom t$e contract, w$at wit$ all t$e time, e++ort, and mone& $e $ad spent +or t$is.
Petitioner insists that there %as no misrepresentation beca.se C.enta 7ne% that
LP( Enterprises %as his agenc+& Petitioner aeges that C.enta read the doc.ments
and co.d not ha-e signed the Agenc+>9or7er agreement in ban7 form beca.se he is
not an iiterate indi-id.a %ho co.d ha-e been made to do that&
The fact, ho%e-er, is that pri-ate respondent, after arri-ing in the Phiippines,
prompt+ %ent to P&I& 'anpo%er?s office and compained to its o%ner, 'r& Depsi& If
C.enta 7ne% that LP( Enterprises %as his agenc+, he %o.d ha-e .ndo.bted+ ha-e
gone to the atter?s office and not to P&I& 'anpo%er& 'oreo-er, %e cannot find an+
reason %h+ Teresita Ri-era sho.d go to a the tro.be of ma7ing s.re that pri-ate
respondent %as depo+ed, if petitioner had no part in the recr.itment of C.enta& That
pri-ate respondent is not an iiterate %ho co.d be -ictimi6ed is not a reason for finding
that he co.d not ha-e faied to notice that he %as signing .p for empo+ment o-erseas
%ith another agenc+ and not %ith petitioner& Ae %as ass.red that e-er+thing he and
Ri-era had agreed co.d be embodied in the contract and he beie-ed Ri-era&
Last+, the finding of the prosec.tor in the crimina case fied b+ C.enta that there
%as no misrepresentation and deceit on the part of Teresita Ri-era, Issan A Debs and
Dann+ Aon6o is not binding on the NLRC& The t%o cases are separate and distinct and
re:.ire different :.ant.m of e-idence and in-o-e different proced.re&
C#1D
<.rthermore,
the POEA and the NLRC cond.cted independent means of finding the .timate facts of
this case %hich ser-e as basis of their decisions& These fact.a findings of the NLRC,
%hen s.pported b+ s.bstantia e-idence, are accorded respect if not finait+ b+ co.rts&
C#2D
Petitioner?s reiance on the r.ing in Ilas v. NLRC
C#;D
is mispaced& /ni7e in the case
at bar, the agenc+ in that case %as e3onerated from iabiit+ )atho.gh it appeared as a
part+ in the contract of empo+ment of the compaining %or7ers* beca.se the agenc+ did
not consent nor ha-e 7no%edge of its in-o-ement in recr.iting the %or7ers& The
compaining %or7ers there admitted that the+ 7ne% that the agenc+ %as not their
recr.iter and that it %as mere+ .sed to enabe them to tra-e and obtain tra-e e3it
passes as their act.a recr.itment agenc+ had no icense& It %as aso fo.nd that
transactions %ere not made in the b.siness address of the agenc+& On the other hand,
here petitioner acti-e+ too7 part in recr.iting and depo+ing C.enta& It ao%ed its
name, b.siness premises, office s.ppies, and other faciities, inc.ding the ser-ices of
its Operations 'anager, to be .sed for the transaction&
Fourth. 9hie the practice of agencies in referring appicants to other agencies for
immediate hiring and depo+ment, %hat is referred to b+ the POEA and petitioner as
Freprocessing,G is not e-i per se, agencies sho.d 7no% that the act of endorsing and
referring %or7ers is recr.itment as defined b+ a% and, therefore, the+ can be hed iabe
for the conse:.ences thereof& Recr.itment, %hether a b.siness acti-it+ or other%ise,
has economic and socia conse:.ences, as its fai.re or s.ccess affects the -er+
i-eihood of famiies and, .timate+, of the nation&
The ,oint and soidar+ iabiit+ imposed b+ a% against recr.itment agencies and
foreign empo+ers is meant to ass.re the aggrie-ed %or7er of immediate and s.fficient
pa+ment of %hat is d.e him& This is in ine %ith the poic+ of the State to protect and
ae-iate the pight of the %or7ing cass& Aence, petitioner?s contention that the fo.r>
month s.spension of its icense is eno.gh p.nishment is %itho.t merit&
W)ERE*ORE, the petition is DIS'ISSED and the temporar+ restraining order
iss.ed on (an.ar+ !", #$$" is LI<TED& The decision of the NLRC, as modified in B&R&
No& $;51;, m.st no% be e3ec.ted&
SO ORERE.
Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, and Puno, JJ., conc.r.
Torres, Jr., J., on ea-e&
C#D
Rollo, pp& 1!>1@&
C!D
Id&, pp& @$>1"&
C=D
Id&, p& #5&
C@D
Id&, p& #!@&
C1D
Id&, pp& ###>##=&
C2D
Id., p& ##2&
C;D
Id&, p& 1#&
C5D
(B8 and Associates, Inc& v. NLRC, !1@ SCRA @1; )#$$2*&
C$D
Rollo, p&1#&
C#"D
See Anderson v. NLRC, !1! SCRA ##2 )#$$2*&
C##D
Ne% Labor Code, Arts& !5!>!5=&
C#!D
See Laba,o v. Ae,andro, #21 SCRA ;@; )#$55*&
C#=D
Id&, p& =;&
C#@D
Labor Code, Art& #=)b*&
C#1D
See Office of the Co.rt Administrator v. 'atas, !@; SCRA $ )#$$1*&
C#2D
'iitante v. NLRC, !@2 SCRA =21 )#$$1*E Seb.g.ero v& NLRC, !@5 SCRA 1=! )#$$1*&
C#;D
#$= SCRA 25! )#$$#*&