FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93699. September 10, 1993.]

RAMON PRIETO, PACIFICO CANILLO and WILFREDO AZUELA ,

petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AR and
SONS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., SAUDI SERVICES
and OPERATING COMPANY, LTD., and SAUDI ARABIAN MORRISON ,
respondents.

Capuyan & Quimpo Law Office for petitioners.

Carag, Caballes, Jamora, Rodriguez & Somera Law O ces for private
respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR LAW; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; RULES AND

REGULATIONS GOVERNING EMPLOYMENT; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES GENERALLY BINDING; EXCEPTIONS. — The factual ndings 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 ndings of the POEA and
the NLRC are contrary to each other, as in this case, and there is a necessity to
determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to the established
facts.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JOB APPLICANTS PRESUMED TO HAVE UNDERGONE TRADE
TESTS FOR THE POSITION APPLIED FOR. — We reject the respondents' argument that
the petitioners' services were terminated because they were not quali ed 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 quali ed 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.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED IN CASE AT BAR.
— We nd 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 rmly supported by the
Agency Worker Agreements between the petitioners and AR and Sons acting for SSOC
which were approved by the POEA under Accreditation Certi cate No. 8181, and by the
second contract under which the petitioners were deployed to SAM, its other principal,
by AR and Sons.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF IN TERMINATION CASES LIES WITH
EMPLOYER. — Where the employer-employee relationship has been established, the
burden of proof in termination cases lies with the employer. 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 quali ed
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 quali ed when they were
found later to be deficient.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRINCIPLE OF "NO WORK, NO PAY" NOT APPLICABLE;
REASON. — 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 rst 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.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY ASSUMES JOINT AND SOLIDARY
LIABILITY WITH EMPLOYER OF OVERSEAS WORKERS. — 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.

DECISION

CRUZ , J : p

The petitioners seek modi cation 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 led by Ramon Prieto, Paci co 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 Operation Co., Ltd. (SSOC) in Saudi Arabia. The corresponding
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Agency Worker Agreements, which were duly approved by the POEA, provided for their
respective positions and salaries as follows:
Name Position Salary (per month) in
US Dollars.
Prieto Mechanic A/C $370.00

Azuela Mechanic A/C $370.00

Canillo Clerk $420.00.

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
con ned 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
quali ed as mechanics and that Canillo was not quali ed 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,
Paci co 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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 quali ed for these positions and so had only
themselves to blame if they were subsequently rejected by the foreign employer.
The factual ndings 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 ndings 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 quali ed 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 quali ed 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
. . . 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 su cient
time to prove their tness for the positions they were hired. Two weeks for this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 led their complaint and must have had in mind the
positions stipulated in the second contract. In the amended complaint, this statement
was recti ed. 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. . . . 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 nd 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 rmly
supported by the Agency Worker Agreements between the petitioners and AR and Sons
acting for SSOC which were approved by the POEA under Accreditation Certi cate 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 quali ed 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 quali ed when they were found later to be
de cient. 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 rst agreement as approved by the POEA. They had a right to insist on the higher
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 de nes 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 ful lling future. Breach of contract, maltreatment, rape, insu cient 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.

Footnotes

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com