This document summarizes a court decision regarding a case between P.I. Manpower Placements Inc. and Norberto Centa Sr. Centa filed a complaint against P.I. Manpower and other parties for illegal dismissal from his overseas employment in Saudi Arabia, non-payment of wages, and recruitment violations. The NLRC found P.I. Manpower jointly and severally liable along with the other parties. P.I. Manpower filed a petition challenging this decision. The court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that Centa's dismissal was not for a valid cause and that P.I. Manpower was privy to Centa's employment contract by actively participating in his recruitment
This document summarizes a court decision regarding a case between P.I. Manpower Placements Inc. and Norberto Centa Sr. Centa filed a complaint against P.I. Manpower and other parties for illegal dismissal from his overseas employment in Saudi Arabia, non-payment of wages, and recruitment violations. The NLRC found P.I. Manpower jointly and severally liable along with the other parties. P.I. Manpower filed a petition challenging this decision. The court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that Centa's dismissal was not for a valid cause and that P.I. Manpower was privy to Centa's employment contract by actively participating in his recruitment
This document summarizes a court decision regarding a case between P.I. Manpower Placements Inc. and Norberto Centa Sr. Centa filed a complaint against P.I. Manpower and other parties for illegal dismissal from his overseas employment in Saudi Arabia, non-payment of wages, and recruitment violations. The NLRC found P.I. Manpower jointly and severally liable along with the other parties. P.I. Manpower filed a petition challenging this decision. The court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that Centa's dismissal was not for a valid cause and that P.I. Manpower was privy to Centa's employment contract by actively participating in his recruitment
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=! )#$$1*& C#;D #$= SCRA 25! )#$$#*&