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.

FACTS

Petitioners Ramon Prieto, Pacifico Canillo, and Wilfredo Azuela were recruited by AR and Sons International Development Corporation (AR and Sons) for employment with Saudi Services and Operating Co., Ltd. (SSOC) in Saudi Arabia under POEA-approved Agency Worker Agreements for 24 months, with specified positions and salaries. The petitioners alleged that the placement agency later coerced them into signing another unapproved contract with Saudi Arabian Morrison (SAM) for lower positions (assistant cooks) and salaries. Upon arrival in Jeddah in November 1987, a SAM representative demanded they sign a third contract further reducing their salaries. Upon their refusal, they were confined, given spoiled food, assigned no work, and were summarily dismissed and repatriated on December 22, 1987. They filed a complaint for non-payment of wages, illegal dismissal, illegal exaction of placement fees, illegal imposition of performance bond, substitution of contract, and deployment to an unaccredited principal. The respondents denied the charges, claiming the petitioners were rejected by SSOC for being unqualified as mechanics and a clerk, and, after being referred to SAM, also failed trade tests for assistant cooks, leading to their repatriation at the agency’s expense. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering AR and Sons and SAM to pay jointly and severally the petitioners’ salaries for the period worked and the unexpired portion of their contracts, plus attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the POEA, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the petitioners misrepresented their qualifications.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the POEA’s decision and dismissing the petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the NLRC decision and REINSTATED the POEA decision. The Court held that the factual findings of the POEA were more conformable to the evidence. It rejected the respondents’ claim that the petitioners were unqualified, noting that the petitioners were presumed to have passed the required trade tests conducted by the recruiting agency prior to deployment. The fault for any lack of qualification lay with AR and Sons for deploying them. An employer-employee relationship was established through the POEA-approved Agency Worker Agreements and the subsequent contract with SAM. The burden of proof for a valid termination lay with the employer, which the respondents failed to discharge. The principle of “no work, no pay” was inapplicable as the petitioners’ inability to work was not their fault but due to their refusal to sign a contract with lower salaries in violation of their original agreement. Under the governing POEA Rules, AR and Sons, as the private employment agency, assumed joint and solidary liability with the foreign employer, SAM, for all claims arising from the contract implementation. The Court emphasized the need for full legal protection for overseas workers upon their return to redress grievances suffered abroad.