G.R. No. 117056 February 24, 1998
ABD OVERSEAS MANPOWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MARS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER, INC. and MOHMINA MACARAYA, respondents.

FACTS

In December 1989, respondent Mohmina Macaraya applied for employment as a dressmaker with respondent Mars International Manpower, Inc. (MARS). She paid a processing fee and signed a two-year employment contract for a monthly salary of US$250.00. However, MARS submitted to the POEA an information sheet stating she would be employed as a domestic helper with a monthly salary of US$200.00. Macaraya was deployed to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 30, 1990. Her employer took her contract, made her work as a domestic helper against her will, and dismissed her after three months and thirteen days. She was paid 700 Saudi riyals and repatriated on May 13, 1990. Immediately upon arrival, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and salary underpayment against MARS, M.S. Al Babtain Recruitment Office, and Times Surety and Insurance Co. MARS filed an answer on July 5, 1990. During proceedings, MARS filed a motion to implead petitioner ABD Overseas Manpower Corporation, which had become the accredited recruitment agency of M.S. Al Babtain Recruitment Office on September 8, 1990, after Macaraya’s complaint was filed. The POEA ruled in favor of Macaraya, holding ABD and its foreign principal jointly and severally liable for monetary awards, applying Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules, which states a transferee agency assumes full responsibility for the contractual obligations of the principal to workers originally recruited by the former agency. The NLRC dismissed ABD’s appeal and motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Can an accredited transferee recruitment agent of a foreign employer be held liable under POEA Rules for the illegal dismissal of an overseas worker who filed the case prior to the transferee agent’s accreditation?

RULING

Yes, but with modification. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC resolutions but modified the ruling to hold MARS ultimately liable. The Court found that the NLRC failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to clearly state the facts and law in its decision, as it did not address ABD’s specific arguments. However, on the merits, the Court upheld the validity of Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules but ruled its application in this case should be an exception. The Court held that since Macaraya’s cause of action accrued and the complaint was filed against MARS before ABD’s accreditation, and MARS had already answered the complaint, it would be unjust to hold ABD primarily liable. MARS, being the original agency that contracted with Macaraya and which incurred the liability, should be accountable. Thus, ABD is ordered to pay Macaraya the awarded amounts but has the right to be reimbursed by MARS under Article 1236 of the Civil Code.