G.R. No. 84084 , August 20, 1990
Finman General Assurance Corporation, petitioner, vs. Abdulgani Salik, Balabagan Ampilan, Ali Kuba, Gandhi Pua, David Malanao, The Administrator, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, The Secretary of Labor and Employment, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Abdulgani Salik, et al., filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. They alleged that in April 1987, they paid a total of P30,000.00 in placement fees to Pan Pacific’s representatives, including a certain Mrs. Normita Egil and Engineer Arandia, upon assurances of overseas employment. Despite these payments and repeated assurances, they were never deployed for work abroad. Their complaint sought a refund for violation of the Labor Code.
The POEA, motu proprio, impleaded petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation as a co-respondent, in its capacity as the bonding company of Pan Pacific. Summons were served on both Pan Pacific and Finman, but they failed to file an answer. After they also failed to appear at the scheduled hearings despite notice, the POEA proceeded with ex-parte proceedings. Private respondents presented testimonial and documentary evidence, including a witness who corroborated the payment and non-issuance of a receipt for part of the amount.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the POEA and the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio impleading Finman and holding it jointly and severally liable with Pan Pacific; and (2) whether the factual findings supporting the liability were based on substantial evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed orders. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the POEA and the Secretary of Labor. The records showed that Finman, in its motion for reconsideration of the Labor Secretary’s decision, did not raise any jurisdictional challenge. It was only in its petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court that it assailed the jurisdiction. Following the principle in Akay Printing Press v. Minister of Labor, estoppel had already barred the petitioner from raising the issue, regardless of its merits.
On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the factual findings. The Labor Secretary’s decision was based on the evidence presented ex-parte by the private respondents, which remained uncontroverted due to the failure of both Pan Pacific and Finman to participate in the hearings. The Court emphasized the well-settled doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies like the POEA and the Department of Labor, especially when supported by substantial evidence and in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, are accorded great respect and finality. The surety bond executed by Finman in favor of the POEA was precisely intended to answer for valid claims against the recruitment agency, thereby justifying the joint and several liability imposed to ensure compensation for the aggrieved workers.