G.R. Nos. 90394-97; February 7, 1991
Herminigildo Ilas, Glicerio Belarmino, Mario Barbosa and Teodoro Enriquez, petitioners, vs. The National Labor Relations Commission and All Seasons Manpower International Services, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners applied for overseas employment in Doha, Qatar with CBT/Shiek International, an unlicensed agency managed by spouses Francisco and Corazon Ngoho. They paid placement fees to the Ngohos. To facilitate their departure, they were assisted by Erlinda Espeno, a liaison officer of the licensed private respondent agency, All Seasons Manpower International Services. Espeno processed their papers and provided them with Travel Exit Passes (TEPS). Petitioners were deployed but worked for four months without pay. Upon returning to the Philippines with POEA assistance, they filed a complaint to recover unpaid salaries and wages for the unexpired contract period against private respondent.
The POEA initially ordered a refund of placement fees but dismissed the salary claims. On appeal, the NLRC first modified the decision, awarding petitioners four months of unpaid salaries to be paid by private respondent. However, upon private respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its earlier decision and dismissed the case entirely, finding no merit in the claims against the licensed agency.

ISSUE

Whether the licensed recruitment agency, All Seasons Manpower International Services, can be held liable for the unpaid wages of the overseas workers recruited by an unlicensed entity using the agency’s name without its knowledge and consent.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s decision. The Court emphasized it is not a trier of facts and found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s factual conclusions. The evidence established that petitioners knowingly transacted with the unlicensed CBT/Shiek International and the Ngohos, not with the private respondent’s office. Their actual foreign employer was Mabeco Trading, not Yacoub Trading Est., which was the accredited principal of private respondent.
While POEA rules hold an agency responsible for acts of its representatives, liability attaches only for acts done within the scope of the agency relationship. Here, Espeno’s actions in processing papers and issuing TEPS were performed to facilitate recruitment for the unlicensed entity, not for private respondent’s legitimate operations. The use of private respondent’s name in the documents was a scheme to which petitioners were complicit, as they signed TEPS knowing private respondent was not their true recruiter. Consequently, private respondent cannot be held liable for claims arising from a recruitment undertaken without its knowledge and consent. Petitioners, having participated in the deceptive scheme, must bear the consequences of their actions.