G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992
FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NLRC (POEA), ROMEO GALIZA and MILAGROS BUMANGLAG, respondents.
FACTS
On July 23, 1987, Romeo Galiza and Milagros Bumanglag applied for overseas jobs with Pan Pacific Overseas Recruitment. Galiza paid a placement fee of P6,000, evidenced by a receipt. Bumanglag paid a P3,000 “processing fee” for which no receipt was issued. The agency failed to deploy them. Bumanglag withdrew her documents and demanded a refund; the agency issued a note scheduling a refund of P2,400, explaining deductions for expenses. Galiza also received a similar note for a P6,000 refund. They filed complaints with the POEA against Pan Pacific for violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. The POEA, motu proprio, impleaded Finman General Assurance Corporation, Pan Pacific’s surety, as a party-respondent based on its surety bond. Summons to Pan Pacific was returned unserved. Finman filed an Answer denying liability and alleging POEA’s lack of jurisdiction over it. The POEA Administrator found Pan Pacific liable, ordering it and Finman to pay jointly and severally P6,000 to Galiza and P2,400 to Bumanglag, imposing a P40,000 fine on Pan Pacific, and reiterating a ban against it. The DOLE Secretary dismissed Finman’s appeal. Finman filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the POEA acted with grave abuse of discretion in impleading it and holding it liable.
ISSUE
Whether the POEA acted with grave abuse of discretion: 1) in motu proprio impleading Finman as a co-respondent, and 2) in directing Finman to pay jointly and severally with Pan Pacific the claims of Galiza and Bumanglag based on the suretyship agreement.
RULING
The petition is without merit. The POEA Administrator did not exceed jurisdiction or act with grave abuse of discretion. The surety bond guarantees the faithful compliance by Pan Pacific of all laws relating to its license and recruitment activities. Finman’s obligation under the suretyship makes it privy to the proceedings against its principal. A surety is considered in law as being the same party as the debtor, and their liabilities are interwoven and inseparable. Therefore, Finman is bound by the judgment against Pan Pacific. The petition is dismissed.
