GR L 80143; (December, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-80143-44 December 8, 1988
HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FRANCISCO RIGUER, EDILBERTO BAGAY, ROBERTO CURITANA, PRUDENCIO GIL, NAPOLEON MATA, DEMETRIO FAJARDO, JR. AND MULTILINE RESOURCES CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, Filipino overseas workers, entered into two-year employment contracts with petitioner Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation (Hydro), a local agency. The contracts contained a clause allowing Hydro to assign its rights and obligations to any affiliate or joint venture. Before deployment, Hydro assigned these contracts to Jamjoom Hydro Contracting Company, Ltd. (JADRO), a Saudi Arabian corporation, with the workers signing their conformity. The workers were deployed to JADRO’s project in Saudi Arabia. After their initial contracts expired, they entered into subsequent contracts directly with JADRO. Upon the expiration of these subsequent contracts and prior to repatriation, the workers signed a compromise agreement with JADRO wherein JADRO paid 60% of their total money claims, stipulating that the remaining 40% would be shouldered by petitioner Hydro. Subsequently, the workers filed money claims against Hydro before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioner Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation remains solidarily liable for the money claims of the overseas workers despite the assignment of their employment contracts to its foreign joint venture partner, JADRO.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively, dismissing the petition and upholding the liability of Hydro. The legal logic is anchored on protective labor principles and specific policy instructions governing overseas employment. The Court rejected Hydro’s defense that the assignment extinguished its employer-employee relationship with the workers. It found that Hydro and Abdul Gafar Jamjoom formed JADRO as a joint venture, with Hydro owning a 40% share. Policy Instruction No. 22 of the Department of Labor and Employment explicitly provides that construction workers hired by authorized joint venture companies are deemed direct employees of such corporations. This policy is designed to prevent local contractors from evading liability through contractual schemes, ensuring continuous protection for overseas Filipino workers.
The Court emphasized that the assignment clause was a scheme to relieve Hydro of its responsibilities, which the law cannot sanction. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor. The compromise agreement executed by JADRO itself, which acknowledged Hydro’s 40% share of the liability, corroborated Hydro’s ongoing obligation. On the jurisdictional challenge, the Court held that the POEA properly exercised its original and exclusive jurisdiction over the money claims, as the case involved an employer-employee relationship arising from an overseas employment contract. Hydro, as the original contractor and joint venture partner, remained a proper party respondent. Thus, Hydro was correctly held solidarily liable with JADRO for the unpaid wages and benefits of the private respondents.