G & P Manpower Services v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Orlando S. Jimenez and Armando S. Jimenez filed a complaint against petitioner G & P Manpower Services and Shibh Al-Jazira Contracting Establishment for breach of contract, reduction and delayed payment of salaries, damages, refund of placement fee, and cost of plane fare. They alleged being hired with higher salaries but were made to sign contracts with reduced salaries upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, and due to poor working conditions and delayed payments, they left their work and were repatriated at their own expense. Procedural History: Private respondents also filed a complaint with the POEA Recruitment Regulation Division for violation of Article 34 (a) and (b) of the Labor Code, concerning falsified travel documents, contract substitution, and refund of excess placement fees. The POEA Administrator ordered petitioner to refund excess placement fees and suspended its license. Private respondents' motion for reconsideration seeking cancellation of license was denied. The POEA subsequently dismissed the remaining claims for breach of contract, short-changing of salary, and refund of plane fare for lack of merit. Upon appeal by private respondents, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the POEA decision, holding petitioner and Shibh Al-Jazira jointly and solidarily liable, citing the unverified position paper of petitioner and giving credence to private respondents' claims of inhuman treatment. The Petition: Petitioner G & P Manpower Services filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for reversing the POEA decision based on the alleged flimsy pretext that its position paper was not verified, and consequently finding it liable.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the POEA decision based on the unverified position paper of the petitioner. Whether the NLRC erred in finding petitioner liable to private respondents despite the evidence presented.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated December 22, 1988, and its resolution dated February 21, 1989, are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration dated August 3, 1987, is REINSTATED. The temporary restraining order issued on April 17, 1989, is made PERMANENT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the NLRC's reversal based on the unverified position paper: The Supreme Court held that the NLRC committed a reversible error in according undue consideration to the unverified position paper of the respondents-appellees. The Court clarified that the governing provisions were Sections 2 and 5, Rule III, Book VI of the POEA Rules and Regulations, which do not require verification of position papers, unlike Section 2, Rule VII of the Revised Rules of the NLRC which applies to proceedings before Labor Arbiters and the NLRC. The Court emphasized that the POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving overseas employment contracts. Furthermore, the Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that the lack of verification of a position paper is a formal, rather than a substantial defect, and is not fatal to the case, citing Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, Murillo, et al. v. Sun Valley Realty, Inc., and Precision Electronics Corporation v. NLRC. Such a defect could have been easily corrected by requiring an oath. On the issue of petitioner's liability to private respondents: The Supreme Court found that the NLRC erred in giving credence to the private respondents' claims of "inhuman and unbearable treatment" without sufficient admissible evidence. The Court noted that the POEA, after careful scrutiny, found that the "compelling circumstances" cited by the complainants were not clearly substantiated. The alleged poor working conditions, lack of medical facilities, and long hours of employment were not substantiated by further evidence beyond bare allegations. In contrast, the petitioner explained that these conditions were not as alleged, and out of forty-four deployed workers, no other complaints were lodged. The private respondents failed to refute this except by bare allegations. The handwritten resignation letters of the private respondents indicated they were resigning due to serious family problems and were willing to shoulder their travel expenses, which contradicted their claim of being forced to resign. The joint statements of remaining workers expressing contentment with their jobs and working conditions further negated the claims of inhuman treatment.
Main Doctrine
The National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's decision based on the unverified position paper, as the POEA Rules and Regulations governing the proceedings did not require verification of position papers, and the lack of verification is a formal, not substantial, defect.