Empire Insurance Company v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Monera Andal filed a complaint against G & M Phils., Inc., a recruitment agency, and its surety, Empire Insurance Company, for illegal dismissal, non-payment, and underpayment of salaries. Andal alleged she was hired as a domestic helper in Saudi Arabia for two years at US $200.00 monthly but was repatriated after 7.5 months due to unbearable treatment, non-payment, and underpayment of salaries, and forced to work excessive hours. She claimed she was not paid for 3.5 months and underpaid for 4 months, and that her employer terminated her employment due to her demands for payment, forcing her to bear the expense of repatriation. 2. Procedural History: The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) ruled in favor of Andal, ordering G & M Phils., Inc. and Empire Insurance Company to pay her salary differentials and for the unexpired portion of her contract. Empire Insurance Company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that Andal had no cause of action against it as its principal's liability was not established and that its own liability was merely subsidiary. The NLRC affirmed the POEA's decision, holding that the surety's liability is inseparable from the principal's. Empire Insurance Company's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: Empire Insurance Company filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether the NLRC erred in holding it jointly liable with its principal for Andal's monetary claims. The company argued that there was no basis for holding it liable as a surety and that Andal's act of seeking mediation from the Philippine Embassy shifted the burden of proof to her. Respondents, Andal and the Solicitor General, argued that the petition was procedurally defective, as appeals from NLRC decisions should be via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 45. They also contended that the petition raised factual issues inappropriate for Supreme Court review.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper mode of appeal from a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. Whether petitioner Empire Insurance Company is jointly and solidarily liable with its principal, G & M Phils., Inc., for the monetary claims of private respondent Monera Andal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court held that petitioner Empire Insurance Company is solidarily liable with its principal, G & M Phils., Inc., for the payment of private respondent's monetary claims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Proper Mode of Appeal: The Court reiterated the elementary rule of procedure that decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) may only be reviewed by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is distinct from a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Under Rule 65, the reviewing court may only entertain questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Findings of fact cannot generally be assailed in a petition for certiorari. However, in a number of cases, the Supreme Court has treated petitions erroneously captioned as petitions for review on certiorari as special civil actions for certiorari in the interest of justice, to avoid dismissing appeals purely on technical grounds and to encourage hearings on the merits, consistent with the policy that rules of procedure are tools to secure, not override, substantial justice. Therefore, the instant petition, though filed under Rule 45, was treated as a special civil action for certiorari. On the Solidary Liability of the Surety: The Court affirmed the solidary liability of petitioner Empire Insurance Company with its principal, G & M Phils., Inc. Suretyship is defined as a contractual relation where one person (the surety) engages to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another (the principal). Where a surety binds itself solidarily with the principal obligor, the surety is considered in law as the same party as the debtor, and their liabilities are interwoven and inseparable. The liability of the surety is primary, and it is immediately bound to pay and satisfy the principal's obligation once the principal is held liable. In this case, Empire Insurance Company bound itself to answer for the debt or default of G & M Phils., Inc. Since the POEA and NLRC found G & M Phils., Inc. liable to the private respondent, the petitioner's liability as surety likewise proceeds from this finding. The Court emphasized that claims of overseas workers should be acted upon with sympathy, and private recruitment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with foreign-based employers for violations of recruitment agreements. The purpose of surety bonds posted by recruitment agencies is to ensure that recourse is available to overseas workers whose rights are violated. Surety companies may be impleaded in administrative complaints and are bound by the judgments of the POEA.
Main Doctrine
A surety company is solidarily liable with its principal, a recruitment agency, for the monetary claims of an overseas contract worker found to have been illegally dismissed, as the surety's liability is interwoven with and inseparable from that of the principal.