Hornales v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mario Hornales filed a complaint against JEAC International Management & Contractor Services (JEAC) and its owner, Jose Cayanan, for non-payment of wages and damages. Petitioner alleged that private respondents deployed him and other Filipinos to Singapore as fishermen with a monthly salary of US$200.00. Upon arrival, they were subjected to inhumane working conditions, including inadequate food and water, maltreatment, and excessive work hours without pay. Petitioner left the vessel on July 15, 1992, and upon returning to the Philippines, sought payment of his salaries, but respondents allegedly asked for his passport and gave him P500.00. Procedural History: The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering JEAC, Jose Cayanan, and Travelers Insurance Corporation jointly and severally to pay petitioner US$1,646.66 for unpaid salaries and attorney's fees. The POEA dismissed the claim against Country Bankers Insurance Corporation. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the POEA decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed, finding that petitioner used the agency as a stepping stone to enter Singapore as a tourist and obtain employment there on his own. The NLRC gave weight to a Joint Affidavit of co-workers and a Certification from Step-Up Agency. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC, asserting that private respondents deployed him and that the NLRC's conclusion was without basis. Private respondents maintained that petitioner failed to prove deployment and that photocopies of checks and agreements were hearsay. The Solicitor General joined petitioner, assailing the NLRC decision as baseless and erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondents are responsible for petitioner's recruitment and deployment to Singapore. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the POEA decision.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are SET ASIDE. The Decision of the POEA is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that P16,000.00 be deducted from the total award to petitioner. Travelers Insurance Corporation's solidary liability as surety is maintained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of private respondents' responsibility for petitioner's recruitment and deployment: The Court found that the evidence presented by petitioner, consisting of PNB checks and agreements, strongly disproved private respondents' claim of being "total strangers." The checks showed payments made by respondent Cayanan to relatives of co-workers, with "LIM Chang Koo &/or Jose Cayanan" as drawers. The agreements, denominated "For Fisherman Deployed For Work To Singapore," authorized Victor Lim to deduct from workers' salaries their obligations to private respondents. Petitioner's own undertaking certified that his expenses abroad were shouldered by JEAC and would be charged by Victor Lim and remitted to Engr. Jose E. Cayanan. The Court held that the Joint Affidavit of co-workers Balucas and Natura, and the Certification from Step-Up Agency, had no probative value because petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, and the affiants merely swore to what petitioner told them, not to the truth of the statements. The Certification was also not verified under oath. The Court noted that private respondents did not disown the checks nor deny the existence of the agreements, which, coupled with the fact that JEAC was not authorized to deploy fishermen, indicated a concerted effort in petitioner's deployment. The Court also found it unlikely for petitioner to go to Singapore as a tourist without knowing anyone and then apply for work, suggesting prior arrangements. The Court emphasized that private respondents' non-compliance with POEA rules did not absolve them but made them susceptible to administrative sanctions. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC: The Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC's conclusion that JEAC was a mere travel agency and petitioner a mere tourist was not supported by substantial evidence and contradicted the evidence on record. The NLRC's reliance on the agreements authorizing Victor Lim to deduct from salaries, while simultaneously claiming Victor Lim and Step-Up Agency were "total strangers" to private respondents, was seen as a contradiction. The Court found the POEA's findings more convincing, noting that the POEA correctly observed that the checks drawn from the account of Lim Chang Khoo and/or Jose Cayanan indicated respondents' participation in the recruitment and deployment. The POEA also questioned how respondents could write to Step Up Employment Agency if they were strangers to it. The Court reiterated that proceedings before the POEA are non-litigious and technicalities of law and procedure should not strictly apply, allowing the use of all reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively.
Main Doctrine
Affidavits lacking opportunity for cross-examination are hearsay and have no probative value. The best evidence rule has exceptions, and non-compliance with POEA rules by a recruitment agency does not absolve them from liability but may lead to administrative sanctions.