Ilas vs. NLRC

A licensed recruitment agency is not liable for the unpaid wages and other claims of overseas workers where its name was used without its knowledge or consent by a liaison officer acting on behalf of an unlicensed recruiter, and the workers themselves knew the licensed agency was not their recruiter. While POEA regulations make an agency responsible for the acts of its officials and representatives in connection with recruitment and placement, this liability does not attach when the recruitment was actually undertaken for a different entity and the agency's name was fraudulently used merely to secure travel documents.

Petitioners were overseas employment applicants seeking work in Doha, Qatar. Private respondent All Seasons Manpower International Services was a licensed placement agency whose foreign principal was Yacoub Trading Est. Erlinda Espeno was a liaison officer of private respondent. The Ngoho spouses managed CBT/Shiek International, an unlicensed recruitment agency. The POEA Rules and Regulations govern the liability of recruitment agencies for acts of their officials and representatives.

Petitioners Herminigildo Ilas, Glicerio Belarmino, Mario Barbosa, and Teodoro Enriquez applied for overseas employment in Doha, Qatar, with CBT/Shiek International, an unlicensed recruitment agency under the management of spouses Francisco Ngoho, Jr. and Corazon Ngoho. They were assisted in the process by Eddie Sumaway and Erlinda Espeno, the latter being a liaison officer of private respondent All Seasons Manpower International Services, a licensed placement agency. Petitioners filed their application papers and paid their placement fees with the Ngohos. It was Espeno, however, who processed their papers and furnished them travel exit passes (TEPS). They were made to sign two-year employment contracts but were not given copies thereof.

The TEPS provided by Espeno made it appear that private respondent was the agency or contractor of petitioners and that Yacoub Trading Est. was their foreign employer. Petitioners signed these documents knowing that private respondent was not their recruiter. In reality, they were recruited for Mabeco Trading and Contracting Establishment as the foreign principal, not Yacoub Trading Est., which was the principal of private respondent. Petitioners were subsequently deployed to Doha, Qatar, where they worked for four months without being paid. They sought the assistance of the Philippine Embassy and were able to return to the Philippines with the help of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Petitioners thereafter filed a complaint to recover their unpaid salaries and wages covering the unexpired portion of their contracts against private respondent. In their complaints, they admitted that they had applied for overseas employment with CBT/Shiek International under the management of the Ngohos. The POEA initially ordered private respondent to refund placement fees but dismissed the salary claims. On appeal, the NLRC first modified the decision in favor of petitioners, awarding four months' unpaid salaries, but upon reconsideration reversed itself and dismissed the case. The NLRC found that the documents used in the deployment of petitioners were all fake and that petitioners knew about it.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners alleged that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its decision dated September 23, 1988 and rendering the questioned decision dated April 28, 1989 which dismissed the case for lack of merit.
• Agency Liability: Petitioners relied on the POEA rules and regulations providing that a private employment or recruitment agency assumes full and complete responsibility for all acts of its officials and representatives done in connection with recruitment and placement, arguing that Espeno's involvement as liaison officer of private respondent rendered the latter liable.

• Agency Liability for Unauthorized Acts: Whether a licensed recruitment agency can be held liable for unpaid wages and other claims of overseas workers who were recruited by its liaison officer without its knowledge and consent, and on behalf of an unlicensed recruiter.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier decision and dismissing the case for lack of merit.

• Agency Liability for Unauthorized Acts: No. Private respondent cannot be held liable because the recruitment was actually made by Espeno on behalf of CBT/Shiek International, not private respondent, and the latter's name was only used as a means to enable petitioners to be issued TEPS for travel purposes, without the knowledge and consent of private respondent.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of showing grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the NLRC being supported by the records and not warranting disturbance on appeal.

• Agency Liability for Unauthorized Acts: While the POEA rules and regulations provide that a private employment or recruitment agency assumes full and complete responsibility for all acts of its officials and representatives done in connection with recruitment and placement, this principle does not apply where the recruitment was actually undertaken by the liaison officer on behalf of a different, unlicensed entity. Five points of evidence established private respondent's non-liability: (1) petitioners applied for deployment with CBT/Shiek International through the Ngohos, Sumaway, and Espeno, and never transacted with private respondent's office; (2) their employer in Qatar was CBT/Shiek International, which failed to pay their wages; (3) the TEPS falsely identified private respondent as their agency, but petitioners signed these knowing private respondent was not their recruiter — Espeno had conspired with petitioners and the Ngohos to use private respondent's name to enable travel; (4) petitioners were actually recruited for Mabeco Trading and Contracting Establishment, not Yacoub Trading Est., which was private respondent's principal; and (5) in their own complaints, petitioners admitted applying with CBT/Shiek International under the Ngohos' management. Because the deployment documents were fake and petitioners knew of the fraud, they did not come to court with clean hands and must suffer the consequences of their wrongful acts.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: It is settled that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that findings of fact by administrative bodies such as the NLRC shall not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioners failed to discharge their burden to warrant a departure from this rule, as all evidence indicated that private respondent could not be held liable for their claims.

• Solidary Liability of Recruitment Agency for Acts of Representatives — Under the POEA Rules and Regulations (Book II, Rule II, Section 1), a private employment or recruitment agency assumes full and complete responsibility for all acts of its officials and representatives done in connection with recruitment and placement. The Court recognized this rule but limited its application: it does not extend to situations where the agency's officer acted on behalf of a different, unlicensed entity and the agency's name was fraudulently used without its knowledge or consent.
• Finality of Administrative Findings of Fact — Findings of fact by administrative bodies such as the NLRC are generally not disturbed on appeal by the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts, unless grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, or excess of jurisdiction is shown. Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating such abuse to warrant departure from this rule.
• Clean Hands Doctrine — Petitioners who knowingly participated in a fraudulent deployment scheme, using fake documents they knew to be false, did not come to court with clean hands and were accordingly barred from relief.

• "However, when as in this case the recruitment was actually made by Espeno in behalf of CBT/Shiek International, not the private respondent, and the name of private respondent was only used as a means to enable petitioners to be issued TEPS for travel purposes, obviously without the knowledge and consent of private respondent, the latter cannot be held liable for the claims of petitioners." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the limiting principle on agency liability under the POEA rules, distinguishing authorized acts of representatives from fraudulent use of the agency's name without its consent.

• "They did not come to court with clean hands. Thus, petitioners should suffer the consequences of their wrongful acts." — This applies the clean hands doctrine to bar relief for workers who knowingly participated in a fraudulent deployment scheme, reinforcing that equitable relief is unavailable to those complicit in the very illegality underlying their claims.

• Book II, Rule II, Section 1, Rules and Regulations of the POEA — Provides that a private employment or recruitment agency assumes full and complete responsibility for all acts of its officials and representatives done in connection with recruitment and placement. The Court acknowledged this rule but held it inapplicable because the liaison officer acted on behalf of an unlicensed recruiter, not the licensed agency, and the agency's name was used without its knowledge or consent.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred.