Case Digest (G.R. No. 79436-50)
Facts:
Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Elvira Ventura, Ester Tranguillan, et al., G.R. No. 79436-50, January 17, 1990, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.In connection with J & B Manpower Specialist, Inc.’s application for a POEA recruitment license, J & B and Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation (EASCO) executed a surety bond dated January 2, 1985. The bond bound the principal and the surety “firmly” to the POEA in the penal sum of P150,000; it conditioned liability on the principal’s faithful observance of POEA rules, limited the surety’s liability to P150,000, contained a clause that “notice to the Principal is also a notice to the Surety,” and provided that the surety’s liability would expire on January 2, 1986 and that the bond would be automatically cancelled ten days after expiration, with claims to be presented in writing within that period.
From June 1983 to December 1985 thirty-three applicants paid J & B fees and were not deployed; they filed separate complaints with the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office alleging violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. J & B failed to answer or appear at hearings. The POEA Administrator, by Order dated September 8, 1986, found violations and held the surety jointly and severally liable in favor of twenty-nine complainants (excluding four whose claims predated the bond). The Administrator also suspended and subsequently forever banned J & B from overseas recruitment. J & B moved for reconsideration.
The Deputy Minister denied reconsideration on December 19, 1986, affirming the POEA findings. On appeal by EASCO, the Secretary of Labor modified the relief by directing J & B to refund all thirty-three complainants but finding EASCO jointly and severally liable with J & B to nineteen named complainants in a reduced aggregate amount of P140,817.75; other findings were affirmed and the Secretary’s Order of July 1, 1987 was final.
EASCO filed a special civil action of certiorari challenging the POEA Administrator’s Order (Sept. 8, 1986), the Deputy Minister’s Resolution (Dec. 19, 1986), and the Secretary’s Order (July 1, 1987). EASCO argued (a) POEA lacked adjudicatory jurisdiction over these monetary claims because they did not arise from employer‑employee relations under EO No. 797, Sec. 4(a); (b) the Secretary lacked jurisdiction; or (c) if jurisdiction existed, t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the POEA have jurisdiction to adjudicate the monetary refund claims filed by the complainants?
- Did the Secretary of Labor have jurisdiction to review and affirm/modify the POEA Administrator’s order?
- Was Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation properly held jointly and severally liable under the surety bond for the refund claims, including claims allegedly outside the bond’s effective period, claims served after the bond’s cancellation period, claims affected by alleged defective servi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)