Case Digest (G.R. No. 90273-75)
Facts:
- The case involves Finman General Assurance Corporation (petitioner) and private respondents William Inocencio, Perfecto Palero Jr., Edwin Cardones, and Edwin Hernandez.
- Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. (Pan Pacific) was licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) after posting a surety bond from Finman.
- Private respondents filed complaints against Pan Pacific with the POEA, alleging violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, specifically for charging placement fees without securing employment.
- The POEA Administrator impleaded Finman as a party respondent due to its role as surety for Pan Pacific.
- Summonses were served to both Finman and Pan Pacific; however, Pan Pacific had moved without notifying the POEA, resulting in constructive service of the complaints.
- Finman denied liability, claiming the POEA lacked jurisdiction over surety bonds and that the claims were invalid as they were merely deposits.
- A hearing was held on April 14, 1988, where complainants presented evidence, but Finman did not appear.
- On May 30, 1989, the POEA Administrator ordered both Pan Pacific and Finman to pay the complainants and imposed a fine on Pan Pacific.
- Finman appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who upheld the POEA's decision.
- Finman subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, reiterating its claims regarding jurisdiction and liability.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the POEA had the authority to implead Finman as a party respondent in the proceedings against Pan Pacific.
- The Court also ruled that the POEA was authorized to enforc...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court emphasized the joint and several liability of a surety under a surety bond, as stated in Section 176 of the Insurance Code.
- The bond posted by Finman was a requirement under Article 31 of the Labor Code, which grants the Secretary of Labor exclusive power to determine claims against such bonds.
- The Court found that the POEA had the authority to require Pan Pacific to refund plac...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 90273-75)
Facts:
The case involves Finman General Assurance Corporation (petitioner) and private respondents William Inocencio, Perfecto Palero Jr., Edwin Cardones, and Edwin Hernandez. The events leading to the case began when Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. (Pan Pacific), a private recruitment agency, was granted a license to operate by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) after posting a surety bond from Finman. The private respondents filed separate complaints against Pan Pacific with the POEA, alleging violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, specifically claiming that Pan Pacific charged them placement fees without securing employment. The POEA Administrator, acting on these complaints, impleaded Finman as a party respondent due to its role as surety for Pan Pacific.
Summonses were served to both Finman and Pan Pacific, but Pan Pacific had moved without notifying the POEA, leading to a constructive service of the complaints. Finman denied liability, arguing that the POEA lacked jurisdiction over surety bonds, that it had not violated the Labor Code, and that the claims were not valid as they were merely deposits. A hearing was held on April 14, 1988, where the complainants presented their evidence, but Finman did not appear. On May 30, 1989, the POEA Administrator ordered both Pan P...