Facts:

The case involves Finman General Assurance Corporation (petitioner) and several private respondents, namely Abdulgani Salik, Balabagan Ampilan, Ali Kuba, Gandhi Pua, and Daud Malanao. The events leading to the case began on April 22, 1987, when the private respondents applied for overseas employment through Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. (Pan Pacific). They were assured of employment by Mrs. Normita Egil and paid a total of P30,000.00 in fees. However, despite repeated assurances, they were not employed. Consequently, the private respondents filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against Pan Pacific for violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, seeking a refund of the fees paid.

The POEA, acting on its own initiative, summoned Finman as the bonding company of Pan Pacific. Both Pan Pacific and Finman failed to respond to the summons. An ex-parte hearing was conducted on October 9, 1987, where only the priv...

Facts:

1. Application for Employment: Abdulgani Salik et al. (private respondents) applied with Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. on April 22, 1987, and were assured employment abroad by Mrs. Normita Egil. They paid fees totaling P30,000.00.
2. Failure to Employ: Despite assurances by Celia Arandia and Mrs. Egil, the private respondents were not employed.
3. Complaint Filed: They filed a joint complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against Pan Pacific for violations of Articles 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code, seeking a refund of P30,000.00.
4. Summons and Hearing: POEA impleaded Finman General Assurance Corporation (petitioner), Pan Pacific's bonding company. Both Pan Pacific and Finman failed to answer summons and appear at the hearing, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
5. Testimonies: Private respondents testified that they paid P20,000.00 through Hadji Usop Kabagani, with a receipt signed by Engineer Arandia and countersigned by Mrs. Egil and Imelda. They also paid P10,000.00 to Engr. Arandia, who did not issue a receipt.
6. Finman's Defense: Finman, in an untimely filed answer, argued that private respondents had no valid cause of action against it, that it was not privy to Pan Pacific's transactions, and that the claims were barred by the statute of frauds and a waiver.
7. POEA Order: On March 18, 1988, the Secretary of Labor and Employment ordered both Pan Pacific and Finman to pay jointly and severally the claims of the private respondents, totaling P25,000.00, and cancelled Pan Pacific's license.
8. Motion for Reconsideration: Finman's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the petition for certiorari.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Suretyship Obligation: Finman, as the bonding company, is bound by the suretyship agreement to answer for valid claims arising from Pan Pacific's recruitment violations. The agreement makes Finman privy to the proceedings against Pan Pacific.
2. Jurisdiction: POEA and the Secretary of Labor acted within their jurisdiction in impleading Finman and directing it to pay jointly and severally with Pan Pacific. Finman's failure to timely challenge jurisdiction estops it from raising the issue later.
3. Findings of Fact: The findings of fact by the Secretary of Labor are supported by substantial evidence, given the ex-parte proceedings and the absence of controverting evidence. The findings are accorded great weight due to the expertise of administrative agencies.