G.R. No. 90394-97 - Ilas vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioners: Herminigildo Ilas, Glicerio Belarmino, Mario Barbosa, and Teodoro Enriquez, among others, who applied for overseas employment.
Respondents:

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) – the public respondent, and
All Seasons Manpower International Services – the private respondent (a licensed placement agency).

Petitioners applied for overseas employment in Doha, Qatar, through CBT/Shiek International, an unlicensed recruitment agency managed by spouses Francisco Ngoho, Jr. and Corazon Ngoho.
Assistance for processing their employment papers was rendered by Eddie Sumaway and Erlinda Espeno.

Erlinda Espeno, acting as a liaison officer, was affiliated with private respondent All Seasons Manpower International Services.
Petitioners submitted their application papers and placement fees with the Ngohos, not directly with the private respondent.

Espeno processed the petitioners’ documents and issued them travel exit passes (TEPS).
Petitioners were made to sign two-year employment contracts, yet they were not provided copies of these agreements.

Petitioners were deployed to Doha, Qatar, and worked for four (4) months without receiving their salaries.
They subsequently sought assistance from the Philippine Embassy and POEA to return home.

Decisions by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and the NLRC

June 30, 1989 – The POEA ordered the respondent to refund placement fees (P2,500.00 each) to certain complainants but dismissed the claim for salaries covering the unexpired contracts.
An appeal by both parties, wherein the NLRC on September 23, 1988, modified the decision to grant payment for the four (4) months of unpaid salaries but deleted the placement fee refund.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by private respondent led to an NLRC decision on April 28, 1989, setting aside the earlier decision and dismissing the case for lack of merit.
A motion for reconsideration by petitioners dated June 7, 1989, was denied.

Although the rules of the POEA require that a private recruiter assume full responsibility for the acts of its officials, the recruitment in this case was carried out by Espeno on behalf of CBT/Shiek International without the knowledge or consent of the private respondent.
The TEPS issued by Espeno misleadingly suggested that private respondent was the recruiting agency.

In the filed complaints, petitioners admitted to having applied for overseas employment with CBT/Shiek International under the management of the Ngohos.

The records indicated that the documents used for the deployment were fake.
Petitioners were aware of, and participated in, the scheme that misrepresented the identity of their recruiter.

Whether a recruitment agency can be held liable for unpaid wages and other claims of overseas workers when the recruitment was effected by an agent acting without the agency’s knowledge and consent.
Whether the issuance of travel exit passes (TEPS) under the name of the private respondent creates a legal obligation on its part, despite the actual recruitment being conducted by an unlicensed agency (CBT/Shiek International).
Whether the fraudulent nature of the documents and the petitioners’ admission of having applied through a different recruiter preclude liability on the part of the private respondent.
Whether the administrative findings of the NLRC and the POEA should be disturbed in the absence of a demonstrated grave abuse of discretion.