Title
Princess Joy Placement and General Services, Inc. vs. Binalla
Case
G.R. No. 197005
Decision Date
Jun 4, 2014
A nurse deployed to Saudi Arabia under a substituted inferior contract pursued claims against recruiters for unpaid wages, benefits, and damages, resulting in joint liability.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 246989)

Facts:

  • Nature of the labor dispute and parties
  • Respondent German A. Binalla filed a complaint against local manning agent CBM Business Management and Manpower Services (CBM) and/or Princess Joy/Al Adwani General Hospital (Al Adwani) for various money claims arising from his employment with Al Adwani in Taif, Saudi Arabia from April 19, 2002 to April 28, 2004.
  • Binalla alleged he was a registered nurse.
  • Binalla’s claims involved salary differentials, deductions and refunds, overtime pay, vacation and sick leave credits, and damages with attorneys fees.
  • Binalla’s recruitment and deployment to Saudi Arabia
  • Binalla alleged that in April 2002, he applied for employment with Princess Joy, which referred him to Reginaldo Paguio and Cynthia Latea for processing of his papers.
  • After completing documentary requirements, Binalla alleged he was told that he would be deployed to Al Adwani.
  • Binalla alleged that on April 12, 2002, he signed a four-year contract with Al Adwani as staff nurse.
  • Binalla alleged he paid Latea P4,500.00 and Paguio P3,000.00, but no receipts were issued to him.
  • Binalla alleged that he received a telegram notifying him of his departure on April 19, 2002.
  • Binalla alleged that on the day of departure, Paguio met him at the airport and gave him copies of his employment contract, plane ticket, passport, a copy of his Overseas Employment Certificate from the POEA, and other documents.
  • Binalla alleged he discovered only after boarding that CBM was his deploying agency.
  • Binalla alleged that under the contract certified by POEA, his salary was supposed to be US$550.00 for twenty-four (24) months or two years.
  • Binalla alleged that under the four-year contract he signed, his monthly salary was only 1,500 Saudi Riyals (SR) equivalent to $400.
  • Binalla alleged he posted a bond of SR 3,000.00 upon his return to the Philippines in April 2004 to guarantee he would come back to finish his contract.
  • Binalla alleged that upon return, he verified his employment contract with POEA and learned POEA certified a different contract with CBM as recruiting/deploying agency.
  • Binalla alleged he disowned the certified contract, claiming his supposed signature on it was forged.
  • Binalla alleged he opted not to return to Saudi Arabia to complete his four-year contract.
  • Claimed violations by Al Adwani and the employment scheme described as “reprocessing” or contract substitution
  • Binalla alleged that Princess Joy recruited and deployed him, but made it appear that CBM undertook the deployment under a different contract submitted to and certified by POEA.
  • Binalla asserted he was made to work under an inferior contract and that Al Adwani violated the four-year contract terms by:
    • Withholding his initial salary of SR1,500 as a bond to ensure completion.
    • Deducting SR 250 from salary for six months as reimbursement for placement fee of SR1,500.
    • Non-payment of overtime pay for his two years of work.
    • Refusal to allow 15-day vacation leave and 15-day sick leave equivalent to one month’s salary.
    • Deduction of SR 50 a month (total SR 1,200) for board and lodging and food allowance that were supposed to be free.
    • Requiring him to post a bond equivalent to three months salary to guarantee he would return to complete the contract when he applied for vacation leave after two years.
  • Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
  • Summons were served on both Princess Joy and CBM, but only Princess Joy submitted pleadings to the Labor Arbiter.
  • Princess Joy denied recruiting and deploying Binalla for overseas employment.
  • Princess Joy repudiated involvement of Paguio and Latea, claiming they were not officers, employees, or registered representatives with POEA.
  • Princess Joy claimed it was not Al Adwani’s Philippine agent but CBM was.
  • Princess Joy denied participation in the four-year contract presented by Binalla, claiming:
    • The document was not even an employment contract because it was only Binalla who signed.
    • It did not re-process Binalla.
    • If Paguio and Latea committed any repro-scheme, it was a prohibited recruitment practice outside the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction.
  • In its decision dated October 28, 2005, Labor Arbiter (LA) Fructuoso T. Aurellano held the complaint to be a money claim within his jurisdiction under the law.
  • LA Aurellano found that Princess Joy and CBM jointly undertook Binalla’s recruitment and deployment to Saudi Arabia through reprocessing.
  • LA Aurellano found credible Binalla’s contention that Paguio and Latea, who processed his papers, were working for Princess Joy, taking note of the ticket/telegram/advise (with mention of Princess Joy and “Regie [Paguio]”) handed by Paguio to Binalla.
  • LA Aurellano declared CBM and Princess Joy jointly and severally liable to pay:
    • US$3,500.00 in salary differentials for two years.
    • SR 1,500.00 (or $400.00) representing six months salary deduction as bond to ensure completion of the four-year contract.
    • $9,900.00 in overtime pay.
    • $550.00 in vacation leave and sick leave credits.
    • SR 1,200 in reimbursement of monthly deductions for board and lodging.
    • SR 3,000.00 in reimbursement of the vacation bond.
    • P500,000.00 moral damages.
    • P500,000.00 exemplary damages.
    • 10% attorneys fees.
  • Appeal to the NLRC and bond issues
  • Princess Joy appealed LA Aurellano’s decision by filing with the NLRC a Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, and Motion to Reduce and Fix Bond, all dated November 24, 2005.
  • Princess Joy’s surety bond for LA Aurellano’s monetary award of P800,875.00 (exclusive of damages) was P250,000.00.
  • Binalla opposed the motion, contending the appeal was made in violation of NLRC rules.
  • On May 12, 2006, the NLRC issued an order allowing Princess Joy to post the balance of the appeal bond so it would equal P800,875.00.
  • Binalla moved for reconsideration and opposed the posting of additional bond.
  • Princess Joy complied through a Compliance dated July 21, 2006, posting the required additional bond of P550,875.00.
  • The NLRC issued a resolution dated July 27, 2007, reversing LA Aurellano’s decision.
  • The NLRC ruled that facts and evidence did not establish reprocessing as the means for Binalla’s deployment to Saudi Arabia.
  • The NLRC declared substantial evidence pointing to CBM’s sole liability as the recruiting and deploying agent.
  • The NLRC refused to give credit to the ticket/telegram/advise because it was an unsigned and unauthenticated printout with no indication of source, purpose, or entity addressed.
  • The NLRC noted that while CBM waived presentation of evidence for non-appearance, CBM could be held liable only for causes of action raised in the complaint and duly proven.
  • The NLRC held the standard-form complaint mentioned only non-payment of salaries, overtime pay, vacation/sick leave pay, refund of alleged salary deductions including placement fee, and attorneys fees.
  • Accordingly, the NLRC deleted the awards for salary differentials, food allowance, and moral and exemplary damages.
  • The NLRC awarded Binalla $2,200.00 in unpaid salaries for four months, $550.00 for unused vacation and sick leave credits, plus 10% attorneys fees.
  • Binalla moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it on November 26, 2007, prompting Binalla to file a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
  • Court of Appeals decision and reasoning on perfection of appeal
  • Binalla asserted grave abuse of discretion in:
    • Entertaining Princess Joy’s appeal despite alleged failure to post an appeal bond within the ten-day appeal period.
    • Alleged failure to appreciate the r...(Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.