The Case of Catan vs NLRC, Labor Law

7/26/2019 The Case of Catan vs NLRC, Labor Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-case-of-catan-vs-nlrc-labor-law 1/4

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 77279 April 15, 1988

MANUELA S. CATAN/M.S. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY, petitioners,vs.

THE NATIONAL LAOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE O!ERSEAS EMPLOYMENTA"MINISTRATION #$% &RANCISCO ". REYES, respondents.

Demetria Reyes, Merris & Associates for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for public respondents.

Bayani G. Diwa for priate respondent.

CORTES, J.:

Petitioner, in this special civil action for certiorari, alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of theNational abor Relations !o""ission in an effort to nullif# the latters resolution and thus freepetitioner fro" liabilit# for the disabilit# suffered b# a $ilipino %or&er it recruited to %or& in Saudi

'rabia. This !ourt, ho%ever, is not persuaded that such an abuse of discretion %as co""itted. Thispetition "ust fail.

The facts of the case are (uite si"ple.

Petitioner, a dul# licensed recruit"ent agenc#, as agent of 'li and $ahd Shabo&shi )roup, a Saudi 'rabian fir", recruited private respondent to %or& in Saudi 'rabia as a steel"an.

The ter" of the contract %as for one #ear, fro" *a# +,+-+ to *a# +/, +-0. Ho%ever, the contractprovided for its auto"atic rene%al1

$I$TH1 The validit# of this !ontract is for ON2 32'R co""encing fro" the date theS2!OND P'RT3 assu"es hill port. This !ontract is rene%able auto"aticall# if neither of the P'RTI2S notifies the other P'RT3 of his %ishes to ter"inate the!ontract b# at least ON2 *ONTH prior to the e4piration of the contractual period.5Petition, pp. 6789 Rollo, pp. 87:.

The contract %as auto"aticall# rene%ed %hen private respondent %as not repatriated b# his Saudie"plo#er but instead %as assigned to %or& as a crusher plant operator. On *arch ;<, +-;, %hilehe %as %or&ing as a crusher plant operator, private respondent=s right an&le %as crushed under the

"achine he %as operating.

On *a# +, +-;, after the e4piration of the rene%ed ter", private respondent returned to thePhilippines. His an&le %as operated on at the Sta. *esa Heights *edical !enter for %hich heincurred e4penses.

On Septe"ber -, +-;, he returned to Saudi 'rabia to resu"e his %or&. On *a# +,+-/, he %asrepatriated.



>pon his return, he had his an&le treated for %hich he incurred further e4penses.

On the basis of the provision in the e"plo#"ent contract that the e"plo#er shall co"pensate thee"plo#ee if he is in?ured or per"anentl# disabled in the course of e"plo#"ent, private respondentfiled a clai", doc&eted as PO2' !ase No. /7<-/8, against petitioner %ith respondent PhilippineOverseas 2"plo#"ent 'd"inistration. On 'pril +<, +-6, the PO2' rendered ?udg"ent in favor of

private respondent, the dispositive portion of %hich reads1

@H2R2$OR2, ?udg"ent is hereb# rendered in favor of the co"plainant and againstthe respondent, ordering the latter to pa# to the co"plainant1

+. S2V2N THO>S'ND NIN2 H>NDR2D 2I)HT37$IV2 P2SOS and 6<A+<<BP8,-.6<C, Philippine currenc#, representing disabilit# benefits9

0. T@2NT37$IV2 THO>S'ND NIN2T37SI Philippine pesos and 0<A+<< B0-,<-6.0<Crepresenting rei"burse"ent for "edical e4penses9

;. Ten percent B+<EC of the above"entioned a"ounts as and for attorne#=s fees.

5NR! Resolution, p. +9 Rollo, p. +6:.

On appeal, respondent NR! affir"ed the decision of the PO2' in a resolution dated Dece"ber +0,+-6.

Not satisfied %ith the resolution of the PO2', petitioner instituted the instant special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NR!.

+. Petitioner clai"s that the NR! gravel# abused its discretion %hen it ruled that petitioner %asliable to private respondent for disabilit# benefits since at the ti"e he %as in?ured his originale"plo#"ent contract, %hich petitioner facilitated, had alread# e4pired. $urther, petitioner disclai"sliabilit# on the ground that its agenc# agree"ent %ith the Saudi principal had alread# e4pired %hen

the in?ur# %as sustained.

There is no "erit in petitioner=s contention.

Private respondents contract of e"plo#"ent can not be said to have e4pired on *a# +/, +-0 as it%as auto"aticall# rene%ed since no notice of its ter"ination %as given b# either or both of theparties at least a "onth before its e4piration, as so provided in the contract itself. Therefore, privaterespondent=s in?ur# %as sustained during the lifeti"e of the contract.

' private e"plo#"ent agenc# "a# be sued ?ointl# and solidaril# %ith its foreign principal for violations of the recruit"ent agree"ent and the contracts of e"plo#"ent1

Sec. +<. Re!uirement before recruitment." Fefore recruiting an# %or&er, the privatee"plo#"ent agenc# shall sub"it to the Fureau the follo%ing docu"ents1

BaC ' for"al appoint"ent or agenc# contract e4ecuted b# a foreign7based e"plo#er in favor of the license holder to recruit and hire personnel for the for"er ...

444 444 444



0. Po%er of the agenc# to sue and be sued ?ointl# and solidaril# %iththe principal or foreign7based e"plo#er for an# of the violations of therecruit"ent agree"ent and the contracts of e"plo#"ent. 5Section+<BaC B0C Rule V, Foo& I, Rules to I"ple"ent the abor !ode:.

Thus, in the recent case of Ambra!ue #nternational $lacement & Serices . %R' 5).R. No. 88-8<,

Ganuar# 0,+-:, the !ourt ruled that a recruit"ent agenc# %as solidaril# liable for the unpaidsalaries of a %or&er it recruited for e"plo#"ent in Saudi 'rabia.

2ven if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had alread# severed their agenc# agree"ent at theti"e private respondent %as in?ured, petitioner "a# still be sued for a violation of the e"plo#"entcontract because no notice of the agenc# agree"ent=s ter"ination %as given to the privaterespondent1

'rt +-0+. If the agenc# has been entrusted for the purpose of contra %ith specifiedpersons, its revocation shall not pre?udice the latter if the# %ere not given noticethereof. 5!ivil !ode:.

In this connection the NR! elaborated1

Suffice it to state that albeit local respondent *. S. !atan 'genc# %as at the ti"e of co"plainant=s accident resulting in his per"anent partial disabilit# %as BsicC no longer the accredited agent of its foreign principal, foreign respondent herein, #et itsresponsibilit# over the proper i"ple"entation of co"plainant=s e"plo#"entAservicecontract and the %elfare of co"plainant hi"self in the foreign ?ob site, still e4isted,the contract of e"plo#"ent in (uestion not having e4pired #et. This must be so,because the obli(ations coenanted in the recruitment a(reement entered into by and between the local a(ent and its forei(n principal are not coterminus with theterm of such a(reement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end thea(reement, the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employeesunder the a(reement do not at all end, but the same e)tends up to and until thee)piration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed

pursuant to the said recruitment a(reement. *therwise, this will render nu(atory theery purpose for which the law (oernin( the employment of wor+ers for forei(n obsabroad was enacted. 5NR! Resolution, p. /9 Rollo, p. +:. B2"phasis suppliedC.

0. Petitioner contends that even if it is liable for disabilit# benefits, the NR! gravel# abused itsdiscretion %hen it affir"ed the a%ard of "edical e4penses %hen the said e4penses %ere theconse(uence of private respondent=s negligence in returning to %or& in Saudi 'rabia %hen he &ne%that he %as not #et "edicall# fit to do so.

'gain, there is no "erit in this contention.

No evidence %as introduced to prove that private respondent %as not "edicall# fit to %or& %hen hereturned to Saudi 'rabia. 24hibit F, a certificate issued b# Dr. Shaf(uat Niai, the ca"p doctor, onNove"ber +, +-;, "erel# stated that private respondent %as unable to %al& properl#, "oreover heis still co"plaining 5of: pain during %al&ing and different lo%er li"bs "ove"ent 5'nne4 F, Repl#9Rollo, p. +:. No%here does it sa# that he %as not "edicall# fit to %or&.

$urther, since petitioner even assisted private respondent in returning to %or& in Saudi 'rabia b#purchasing his tic&et for hi" 524hibit 29 'nne4 ', Repl# to Respondents= !o""ents:, it is as if petitioner had certified his fitness to %or&. Thus, the NR! found1



$urther"ore, it has re"ained unrefuted b# respondent that co"plainant=ssubse(uent departure or return to Saudi 'rabia on Septe"ber -, +-; %as %ith thefull &no%ledge, consent and assistance of the for"er. 's sho%n in 24hibit 2 of therecord, it %as respondent %ho facilitated the travel papers of co"plainant. 5NR!Resolution, p. 9 Rollo, p. +-:.

@H2R2$OR2, in vie% of the foregoing, the petition is DIS*ISS2D for lac& of "erit, %ith costsagainst petitioner.

SO ORD2R2D.

-ernan, 'hairman/, Gutierre0, 1r., -eliciano and Bidin, 11., concur.

The Case of Catan vs NLRC, Labor Law

Documents

Transcript of The Case of Catan vs NLRC, Labor Law