12. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CASES. The POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, including seamen, such as, but not limited to:

(a) Violation of terms and conditions of employment; (b) Disputes relating to the implementation and interpretation of
employment contracts; (c) Money claims of workers against their employer and/or their duly authorized agents in the Philippines or vice versa; (d) Claims for death, disability and other benefits arising out of employment; and (e) Violations of, or non-compliance with, any compromise agreement entered into by and between the parties in an overseas employment contract. Decisions and orders of the POEA in these cases become final after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt of a copy thereof if no appeal or motion for reconsideration is perfected or filed. Appeals are raised to the National Labor Relations Commission only on any of these grounds :

a) if there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the hearing officer or the administrator, b) if the decision or award was secured thru fraud or coercion; c) if made purely on questions of law; d) fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption, and/ore) if serious errors in the findings of fact are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave and irreparable damage or injury to the appellant. (Book VII, Rule 5, Sec.2, POEA Rules)

13. LIABILITIES OF OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES. A private employment agency may be sued jointly and solitarily with its foreign principal for violation of recruitment agreements and contracts of employment (Catan vs. NLRC, 160 SCRA 691). The liability of a private employment agency with the employer is joint and solitary (Alga Moher Int’l Placement Services vs. Atienza, 166 SCRA 174). By the same token, a local crewing agent is solidarily liable for all obligations arising from the crewman’s shipboard contract. In this regard, a final settlement obtained thmugh coercion is invalid.(Llobera vs. NLRC, 162 SCRA 788) A local
crewing agent is also solidarily liable for damages due to the death of a seaman arising from an accident in a foreign port. (Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533). An overseas contract worker with one year of service is a regular employee. (Land Housing Development Corp. vs. NLRC, 166 SCRA 605) Consequently, an overseas contract worker dismissed without due process is entitled to unpaid salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract. Releases and quitclaims signed by the employee are considered null and void. (Miguelvs. NLRC, 162 SCRA 441) ‘Ibis was affirmed in a later case which further held that this is a verified undertaking in the agency’s application for a license to operate. In addition, the agency’s appointment by the employer empowers it to sue and be sued jointly and solitarily with its foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement and contract of employment. Royal Crown International vs. NLRC, et al., 179 SCRA 569) In view of this agency relationship with the foreign principal, service of process upon any agent of a foreign corporation, whether o not engaged in business in the Philippines, constitutes personal service upon the principal, and accordingly judgment may be rendered against the said foreign corporation.(Id. citing Facilities Management Corporation vs. de la Cruz, 89 SCRA 131). A judgment against an overseas employment agency is initially enforced against its cash and surety bonds ified with the POEA. (del Rosario vs. NLRC, 187 SCRA 777) The cash bond is exempt from execution since employment-related claims are not mentioned in Sec. 12, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Nor may it be subject to execution by judgment of a regular court in favor of a travel agency from the recruitment agency.(Capricom Intl burs vs. CA, 184 SCRA 123) The purpose of the surety bond is to ensure that if the rights of overseas workers are violated by their employers, recourse would still be available to them against local companies that recited them for the foreign principals. (stronghold Insurance vs. CA, 205 SCRA 605) Upon approval of the recruitment license, the applicant must post a surety bond to answer for valid claims arising from violations of conditions for accreditation, contracts of employment, or grant or use of the license. Country Bankers Insurance Corporations vs. NLRC et al, 246 SCRA 360) The POEA can go against this bond for violations by recruiters of the conditions of their license. (JMM Promotions and Management Inc. vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 129) The surety bond required of recruitment agencies is answerable, even if filed after the departure of the worker for his place of work. (Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs. NLRC, supra). There is an exception to the solidity liability of employment agencies. This was allowed where the workers themselves persuaded the recruiter to send them back abroad despite their knowledge that the foreign employer might not pay their wages. and they agreed not to hold the recruiter responsible therefor. (Feagle Constructions Corporation vs. Gayda, 186
SCRA 589)

14. MIGRANT WORKERS DESKS. Early in 2000, the NLRC created a Migrant Workers Desk (MWD) at its head offices in Banawe, Quezon City. Other MWDs were also designated in every regional arbitration branch all over the country. Any overseas Filipino worker can file a complaint in any of these MWDs against his foreign employer who may have violated the terms of his contract of employment. Details about their agencies and contracts may be secured from the POEA for accurate information. The complaint must be subscribed and sworn to by the complainant before an administering officer. It is then docketed and raffled to a labor arbiter who will hear and decide the case. The decision of the labor arbiter when not appealed becomes final and executory. If the claim is dismissed the case is terminated. If the claim is granted the decision shall be executed. The winning party should file a motion for a writ of execution with the labor arbiter who issued the decision. If the decision is appealed, the appeal is filed with the same labor arbiter who decided the case but addressed to the NLRC with payment of the proper appeal fees and/or filing of an appeal or supersedes board, which shall be in effect until final disposition of the case.

15. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT. To give substance to the constitutional policy of promoting full employment, but without prejudice to justice and development, the Labor Code has established the crime of illegal recruitment. The Code has defined this crime as: Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Code, to be undertaken by non- licensees or non-holders or authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable. .
Thus the crime of illegal recruitment is committed where a person undertakes any recruiting activity defined under Art. 13 (b), LC without a license or authority to do so; or commits any prohibited practice enumerated under Art .34 LC, whether or not he has such license or authority. Hence, a holder of a license or authority is not exempt from committing the crime of illegal recruitment. The crime is qualified if committed by or against three or more persons, individually or as a group. (People vs. Coronacion, 237 SCRA 227: People vs. Comia, 236 SCRA 185; People vs. Sendon, 228 SCRA 489; People vs. Bodozo, 215 SCRA 33)

There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of her ability to send a worker abroad--even if she did not invite or entice people for overseas employment--as long as she is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. (Flores vs. People, 211 SCRA 622; People vs. Manungas Jr. 231 SCRA 1) An employee who actually makes referrals to the agency of which she is a part is engaged in recruitment activity. Referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. (People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780). Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in a large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme as delined by law. illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group (Art. 38-b, LC). When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale it becomes an offense involving economic sabotage, and shall be penalized with life imprisonment and a fine of P 100,000. (People vs. Avendaflo, 216 SCRA 187).

The penalties imposed for this crime are:

a) Life imprisonment and a fine ‘of P100,000 if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined in the law; b) For any licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing another to violate the Code or its implementing rules, imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000 or both, at the discretion of the court; c) If the violator is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority, imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years, or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both, at the discretion of the court; d) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the officer or officers thereof (People vs. Garcia et al., 271 SCRA), and if such officer is an alien, he shall in addition to the penalties prescribed, be deported without further proceedings. e) In every case, convictions shall carry the automatic revocation of the license or authority and all permits and privileges granted to such person under the law, and the forfeiture of the cash and surety bonds.

In one case, it was held that receipt of payment by a recruitment agency after the expiration of its license for services rendered before its expiration is not illegal recruitment for purposes of criminal prosecution. (Aquino vs. CA, 204 SCRA 240) The role of the POEA in illegal recruitment cases is to provide legal assistance to victims of this violation, assist in the prosecution of such cases, conduct surveillance operations of companies or establishments suspected of engaging in this practice, and work for the issuance of a closure order by the Secretary, the Administrator, or by a Regional Director, after an ex pane preliminary examination. Despite the arrest and detention power provided by Sec. 38 (c) of the Code to the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representative, they cannot lawfully issue search and arrest warrants for this purpose. This provision was held unconstitutional and of no force and effect, since under the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2) only a judge .may issue such warrants. (Salazar vs. Achacosó and Marquez, 183 SCRA 145)

More Pages