ONG, CESAR RUPERTO P.

NAHAS v OLARTE
G.R. No. 169247; June 02, 2014
J. Del Castillo
FACTS:
A petition for review on certiorari was filed before the Court assailing the decision of the Court
of Appeals, which denied the Petition for Certiorari filed therewith and affirmed the NLRC
decision, dismissing the appeal from Labor Arbiters decision. The Personnel Employment and
Technical Recruitment Agency (PETRA) and Royal Dream Intl Agency, along with Consolacion
Nahas was held solidary liable for the unpaid salaries, compensation for the unexpired portion of
the employment contract and other expenses of Juanita Olarte.
On 1999, Olarte worked a domestic helper in Saudi Arabia for a term of 2 years. Under her
contract, she was to be employed by Fahad for a monthly salary of $200.00. Upon commencing
her service to Fahad, Olarte was not paid her salaries. It was only on December 1999 that she
was given $200.00. It was the only salary she received from the entire duration that she worked
for Fahad. In succeeding months, Olarte developed osteo-arthritis on her legs for the lack of
proper medical attention granted to her. Despite this fact, Fahad did not allow her to return to the
Philippines and continues withholding her salaries. When she was given the chance to go to
Riyadh, she immediately sought for help from OWWA. Several months after being repatriated,
she filed for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
CASE HISTORY:
Olarte filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, praying that PETRA and
Nahas be held solidary liable with Fahad for the ordeal she has suffered. Nahas answered that she
did not have any control to the deployment of Olarte, arguing that Olarte withdrew her
application. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Olarte as Nahas failed to prove the withdrawal
of Olartes application. In the appeal of Nahas before the NLRC she denied that Olarte applied in
PETRA. The NLRC denied the appeal as the facts were never disputed to begin with. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the previous decisions. Hence, the instant petition before the SC.
ISSUE:
Can PETRA/Royal Dream be held solidary liable with Fahd for illegal dismissal?
LAW APPLICABLE:
Section 64 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8024):

Section 64. Solidary Liability The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment
placement agency on any and all claims under this Rule shall be [joint] and solidary. x x x.
If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation
or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
HELD:
YES. The Court ruled that Nahas inconsistent positions militate against her case; her claim of lack of
service of summons upon Royal Dream is untenable. Recruitment agencies, as part of their bounden
duty to protect the welfare of the Filipino workers sent abroad from whom they take their profit,
should in conscience not add to the misery of maltreated and abused Filipino workers by denying
them the reparation to which they are entitled. Instead, they must faithfully comply with their
government prescribed responsibilities and be the first to ensure the welfare of the very people
upon whose patronage their industry thrives.