Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale, a private employment agency, recruited Virgilio to work for ZAMEL in Saudi Arabia under a service agreement. However, ZAMEL terminated Virgilio for poor performance and had him detained for three days before deporting him back to the Philippines. Virgilio then filed a complaint against both Royal Crown and ZAMEL. The court ruled that as a licensed employment agency, Royal Crown had contractually agreed to assume joint and several liability for any violations of recruited workers' employment contracts by the foreign employer. Therefore, Royal Crown could be held liable along with ZAMEL for Virgilio's claims.
Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale, a private employment agency, recruited Virgilio to work for ZAMEL in Saudi Arabia under a service agreement. However, ZAMEL terminated Virgilio for poor performance and had him detained for three days before deporting him back to the Philippines. Virgilio then filed a complaint against both Royal Crown and ZAMEL. The court ruled that as a licensed employment agency, Royal Crown had contractually agreed to assume joint and several liability for any violations of recruited workers' employment contracts by the foreign employer. Therefore, Royal Crown could be held liable along with ZAMEL for Virgilio's claims.
Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale, a private employment agency, recruited Virgilio to work for ZAMEL in Saudi Arabia under a service agreement. However, ZAMEL terminated Virgilio for poor performance and had him detained for three days before deporting him back to the Philippines. Virgilio then filed a complaint against both Royal Crown and ZAMEL. The court ruled that as a licensed employment agency, Royal Crown had contractually agreed to assume joint and several liability for any violations of recruited workers' employment contracts by the foreign employer. Therefore, Royal Crown could be held liable along with ZAMEL for Virgilio's claims.
ROYAL CROWN INTERNATIONALE VS NLRC commencing from the date of his arrival in Saudi Arabia. GR NO. 78085 ZAMEL terminated the employment of private respondent on the OCTOBER 16, 1989 ground that his performance was below par. For three successive Doctrine: Petitioners conclusion that it cannot be held jointly and severally days thereafter, he was detained at his quarters and was not liable with ZAMEL for violation of private respondents service agreement is allowed to report to work until his exit papers were ready. erroneous.Petitioners conclusion is erroneous. Petitioner conveniently On February 16, 1984, he was made to board a plane bound for the overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability under the Philippines. Private respondent then filed a complaint for illegal various contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment termination against Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale and Services. In applying for its license to operate a private employment agency ZAMEL with the POEA. for overseas recruitment and placement, petitioner was required to submit, among others, a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed all Petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Labor Code, or responsibilities for the proper use of its license and the implementation of the omnibus rules implementing the same, which either provides the contracts of employment with the workers it recruited and deployed for for the "third-party liability" of an employment agency or recruiting overseas employment [Section 2(e), Rule V, Book I, Rules to Implement the entity for violations of an employment agreement performed Labor Code (1976)]. It was also required to file with the Bureau a formal abroad, or designates it as the agent of the foreign-based employer appointment or agency contract executed by the foreign-based employer in for purposes of enforcing against the latter claims arising out of an its favor to recruit and hire personnel for the former, which contained a employment agreement. provision empowering it to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and Petitioner concludes, it cannot be held jointly and severally liable the contracts of employment [Section 10 (a) (2), Rule V, Book I of the Rules with ZAMEL for violations, if any, of private respondent's service to Implement the Labor Code (1976)]. Petitioner was required as well to post agreement. such cash and surety bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of employment as appropriate. ISSUE:
WON petitioner as a private employment agency may be held
FACTS: jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any claim which may arise in connection with the implementation of Petitioner, a duly licensed private employment agency, recruited the employment contracts of the employees recruited and and deployed private respondent Virgilio for employment with deployed abroad. ZAMEL as an architectural draftsman in Saudi Arabia. Service agreement was executed by private respondent and ZAMEL HELD: whereby the former was to receive per month a salary Yes, Petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability under the various contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment Services. In applying for its license to operate a private employment agency for overseas recruitment and placement, petitioner was required to submit, among others, a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed all responsibilities for the proper use of its license and the implementation of the contracts of employment with the workers it recruited and deployed for overseas employment. Required to file with the Bureau a formal appointment or agency contract executed by the foreign-based employer in its favor to recruit and hire personnel for the former, which contained a provision empowering it to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. Petitioner was required as well to post such cash and surety bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of employment as appropriate. These contractual undertakings constitute the legal basis for holding petitioner, and other private employment or recruitment agencies, liable jointly and severally with its principal, the foreign- based employer, for all claims filed by recruited workers which may arise in connection with the implementation of the service agreements or employment contracts.