THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225444. February 19, 2018.]
FERDINAND G. DOMASING, petitioner,vs. JAVE SIAROT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 225444 (Ferdinand G. Domasing v. Jave Siarot) — This petition for review on certiorari1 seeks to reverse and set aside the August 5, 2015 Decision 2 and June 21, 2016 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127903-MIN. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari of Ferdinand Domasing (petitioner) and affirmed the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding petitioner jointly and solidarily liable with Skippers United Pacific, Inc. (Skippers, Inc.).
The Antecedents
Jave Siarot (respondent) was the complainant in NLRC Case No. RAB-10-08-00018-2011 against Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and/or Mr. Alejandro L. Palanca, General Manager and its principal abroad, M/V Terso. In a Decision 4 dated October 24, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favour of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, respondents Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Commercial SA, including the respondent agency's corporate officers and directors are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay complainant Jave L. Siarot the total amount of US$2,275.75, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment representing his unpaid pages (US$711.30) and leave pays (US$720.92): First Contract; and US$843.53: Second Contract, plus six percent (6%) thereof per annum as legal interest from the date of this decision until its finality.
The rest of the money claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 5
A motion to set pre-execution conference and for the issuance of a writ of execution was filed by respondent and the same was scheduled on February 29, 2012. However, on said date, Skippers, Inc. did not appear despite due notice; thus, on motion of respondent, the LA granted the issuance of a writ of execution. 6
As a result, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution 7 contending that the LA did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because he was not served summons and did not voluntarily appear before it; and that he was denied due process as he was not impleaded as one of the respondents in the complaint.
The LA Order
In its Order 8 dated April 26, 2012, the LA denied the motion. It ruled that Section 10 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as reiterated by Section 7 of R.A. No. 10022, provides that if the recruitment 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. The LA found no need to implead, issue and/or serve summons upon the corporate officers, including petitioner, and to hold them jointly and solidarily liable; it is only required that there is a decision finding liability on the part of the recruitment agency. It also cited Becmen Service, Inc. v. Spouses Simplicio, et al., 10 wherein it was held that corporate officers are jointly and solidarily liable notwithstanding the fact that they were never impleaded as co-respondents or issued and served with summons. 11 The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the present motion to quash the writ of execution filed by Ferdinand G. Domasing, the corporate secretary of respondent Skippers United Pacific, Inc. is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Deputy Sheriff Henry N. Pacamo is hereby directed to forthwith enforce and execute the 5 March 2012 Writ of Execution, including the notice of garnishment issued pursuant thereto, for the satisfaction of the monetary judgment in this case.
SO ORDERED. 12
On May 22, 2012, petitioner filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal 13 before the NLRC assailing the April 26, 2012 Order of the LA and prayed for the quashal of the writ of execution dated March 5, 2012.
The NLRC Ruling
In its Resolution 14 dated July 31, 2012, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for being a prohibited pleading under Section 5, 15 Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution 16 dated September 26, 2012.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its decision dated August 5, 2015, the CA ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in dismissing the appeal on account of the express provision in Section 5, Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure prohibiting a motion to quash the writ of execution. It further stated that the issues raised by petitioner trigger the review of the legal basis of the NLRC's decision, which is not the office of a certiorari. 17
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its resolution dated June 21, 2016.
Hence, this petition based on the following:
Assignment of Errors:
1. The appellate court seriously erred in upholding public respondent's Resolutions dated July 31, 2012 and September 26, 2012 and giving preference to technicalities over petitioner's constitutional right to due process of law.
2. Both the appellate court and the public respondent committed fatal error in not declaring the writ of execution null and void despite opportunity to do so. 18
The Court's Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
The Court finds no reversible error in the ruling of the CA when it dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner. By express provision of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, an appeal from any interlocutory order of the LA denying a motion to quash a writ of execution, shall not be allowed and acted upon nor elevated to the Commission. 19 Being a prohibited pleading, the NLRC is correct in denying the same. CAIHTE
Petitioner's argument-that the writ of execution cannot be validly enforced against him as he was not impleaded in the complaint nor was he served summons-is not meritorious. The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as reiterated in Section 7 of R.A. No. 10022, specifically provides for the joint and solidary liability of the corporate officers with the recruitment agency for the monetary claims/awards in favor of an employee, thus:
SEC. 10. Money Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. Consistent with this mandate, the NLRC shall endeavor to update and keep abreast with the developments in the global services industry.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. 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.
xxx xxx xxx 20 (emphasis supplied)
The said provision was held to be a valid police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. 21 As held in Gargallo v. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc., 22viz.:
Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended, expressly provides for joint and solidary liability of corporate directors and officers with the recruitment/placement agency for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). While a corporate director, trustee, or officer who entered into contracts in behalf of the corporation generally cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of the latter, in deference to the separate and distinct legal personality of a corporation from the persons composing it, personal liability of such corporate director, trustee, or officer, along (although not necessarily) with the corporation, may validly attach when he is made by a specific provision of law personally answerable for his corporate action, as in this case. Thus, in the recent case of Sealanes Marine Services, Inc. v. Dela Torre, the Court had sustained the joint and solidary liability of the manning agency, its foreign principal and the manning agency's President in accordance with Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended.
In addition, Dohle Seafront is presumed to have submitted a verified undertaking by its officers and directors that they will be jointly and severally liable with the company over claims arising from an employer-employee relationship when it applied for a license to operate a seafarer's manning agency, as required under the 2003 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (POEA Rules).
"Applicable laws form part of, and are read into, contracts without need for any express reference thereto; more so, when it pertains to a labor contract which is imbued with public interest. Each contract thus contains not only what was explicitly stipulated therein, but also the statutory provisions that have any bearing on the matter." As applied herein, Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended, and the pertinent POEA Rules are deemed incorporated in petitioner's employment contract with respondents. These provisions are in line with the State's policy of affording protection to labor and alleviating the workers' plight, and are meant to assure OFWs immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. Thus, as the law provides, corporate directors and officers are themselves solidarily liable with the recruitment/placement agency for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to OFWs. 23 (emphases supplied)
Verily, petitioner, as the corporate secretary and director of Skippers, Inc., is solidarily liable with the monetary award in favor of respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 5, 2015 Decision and June 21, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127903-MIN are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-35.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean-Paul B. Inting with Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring; id. at 40-46.
3.Id. at 47-48.
4.Id. at 41.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 49-50.
7.Id. at 51-58.
8.Id. at 67-71.
9. SECTION 10. Monetary Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all monetary claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. 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. x x x
10. 602 Phil. 1058 (2009).
11. Rollo, p. 42.
12. Id. at 71.
13. Id. at 72-84.
14. Id. at 95-97.
15. Section 5. PROHIBITED PLEADING AND MOTIONS. — The following pleadings and motions shall not be allowed and acted upon nor elevated to the Commission:
xxx xxx xxx
g) Appeal from any interlocutory order of the Labor Arbiter, such as but not limited to, an order:
(1) denying a motion to dismiss;
(2) denying a motion to inhibit;
(3) denying a motion for issuance of writ of execution; or
(4) denying a motion to quash writ of execution.
h) Appeal from the issuance of a certificate of finality of decision by the Labor Arbiter;
i) Appeal from orders issued by the Labor Arbiter in the course of execution proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx
16. Rollo, pp. 118-119.
17. Id., at 45.
18. Id. at 17-18.
19. Section 5, Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.
20. An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8042, Otherwise Known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, Republic Act No. 10022.
21. Hon. Sto. Tomas, et al. v. Salac, et al., 698 Phil. 454, 470 (2012).
22. G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016.
23. Id.