G.R. No. 108284 - JUNE 1993 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 108284June 30, 1993 Sigma Personnel Services vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 106646June 30, 1993 Jaime Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 105751June 30, 1993 BA Finance Corporation vs. Rufino Co, et al. G.R. No. 105671June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel M. Magtuloy G.R. No. 104609June 30, 1993 Philip Lee Go, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102984June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo G.R. No. 102748June 30, 1993 Goulds Pumps (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 100720-23June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Codilla, et al. G.R. Nos. 98321-24June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, et al. G.R. Nos. 98000-02June 30, 1993 Inocencio Peñanueva, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. GR. No. 97212June 30, 1993 Benjamin Yu vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 94310June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Alay-Ay G.R. No. 86994June 30, 1993 Jaime Loot vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al. G.R. No. 86390June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Jaime A. Rosales G.R. No. 72608June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Julito U. Arnan G.R. No. 72319June 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Martin Alvero, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 58057June 30, 1993 Heirs of Mariano Lagutan, et al. vs. Severina Icao, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-91-554June 30, 1993 Warlito Alisangco vs. Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. G.R. No. 99395June 29, 1993 St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Ruben O. Torres, et al. G.R. No. 97564June 29, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Cayetano G.R. No. L-78631June 29, 1993 Columbia Pictures, Inc., et al. vs. Alfredo C. Flores, et al. A.M. No. R-711-PJune 29, 1993 Sps. Alfonso Aquino Lim, et al. vs. Oscar Guasch G.R. No. 106498June 28, 1993 Lolita Dadubo vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 102980June 28, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Osigan, et al. G.R. No. L-79760June 28, 1993 Perpetual Savings Bank, et al. vs. Jose Oro B. Fajardo, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-86-50June 28, 1993 Adelaida P. Felongco vs. Luis D. Dictado G.R. No. L-105883June 25, 199 Leticia A. Alimario vs. Commission On Audit G.R. No. L-105361June 25, 1993 People of Philippines vs. Bonifacio Enciso G.R. No. 104175June 25, 1993 Young Auto Supply Co., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102958June 25, 1993 Radio Comm. of the Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 102206June 25, 1993 National Power Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101728June 25, 1993 Ramon V. Roxas vs. Andres Dy, et al. G.R. No. 93109June 25, 1993 Milagros Llamanzares vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-90643June 25, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Agustin G. Fortes G.R. No. RTJ-91-752June 23, 1993 Jovencito R. Zuño, Sr. vs. Baltazar Dizon, et al. G.R. No. 104732June 22, 1993 Roberto A. Flores, et al. vs. Franklin M. Drilon, et al. G.R. Nos. 104304-05June 22, 1993 Luningning Landrito vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 99843June 22, 1993 Sps. Braulio Abalos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-105607June 21, 1993 Hector Villanueva vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 104408June 21, 1993 Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-91-657June 21, 1993 Lourdes Presado vs. Manuel C. Genova G.R. No. 108000June 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 106973June 17, 1993 Maria L. Lopez vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 106374June 17, 1993 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 106011June 17, 1993 Town Savings & Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-101730June 17, 1993 Phil. Telegraph And Telephone Corp. vs. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al. G.R. No. 92492June 17, 1993 Thelma Vda. De Canilang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-88445June 17, 1993 Jesus Kho vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 88-142June 17, 1993 Erlinda A. Mendoza vs. Rodolfo A. Mabutas G.R. No. P-92-673June 17, 1993 Lumen Policarpio, et al. vs. Gallardo Tolentino, et al. A.C. No. L-3694June 17, 1993 Alberto Fernandez, et al. vs. Benjamin M. Grecia A.C. No. L-553June 17, 1993 Mauricio C. Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. G.R. No. L-106037June 15, 1993 Ricardo C. Roa, et al. vs. Ph Credit Corp., et al. G.R. Nos. L-94709-10June 15, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al. G.R. No. 108957June 14, 1993 Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-100641June 14, 1993 Farle P. Almodiel vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-97835June 14, 1993 First General Mktg. Corp., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 95539June 14, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Melchor B. Datingginoo G.R. No. L-94630June 14, 1993 Salome Rosendo Rivas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 57828June 14, 1993 Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. P-92-709June 14, 1993 Roger A. Domagas vs. Delia Malana G.R. No. 95357June 9, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Gelaver G.R. No. 106621June 8, 1993 Phil. School of Business Admin. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 103631June 8, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Felipe C. Ramos G.R. Nos. 102773-77June 8, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Sayat G.R. No. 101292June 8, 1993 Ricardo Encarnacion vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 98177June 8, 1993 Barfel Development Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 96354June 8, 1993 Laperal Development Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 88291June 8, 1993 Ernesto Maceda vs. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., Etc., et al. G.R. No. L-84921June 8, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Dural, et al. G.R. No. L-83902June 8, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Arcadio Manrique, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 99333June 8, 1993 Spouses Antonio Pailano, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 101216-18June 4, 1993 Republic of the Philippines vs. Redentor D. Dichoso, et al. G.R. No. 100606June 4, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Joemi Balacio, et al. G.R. No. 100290June 4, 1993 Norberto Tibajia, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97457June 4, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Tito Caballero, et al. G.R. No. L-88246June 4, 1993 La Campana Food Products. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-74298June 4, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Roger Balingit G.R. No. 105884June 3, 1993 Social Security System vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 105285June 3, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Renato D. Fider G.R. No. 97931June 3, 1993 The People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. 97426June 3, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Apolinario, et al. GR. Nos. L-97309-10June 3, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Quejada G.R. No. 93511June 3, 1993 Corazon L. Cabagnot vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. MTJ-90-460June 3, 1993 Court Administrator vs. Osmundo M. Villanueva, et al. G.R. No. 105005June 2, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Juanita A. Marcelo G.R. No. L-99866June 2, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Sidro D. Doro, et al. G.R. Nos. L-71998-99June 2, 1993 Emiliano R. De Los Santos, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. 70310-11June 1, 1993 Massive Construction, Inc., et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Sigma Personnel Services vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Jaime Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, et al. BA Finance Corporation vs. Rufino Co, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Manuel M. Magtuloy Philip Lee Go, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo Goulds Pumps (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Codilla, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, et al. Inocencio Peñanueva, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. Benjamin Yu vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Alay-Ay Jaime Loot vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jaime A. Rosales People of the Philippines vs. Julito U. Arnan People of the Philippines vs. Martin Alvero, Jr., et al. Heirs of Mariano Lagutan, et al. vs. Severina Icao, et al. Warlito Alisangco vs. Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Ruben O. Torres, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Cayetano Columbia Pictures, Inc., et al. vs. Alfredo C. Flores, et al. Sps. Alfonso Aquino Lim, et al. vs. Oscar Guasch Lolita Dadubo vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Osigan, et al. Perpetual Savings Bank, et al. vs. Jose Oro B. Fajardo, et al. Adelaida P. Felongco vs. Luis D. Dictado Leticia A. Alimario vs. Commission On Audit People of Philippines vs. Bonifacio Enciso Young Auto Supply Co., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Radio Comm. of the Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. National Power Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ramon V. Roxas vs. Andres Dy, et al. Milagros Llamanzares vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Agustin G. Fortes Jovencito R. Zuño, Sr. vs. Baltazar Dizon, et al. Roberto A. Flores, et al. vs. Franklin M. Drilon, et al. Luningning Landrito vs. Civil Service Commission Sps. Braulio Abalos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Hector Villanueva vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Lourdes Presado vs. Manuel C. Genova People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Maria L. Lopez vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc., et al. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Town Savings & Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Phil. Telegraph And Telephone Corp. vs. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al. Thelma Vda. De Canilang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jesus Kho vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Erlinda A. Mendoza vs. Rodolfo A. Mabutas Lumen Policarpio, et al. vs. Gallardo Tolentino, et al. Alberto Fernandez, et al. vs. Benjamin M. Grecia Mauricio C. Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. Ricardo C. Roa, et al. vs. Ph Credit Corp., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al. Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Farle P. Almodiel vs. National Labor Relations Commission First General Mktg. Corp., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Melchor B. Datingginoo Salome Rosendo Rivas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Roger A. Domagas vs. Delia Malana People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Gelaver Phil. School of Business Admin. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felipe C. Ramos People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Sayat Ricardo Encarnacion vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Barfel Development Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Laperal Development Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ernesto Maceda vs. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., Etc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Dural, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Arcadio Manrique, Jr., et al. Spouses Antonio Pailano, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Redentor D. Dichoso, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Joemi Balacio, et al. Norberto Tibajia, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Tito Caballero, et al. La Campana Food Products. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Roger Balingit Social Security System vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Renato D. Fider The People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Mendoza, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Apolinario, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Quejada Corazon L. Cabagnot vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. Court Administrator vs. Osmundo M. Villanueva, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juanita A. Marcelo People of the Philippines vs. Sidro D. Doro, et al. Emiliano R. De Los Santos, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Massive Construction, Inc., et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 108284 June 30, 1993
SIGMA PERSONNEL SERVICES,petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE,respondents.
Eugenio S. Tumulak for petitioner.
Divinagracia San Juan for private respondent.
CRUZ,J.:
Susan Sumatre was full of hope and anticipation when she enplaned for a foreign land to work as a domestic. Before her spread the promise of a new life, with all the enticements of a future bright with the prospect of prosperity and even happiness. But all this fled in a cruel twinkling. Hardly two weeks after she left, she was back in this country, broken of body and mind and with nothing but bitter memories of her misadventure.
Petitioner Sigma Personnel Services is a duly licensed recruitment agency authorized by the POEA to recruit and deploy workers for land-based overseas employment.1Private respondent Sumatre was recruited by one Marife Carandang for employment as a domestic helper in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Carandang was the Vice President and Executive Officer of SPM Integrated Services.2However, she filed and processed Sumatre's application for overseas employment with Sigma.3
The evidence shows that Sumatre paid the placement fee of P11,500.00 to Carandang. A travel exit pass was issued with Sigma as the stated recruiting agency.4On August 1, 1987, Sumatre was deployed to Abu Dhabi, to be employed with the National Center for Commercial Relations and Services (NCCRS).
Sumatre was met by Querisi-al-Harira, the owner of NCCRS, who assigned her to a foreign employer. This employer mauled and beat her up and even possibly raped her. Thereafter, Harira took Sumatre back, locked her up in a room for several days without any food, and subjected her to physical abuse.5
Two weeks after Sumatre arrived in Abu Dhabi, she was repatriated to the Philippines, allegedly due to schizphreniform disorder. Upon her return, she underwent medical and physical examinations at the Camp Crame laboratory and was found with contusions on her left arm.6Mental examination at the National Center for Mental Health resulted in the following findings:7
The patient has no history of previous psychiatric confinement. She was apparently doing well before she left for Saudi Arabia in July, 1987 to work as a domestic help on a 2 year-contract. She came home unexpectedly last August 14, 1987 accompanied by MIA Security guards. She was talking incoherently but repeatedly verbalized that she was raped and harassed by her boss. She also refused to eat and had to be spooned. These, together with the other presenting problems promoted the family to bring the patient for consultation on August 15, 1987.
When first seen at the Out-Patient Service, she was fairly kempt, restless but manageable. She was irrelevant with her responses but claimed that she was a contract worker and she was raped. No details were given. Affect was expansive. No meaningful interview was established during the first visit. She was given Inapsine Injection, Thorazine, 100 mg. BID and all impression of Brief Reactive Psychoses was given.
On March 9, 1988, Sumatre's sister, Cynthia Sumatre, filed a complaint against Sigma and SPM Services with the POEA for payment of unpaid salaries of US$150/month for the unworked and entire duration of her 2-year contract.
Sigma denied that Sumatre had been illegaly dismissed and claimed that she did not pass her probationary period of employment; besides, she was repatriated because she was suffering from schizophreniform disorder. The petitioner also questioned the capacity to sue of the complainant's sister. Furthermore, it alleged that as there was no implied agency between SPM Services and Sigma, it could not be held solidarily liable with SPM for the unpaid salaries of the complainant.
The POEA ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered SPM Services and Sigma to solidarily pay the complainant her salaries for 2 years amounting to US$4,800.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment. They were also required to pay 5% of the total award as and by way of attorney's fees.8
On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the NLRC.9It is now faulted for grave abuse of discretion in this special civil action forcertiorari.
The basic issue before the Court is whether or not Sumatre had been illegally dismissed, in light of the petitioner's contention that the private respondent was a mare probationary employee who was, on top of this status, mentally unsound.
Article 281 of the Labor Code provides that the services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause, or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.
The second ground is not an issue as Sumatre was repatriated after only two weeks. We are concerned only with the legality of her dismissal, which it is claiming was justified because of her behavior when she was in Abu Dhabi.
Article 284 of the Labor Code provides:
An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees:Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
This ground was created by the foreign employer in this case. The report of her mental examination showed that she had "no history of previous psychiatric confinement. She was apparently doing well before she left for Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, in July 1987."10Apparently, she became schizophrenic because of her maltreatment by her employer. The theory that the injuries of the private respondent were self-inflicted as a result of her schizophrenia has not been substantiated. It is a mere surmise that cannot overcome her positive declaration, as supported by medical findings, that she was mauled and beaten up by her employer abroad. In termination cases, the burden of proof is on the employer.11This burden has not been discharged by Sigma.
Section 2 (e), Rule V, Book I of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code requires a private employment agency to assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas worker.12Section 10 (a) (2) of the same Rule provides that a private employment agency can be sued jointly and severally with the principal or foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or the contract of employment.13This provision is also substantially reiterated in Section 1 (f) (3) of Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules and Regulations.14
The private respondent having been illegally dismissed and not paid the wages due her from the foreign employer, the liabilities arising as a consequence thereof shall attach to Sigma. Although Sumatre filed her application with and paid the placement fee to Carandang. Sumatre's papers were processed by Sigma. Sigma appears in fact to have deployed Sumatre, if she did not also recruit her, and so is solidarily liable with the foreign-based employer for Sumatre's claims.
The issue of whether or not the private respondent was indeed maltreated is a question of fact. The factual findings of administrative bodies are as a rule binding on this Court, subject to certain established exceptions.15The findings of the NLRC and the POEA will not be reversed by this Court without a showing that they fall under the exceptions.
The petitioner's contention that Cynthia Sumatre has no capacity to sue is devoid of merit. Cynthia Sumatre filed the complaint in behalf of her sister Susan as a real party in interest, conformably to Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The private respondent issued a special power of attorney in favor of Cynthia Sumatre, not to mention the fact that Susan Sumatre herself attended all the hearings of the case. It is also stressed that in labor cases, simplification of procedure, without regard to technicalities and without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process, is mandated to insure the speedy administration of Justice.16
Back wages are granted for earnings a worker has lost due to his illegal dismissal. We have held that an employer is obliged to pay an illegally dismissed employee the whole amount of salaries plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases to which the latter would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed.17There is no reason for not applying this rule in the case at bar.
The plight of Susan Sumatre illustrates only too starkly the perils many of our womenfolk have to hazard, and endure, at the hands of foreign employers who find them easy and defenseless prey. It is hoped that the time will come when they will not have to seek their fortunes abroad in their quest for a better life, finding prosperity and peace in their own land and in the bosom of their family and friends.
WHEREFORE, the petition in DISMISSED for lack of a clear showing that the questioned resolution is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.
#Footnotes
1Rollo, p. 11.
2Rollo, p. 45.
3Rollo, p. 62.
4Rollo, p. 63.
5Rollo, p. 63.
6Rollo, p. 63.
7Rollo, p. 64.
8 POEA decision, penned by the Administrator, Jose N. Sarmiento, July 2, 1990, pp. 50-51.
9 NLRC decision penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso, November 26, 1992, p. 35.
10Rollo, p. 64.
11 Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 194 SCRA 633.
12 Section 2,Application for license for overseas recruitment and placement.— Every applicant for license to operate a private employment agency for overseas recruitment and placement shall submit to the Bureau, the following documents in support of the application:
xxx xxx xxx
e) a verified undertaking to assume all responsibilities for the proper use of its license/authority and the implementation of the contracts of employment with the workers.
13 Section 10.Requirement before recruitment— Before recruiting any worker, the private employment agency shall submit to the Bureau, the following documents:
a) A formal appointment or agency contract executed by a foreign-based employer in favor of the license holder to recruit and hire personnel for the former duly authenticated or attested by the Philippine Labor Attache or duly authorized Philippine foreign service official or, in his absence by any appropriate official, agency, or organization in the country where the employer conducts his business. In case any of the foregoing documents is executed in the Philippines, the same may be authenticated by the duly authorized official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or of the employer's consulate or embassy or of the Ministry of Labor and Employment official as may be appropriate. Such formal appointment or recruitment agreement shall contain the following provisions, among others:
x x x x x x x x x
2. Power of the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreign-based employer for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment.
14 Section 1.Requirements for issuance of License— Every applicant for license to operate a private employment agency or manning agency shall submit a written application together with the following requirements:
xxx xxx xxx
f) a verified undertaking stating that the applicant:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract, including but not limited to payment of wages, health and disability compensation and repatriation.
15 Employees Association of the Philippine American Life Insurance Co., v. NLRC, 199 SCRA 628.
The established exceptions are as follows:
a) the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises and conjectures.
b) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible.
c) there is a grave abuse of discretion.
d) there is misappreciation of facts, and
e) the court, in arriving at its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admission of the parties or the evidence presented (Ateneo de Manila University vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100).
16 Robusta Agro Marine Products, Inc. v. Gorombalem, 175 SCRA 93.
17 St. Louis College of Tuguegarao v. NLRC, 177 SCRA 151.