Feagle Construction Corp. vs.

Gayda, 186 SCRA 589

Facts:
Herein respondents, 40 Filipino workers formerly employed with Algosaibi-Bison,
Ltd. Requested petitioner recruiter to return them to their job site in Saudi Arabia.
Petitioner informed the workers that it did not want to send back any workers
because of the big risk due to the financial difficulties of Algosaibi-Bison Ltd..
Respondent workers assured petitioner that they were willing to assume the risk
and emphasized that they were willing to sign a written statement indicating that
they would not hold petitioner liable for any delay or non-payment of their salaries
and any amounts due them from Algosaibi-Bison, Ltd. It was under the foregoing
circumstances that petitioner reluctantly agreed to send back private respondents
to Saudi Arabia to help them in their dire financial need if they would sign the
aforementioned statements.
When Algosaibi-Bison Ltd went into bankruptcy, private respondents filed with the
POEA a complaint against petitioner for unpaid claims with the liquidator of
Algosaibi-Bison Ltd.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner may be held solidarily liable with the foreign employer for
any unpaid claims of private respondents against their foreign principal employer
even as they have a stipulation to this effect.
Held:
No. As a rule, a recruiter is solidarily liable with unpaid wages of workers sent
abroad. Case at bar is an exception because it was the workers who persuaded
recruiter to send them back abroad despite knowledge that foreign employer might
not pay their wages and they agreed not to hold recruiter responsible thereof.

Ilas vs. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 90394-97, 7 February 1991; 193 SCRA 682
Facts:
Petitioners applying for overseas employment in Doha, Qatar, with CBT/Sheik
International, were assisted by a liaison officer of private respondent All Season
Manpower International Services, who processed their papers and gave them travel
exit passes (TEPS). After being deployed and worked for 4 months without being
paid, they filed a complaint to recover their unpaid salaries and for wages covering
the unexpired portion of their contracts against private respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not a recruitment agency be liable for unpaid wages and other claims of
overseas workers who appear to be recruited by its agent without its knowledge and
consent.
Held:
No. It is true that the rules and regulations of the POEA provide that the private
employment or recruitment agency is made to assume full and complete
responsibility for all acts of its officials and representatives done in connection with
recruitment and placement. However, where the recruitment was actually made by
respondent agencys agent in behalf of CBT/Shiek International, not the private
respondent, and the name of private respondent was only used as a means to
enable petitioners to be issued TEPS for travel purposes, obviously without the
knowledge and consent of private respondent, the latter cannot be held liable for
the claims of petitioners.

Interview with Labor Arbiter Atty. Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar

1) Question: Regarding landbased migrant workers, what is the percentage of
cases that end in settlement?
Answer: Approximately 10%. Almost 100% are about illegal dismissal. Yung
karamihan gusto nilang kunin yung sweldo nila na hindi nabigay sa kanila nang sila
ay natanggal. Usually, mag o-ooffer lang and respondent ng P50,000.00 lang, pero
syempre, hindi naman pumapayag yung complainant sa ganoon. Kasi mas mababa
iyon. Kaya yung iba, talagang nilalaban nila. Kaya nagkakaroon ng position paper
litigation. Hindi rin kasi pumapayag ang respondent na tumaas pa sa P50,000.00
ang ibigay. Sa mga ganitong kaso kasi, big amount talaga ang involved.
2) Question: Regarding seabased migrant workers, what is the percentage of
cases that end in settlement?
Answer: Around the same. 10%. Sa seafarers naman, usually diyan total and
permanent disability. Mas malaki than lanbased migrant workers. Sa kanila, 60,000
USD ang kineclaim. Kaya and mga respondent, they would rather litigate. Mahirap
pag pag may dependent ang mga seafarer. Bawat dependent ay 4,000 USD
3) Question: Why do you think both usually end in settlement?
Answer: Because both parties will come out as victorious. If I were to decide,
talagang settlement eh. Parehong partido panalo. Why gamble diba. It is not
practical. Usually, yung mga ganyan naman ang sistema diyan, payment by
instalment.
4) Question: How long do settlements usually take?
Answer: 3 settings. So mga 1 month. Average lang yan.
5) Question: How do you think can this process be further improved?
Answer: Well, reasonableness among the parties. Special skills among the labor
arbiters. What needs to be seen is the reason why they might lose the case. Pero sa
palagay ko padin, labor arbiters that are skilled ang kailangan.