0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
49 Ansichten2 Seiten
Finman General Assurance Corp. issued a surety bond to Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, a private recruitment agency. Several workers filed complaints against Pan Pacific for failing to secure them employment after collecting placement fees. The POEA impleaded Finman, as Pan Pacific's surety, to answer for the workers' claims. Finman denied liability, arguing the POEA lacked jurisdiction over surety bonds. However, under the Insurance Code and POEA regulations, Finman's liability as surety was joint and several with Pan Pacific. The conditions of surety bonds required by the POEA are incorporated regardless of whether printed in the bond, so Finman was liable for the workers' claims against Pan
Finman General Assurance Corp. issued a surety bond to Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, a private recruitment agency. Several workers filed complaints against Pan Pacific for failing to secure them employment after collecting placement fees. The POEA impleaded Finman, as Pan Pacific's surety, to answer for the workers' claims. Finman denied liability, arguing the POEA lacked jurisdiction over surety bonds. However, under the Insurance Code and POEA regulations, Finman's liability as surety was joint and several with Pan Pacific. The conditions of surety bonds required by the POEA are incorporated regardless of whether printed in the bond, so Finman was liable for the workers' claims against Pan
Finman General Assurance Corp. issued a surety bond to Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, a private recruitment agency. Several workers filed complaints against Pan Pacific for failing to secure them employment after collecting placement fees. The POEA impleaded Finman, as Pan Pacific's surety, to answer for the workers' claims. Finman denied liability, arguing the POEA lacked jurisdiction over surety bonds. However, under the Insurance Code and POEA regulations, Finman's liability as surety was joint and several with Pan Pacific. The conditions of surety bonds required by the POEA are incorporated regardless of whether printed in the bond, so Finman was liable for the workers' claims against Pan
Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. ("Pan Pacific")
is a private, fee-charging, recruitment and employment agency.
Pan Pacific posted a surety bond issued by petitioner Finman
General Assurance Corporation ("Finman") and was granted a license to operate by the POEA.
Private respondents William Inocencio, Perfecto Palero, Jr.,
Edwin Cardones and one Edwin Hernandez filed with the POEA separate complaints against Pan Pacific for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended and for refund of placement fees paid to Pan Pacific.
The complainants alleged that Pan Pacific charged and
collected such fees from them but did not secure employment for them.
POEA Administrator motu proprio impleaded petitioner
Finman as party respondent in its capacity as surety for Pan Pacific. Separate summonses were served upon Finman and Pan Pacific.
Petitioner Finman filed an answer denying liability and states
that: (1) the POEA had no "jurisdiction over surety bonds," that jurisdiction being vested in the Insurance Commission or the regular courts; (2) it (Finman) had not violated Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code and complainants' claims had accrued during the suspension of the principal obligor, Pan Pacific; (3) complainants had no cause of action against Finman, since it was not privy to the transactions between them and Pan Pacific and had not received any moneys from them; and (4) the amounts claimed by complainants had been paid by them as deposits and not as placement fees.
POEA issued an order holding respondents jointly and
severally liable for the complainants claims. Respondent agency is ordered to release cardones passport.
Secretary of Labor upheld the POEA Order
ISSUE: WON petitioner to pay private respondents' claims for
refund against Pan Pacific on the basis of the surety bond issued by petitioner? HELD: YES Under Section 176 of the Insurance Code, as amended, the liability of a surety in a surety bond is joint and several with the principal obligor. Petitioner's bond was posted by Pan Pacific in compliance with the requirements of Article 31 of the Labor Code. The tenor and scope of petitioner Finman's obligations under the bond it issued are set out in broad ranging terms by Section 4, Rule II, Book I of the POEA Rules and Regulations: Section 4. Payment of Fees and Posting of Bonds. Upon approval of the application by the Minister, the applicant shall pay an annual license fee of P6,000.00. It shall also post a cash bond of P100,000.00 and a surety bond of P150,000.00 from a bonding company acceptable to the Administration duly accredited by the Office of the Insurance Commission. The bonds shall answer for all valid
and legal claims arising from violations of the conditions
for the grant and use of the license or authority and contracts of employment. The bonds shall likewise guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations relating to recruitment and placement, the rules of the Administration and relevant issuances of the Ministry and all liabilities which the Administration may impose. The surety bonds shall include the condition that notice of garnishment to the principal is notice to the surety.
Doctrine: While petitioner Finman has refrained from attaching a
copy of the bond it had issued to its Petition for Certiorari, there can be no question that the conditions of the Finman surety bond Pan Pacific had posted with the POEA include the italicized portions of Section 4, Rule 11, Book I quoted above. It is settled doctrine that the conditions of a bond specified and required in the provisions of the statute or regulation providing for the submission of the bond, are incorporated or built into all bonds tendered under that statute or regulation, even though not there set out in printer's ink
G.R. No. 109835 November 22, 1993 JMM Promotions & Management, Inc., Petitioner, National Labor Relations Commission and Ulpiano L. de Los Santos, Respondent