5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly employment contract. This was effectively corroborated by Nahas herself when she admitted before the Labor Arbiter that Olarte was a walk-in applicant in the said office. When finally deployed, the local agency appearing in Olarte’s papers was Royal Dream. Hence, when Olarte was repatriated and later filed a Complaint, she lodged it against Nahas and PETRA/ Royal Dream and summons was served upon them at Room 401, Gochangco Building, T.M., Kalaw, Ermita, Manila.[29] Besides, to concede to this claim of Nahas would in effect allow her, PETRA and Royal Dream to hide behind the cloak of corporate fiction in order to evade the rightful claims of Olarte. It bears emphasizing that “the statutorily granted privilege of a corporate veil may be used only for legitimate purposes.”[30] “[T]he corporate vehicle cannot be used as a shield to protect fraud or justify wrong,”[31] which clearly in this case is what Nahas, PETRA and Royal Dream are attempting to achieve but which the Court cannot allow. The propriety of the grant of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Olarte is being raised for the first time with this Court. Notably, Nahas did not question before the NLRC and the CA the Labor Arbiter’s grant of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Olarte; hence, the Court need not belabor upon the same. “[P]oints of law, theories, issues, and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court (or in this case, the appropriate quasijudicial administrative body) need not be considered by the reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal x x x because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process."[32] As a fmal note, it is worth stating that recruitment agencies, as part of their bounden duty to protect the welfare of the Filipino workers sent abroad from whom they take their profit,[33] should in conscience not add to the misery of maltreated and abused Filipino workers by denying them the reparation to which they are entitled. Instead, they must "faithfully comply with their government prescribed responsibilities"[34] and be the first to ensure the welfare of the very people upon whose patronage their industry thrives.[35] WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April29, 2005 and Resolution dated July 8, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 79028 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* Brion, and, Perez, JJ., concur. * Per raffle dated April 29, 2013. [1] Depositaria v. Hervias, 206 Phil. 651, 653 (1983). elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56962 8/10