R & R must necessarily fail because it is held jointly and severally liable
with R & R and the foreign employer.vii[7]
Although petitioner denied before the POEA and the NLRC any part in the processing of
private respondents papers, it now admits that its general manager after all took part in
the deployment of private respondent. However, it claims that its general manager was
not authorized to do so and that she was in collusion with private respondent.viii[8]
It is sufficient in order to dispose of this new contention to say that factual findings of
administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and even final so long as they
are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.ix[9] This is especially so
where, as here, the agency and a subordinate one which heard the case in the first
instance are in full agreement as to the facts.x[10] This rule was, in fact, reiterated in the
Ilas case which petitioner invokes:
No rule is more settled than that this Court is not a trier of facts and that the
findings of facts of administrative bodies, as public respondent, shall not
disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that it committed a grave abuse of
discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction.
In this case, petitioners failed to discharge their burden to warrant a departure
from this rule.xi[11]
It should be pointed out that petitioner belatedly claims that its general manager acted
without authority and in collusion with private respondent apparently to bring this case
within the ambit of Ilas which held that a recruitment agency is not liable for the
unauthorized acts of its agents. This transparent effort to make the present case fit the
ruling in Ilas is done without specifying the alleged evidence supporting such claim of
collusion. Neither does petitioner even attempt to controvert the express finding of both
the POEA and the NLRC that it failed to rebut R & R Managements allegation that both
of these firms jointly processed private respondents employment.
As to petitioners second assignment of error, such should be dismissed as its solidary
liability with R & R Management and Arabian Gulf for private respondents claims is
founded on the fact that both petitioner and R & R Management, and not the latter
alone, processed private respondents recruitment and deployment abroad.
There is no question that a private manning agency, such as petitioner, can be held
liable for private respondents claims. The Rules and Regulations of the POEA expressly
provide that every applicant seeking a license or authority to operate a private
employment, recruitment, or manning agency must submit, among others:
d. A verified undertaking stating that the applicant:
....