8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Embassy nearest the site of employment" was not called upon to act as a Voluntary Arbitrator as contemplated under the Labor Code. It was therefore erroneous for the CA to assume that the contractual provision triggered the voluntary arbitration mechanism under the Labor Code and, on that premise, venture into an inquiry as to whether or not there was an "express stipulation" submitting the termination dispute to such process, which thereby puts the case beyond the ambit of the LA's jurisdiction. Considering that the parties did not submit the present illegal termination case to the voluntary arbitration mechanism, the dispute remained under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the LA, which therefore correctly took cognizance of the case. Hence, the Court modifies the CA's ruling on this matter accordingly. On the second issue, AICI argues in its petition that it cannot be held liable for illegal dismissal because it only recruits employees for foreign employers, and as such, it does not have an employee-employer relationship with the overseas workers.[44] This argument does not hold water. Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended; expressly provides that a recruitment agency, such as AICI, is solidarily liable with the foreign employer for money claims arising out of the employee-employer relationship between the latter and the overseas Filipino worker.[45] Jurisprudence explains that this solidary liability is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him,[46] as well as to afford overseas workers an additional layer of protection against foreign employers that tend to violate labor laws.[47] In view of the express provision of law, AICI's lack of an employee-employer relationship with respondents cannot exculpate it from its liability to pay the latter's money claims. Nevertheless, AICI is not left without a remedy. The law does not preclude AICI from going after the foreign employer for reimbursement of any payment it has made to respondents to answer for the money claims against the foreign employer.[48] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 11, 2015 and the Resolution dated August 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 131582 are hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons above-discussed. SO ORDERED. Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando,[*] JJ., concur. [*] Designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018. [1] Rollo, pp. 818. [2] Id. at 20-29. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino, concurring. [3] Id. at 30-34. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64949 5/11