4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly show that they had served (for) less than one year.' (underscoring for emphasis) Thus, it is clear that petitioner's affidavit of complaint may be made the basis of truth even if affiant was not cross-examined."[15] The fact alone that most of the documents submitted in evidence by an employee were prepared by him does not make them selfserving since they have been offered in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter (in this case before the POEA Adjudication Officer) and that ample opportunity was given to the employer to rebut their veracity and authenticity[16]. The seriousness of the allegations in the complaint-affidavit in the case at bar cannot just be perfunctorily rejected absent any showing that the petitioner-affiant was lying when he made the statements contained therein. There being none, it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC to ignore or simply sweep under the rug the petitioner's complaint-affidavit and conclude that it is a mere hearsay evidence without finding that there was adequate reason not to believe the allegations contained therein. Accordingly, the NLRC ruling that the complaint-affidavit is hearsay because the affiant was not cross-examined has no legal basis because the rules of evidence are not supposed to be strictly observed in proceedings before the NLRC and the POEA Adjudication Office. The NLRC failed to observe this well-entrenched doctrine when this case was brought on appeal before it. Neither can we warrant the ruling of the NLRC that herein private respondent I.T. may only be considered as an agent of Samir, its foreign principal, and that private respondent I.T. should not be expected to have access to the employment records of its said foreign principal, thereby justifying the latter's non-presentation of the needed documents before the POEA Adjudication Office, and the absolution of I.T. from any liability to petitioner.[17] In so ruling, respondent NLRC disregarded the rule regarding the solidary liability of the local employment agency with its foreign principal in overseas employment contracts. Private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.[18] This joint and solidary liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him.[19] This is in line with the policy of the State to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class. The fact, however, that private respondent I.T. failed to fully air its position was mainly due to its own inaction and negligence when it chose not to present countervailing evidence on the records of salary payments and separation pay it claimed Samir has paid to petitioner. Petitioner, on the other hand, cannot be expected to have the proper facility to produce the same before the POEA Adjudication Officer considering that their relations became sour due to the present charges. The NLRC's doubts in the factual findings of the POEA Adjudication Officer should not have prompted it to reject outright the contention of the petitioner contained in his complaint-affidavits, position paper and evidence submitted to the POEA Adjudication Office. The NLRC is not precluded by the rules to allow both parties to submit additional evidence to prove their respective claims even on appeal[20] or to order the remand of the case to the administrative agency concerned for further study and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120 6/12