5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly was that of Travelers Insurance Corporation. On appeal, respondent NLRC vacated the decision of the POEA and dismissed petitioner's complaint mainly on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The NLRC ratiocinated as follows: "At the outset, we note that the record is bereft of any showing that complainant applied with the respondent agency as a job applicant and subsequently entered into an overseas contract with the latter which was later processed and approved by the POEA. X x x What appears is that complainant used the agency as a stepping stone to enter Singapore as a tourist and obtain employment thereat on his own. This is evidenced by Annexes "A-1" to "H" of Complainant's Reply (See pp. 65-72, record) which purports to show that the batch of complainant was obligated to pay back respondent Jose Cayanan the expenses for their deployment. No less than the POEA noted that the respondent agency "is a service contractor and is not authorized to deploy fishermen." Based on this fact, the respondent agency could not have deployed complainant as an overseas contract worker. What is apparent is that it obtained a tourist passport and plane ticket for complainant as a travel agent on a clearly "fly now pay later" plan. We cannot rely on the employment agreements and checks (See pp. 66-67, record) presented by complainant to show proof of employment relations considering that his name does not appear in any of the documents, hence they are merely hearsay."[12] In reversing the POEA's finding, respondent NLRC gave considerable weight to the Joint Affidavit of Natura and Balucas. Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner now comes to this Court via a petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to public respondent NLRC. He asserts that private respondents were the ones who deployed him to Singapore to work as fisherman; and that, respondent NLRC's conclusion that respondent JEAC was a mere "travel agency" and petitioner, a mere tourist, has no basis in fact and in law. For their part, private respondents maintain that respondent NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it set aside the decision of the POEA, since petitioner failed to show any POEA record or document to prove that they deployed him to work in Singapore. Neither did he present a Special Power of Attorney to prove that Step-Up Agency authorized private respondents to recruit and deploy contract workers in its behalf nor an Affidavit of Responsibility to show that they (private respondents and Step-Up Agency) assumed solidary liability to petitioner.[13] Private respondents likewise insist that the photocopies of the PNB checks and agreements are hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52737 3/11