PI Manpower Placements Inc vs NLRC : 97369 : July 31, 1997 : J. M... 4 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/97369.htm Cuenta to Rivera or that petitioner had no knowledge and did not consent to the acts of Rivera. The fact is that Rivera was a responsible officer of petitioner. No evidence was adduced to show that the public was properly warned that without the general managers approval no order of payment was valid. The fact that private respondent was received in the petitioners business address and that petitioners name, seal and address were imprinted in the letters sent by Rivera for the processing and completion of Cuentas papers sufficiently make petitioner liable for these transactions. That these documents are accessible to any person is immaterial. What is important is that Rivera, as operations manager of petitioner PI Manpower, used them in the course of petitioners business, i.e., recruitment. Indeed, except for its denial, petitioner has not presented evidence showing that it disowned Riveras representations to private respondent. Third. Petitioners claim that it had no opening and could not have considered Cuentas application does not negate the fact that petitioner was instrumental in his deployment. As observed by the NLRC, LPJ Enterprises acted as a confederate agency of P.I. Manpower. With Rivera and Alonzo agreeing to send Cuenta abroad as truck driver for Al Jindan (LPJs foreign principal), it was immaterial that P.I. Manpower did not have a foreign employer for Cuenta. This further explains why the Agency-Worker Agreement and travel exit pass (TEP) indicate LPJ Enterprises and not to P.I. Manpower to be the recruiter. The POEAs approval could not have been obtained had the name of petitioner appeared therein. The NLRC correctly found petitioner guilty of misrepresentation. Indeed, Cuenta could not have known that LPJ Enterprises was his local employing agent because he had been dealing with petitioner. His employment documents were given to him only when he was about to board the plane, and therefore he had no time to examine them completely. As the NLRC, pointed out: The true relationship between the applicant and the agency is usually revealed only when the former is at the airport and is about to depart or is already abroad, at the time and place where no matter how disadvantageous the contract of employment maybe, in terms of salaries and benefits, prudence would deter the applicant from backing out from the contract, what with all the time, effort, and money he had spent for this. Petitioner insists that there was no misrepresentation because Cuenta knew that LPJ Enterprises was his agency. Petitioner alleges that Cuenta read the documents and could not have signed the Agency-Worker agreement in blank form because he is not an illiterate individual who could have been made to do that. The fact, however, is that private respondent, after arriving in the Philippines, promptly went to P.I. Manpowers office and complained to its owner, Mr. Depsi. If Cuenta knew that LPJ Enterprises was his agency, he would have undoubtedly have gone to the latters office and not to P.I. Manpower. Moreover, we cannot find any reason why Teresita Rivera should go to all the trouble of making sure that private respondent was deployed, if petitioner had no part in the recruitment of Cuenta. That private respondent is not an illiterate who could be victimized is not a reason for finding that he could not have failed to notice that he was signing up for employment overseas with another agency and not with petitioner. He was assured that everything he and Rivera had agreed could be embodied in the contract and he believed Rivera. Lastly, the finding of the prosecutor in the criminal case filed by Cuenta that there was no misrepresentation and deceit on the part of Teresita Rivera, Issan Al Debs and Danny Alonzo is not binding on the NLRC. The two cases are separate and distinct and require different quantum of evidence and involve different procedure.[15] Furthermore, the POEA and the NLRC conducted independent means of finding the ultimate facts of this case which serve as basis of their decisions. These factual findings of the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect if not finality by courts.[16] Petitioners reliance on the ruling in Ilas v. NLRC[17] is misplaced. Unlike in the case at bar, 1/24/2016 9:50 PM