PI Manpower Placements Inc vs NLRC : 97369 : July 31, 1997 : J. M... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/97369.htm the agency in that case was exonerated from liability (although it appeared as a party in the contract of employment of the complaining workers) because the agency did not consent nor have knowledge of its involvement in recruiting the workers. The complaining workers there admitted that they knew that the agency was not their recruiter and that it was merely used to enable them to travel and obtain travel exit passes as their actual recruitment agency had no license. It was also found that transactions were not made in the business address of the agency. On the other hand, here petitioner actively took part in recruiting and deploying Cuenta. It allowed its name, business premises, office supplies, and other facilities, including the services of its Operations Manager, to be used for the transaction. Fourth. While the practice of agencies in referring applicants to other agencies for immediate hiring and deployment, what is referred to by the POEA and petitioner as reprocessing, is not evil per se, agencies should know that the act of endorsing and referring workers is recruitment as defined by law and, therefore, they can be held liable for the consequences thereof. Recruitment, whether a business activity or otherwise, has economic and social consequences, as its failure or success affects the very livelihood of families and, ultimately, of the nation. The 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. This is in line with the policy of the State to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class. Hence, petitioners contention that the four-month suspension of its license is enough punishment is without merit. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the temporary restraining order issued on January 20, 1990 is LIFTED. The decision of the NLRC, as modified in G.R. No. 97857, must now be executed. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, and Puno, JJ., concur. Torres, Jr., J., on leave. 5 of 6 [1] Rollo, pp. 52-54. [2] Id., pp. 49-50. [3] Id., p. 18. [4] Id., p. 124. [5] Id., pp. 111-113. [6] Id., p. 116. [7] Id., p. 51. [8] JGB and Associates, Inc. v. NLRC, 254 SCRA 457 (1996). [9] Rollo, p.51. [10] See Anderson v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 116 (1996). [11] New Labor Code, Arts. 282-283. [12] See Labajo v. Alejandro, 165 SCRA 747 (1988). [13] Id., p. 37. [14] Labor Code, Art. 13(b). [15] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Matas, 247 SCRA 9 (1995). [16] Militante v. NLRC, 246 SCRA 365 (1995); Sebuguero v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532 (1995). 1/24/2016 9:50 PM