5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We are prepared to accept the postulation that in order to evade possible liability by way of “reprocessing scheme,” the recruiting or referring agency would as much as possible avoid any documents that would show that it recruited the referred overseas contract worker to another agency for deployment. Thus, the employment contract signed by the overseas contract worker and other documents related to [the] departure would not naturally bear any reference to the referring agency.[42] Significantly, there is evidence on record that belied Princess Joy’s submission that it was not an agent of Al Adwani. We refer to a nine-page Annex “A”[43] to Binalla’s motion for reconsideration with the NLRC,[44] showing that Princess Joy entered into recruitment contracts, hired and placed Filipino workers for Al Adwani, through Glenda Chua, Princess Joy’s President, Reginaldo Paguio and Cynthia Lateo in 2003 to 2004 which covered the period when Binalla was working for Al Adwani. We consider this evidence relevant—even if it was submitted only on motion for reconsideration with the NLRC-- as it supports LA Aurellano’s conclusion that Princess Joy was involved in Binalla’s recruitment and deployment to Al Adwani. In Clarion Printing House, Inc., et al. v. NLRC,[45] we reiterated the settled rule that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. In an earlier case,[46] we allowed the submission of additional evidence in support of the employee’s appeal as it did not prejudice the employer since it could submit counter evidence. In these lights, we find that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ignoring the presence of substantial evidence in the records indicating that Princess Joy is as responsible and, therefore, as liable as CBM in Binalla’s fraudulent deployment to Saudi Arabia. Second. The substitution of Binalla’s contract imposed upon him terms and conditions of employment inferior to those provided in the POEA-certified contract, especially in relation to his monthly salary and the term of his contract. This should be rectified. There were also Binalla’s claims of non-payment or withholding of contractual employee benefits by Al Adwani and imposition of unreasonable financial burden or obligations in the course of his two-year employment. These claims, it bears stressing, had not been disproved by Princess Joy, CBM or Al Adwani. The claims should be satisfied. We thus find that, except for the award of damages, all the other items awarded by LA Aurellano are in order. He, however, omitted the reimbursement of Binalla’s placement fee. This must also be rectified. The award of moral and exemplary damages/attorney’s fees We find the award to Binalla of P500,000.00 in moral damages and P500,000.00 in exemplary damages excessive. While Princess Joy, CBM and Al Adwani were complicit in the substitution of Binalla’s employment contract which resulted in the violation of his rights as an overseas Filipino worker, the award of damages is unusually high, an award that even this Court “does not mete out in labor cases” as we said in the Intertranz case.[47] Under the circumstances, we deem an award of P50,000.00 in moral damages elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076 8/12