5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
returned to the Philippines in April 2004 after posting a bond of SR 3,000.00,
supposedly to guarantee that he would come back to finish his contract.
Upon his return to the Philippines, Binalla verified his employment contract with the
POEA. He learned that the POEA indeed certified a different contract for him, with CBM
as his recruiting or deploying agency. He disowned the contract, claiming that his
supposed signature appearing in the document was a forgery. Out of frustration, he
opted not to return to Saudi Arabia to complete his four-year contract.
Binalla argued before the labor arbiter that he was “re-processed” – an arrangement
where Princess Joy recruited and deployed him, but made it appear that it was
undertaken by CBM under a different contract submitted to and certified by the POEA.
He complained that he was made to work under an inferior contract and that Al Adwani
itself violated the terms of his four-year contract as follows: (1) withholding his initial
salary of SR1,500 purportedly as a bond to ensure the completion of the contract; (2)
deducting SR 250 from his salary for six months as reimbursement for his placement
fee of SR1,500; (3) non-payment of his overtime pay for his two years work; (4)
refusal to allow him to avail of his 15-day vacation leave and 15-day sick leave
equivalent to one month’s salary; (5) deduction of SR 50 a month (total of SR 1,200)
for board and lodging and food allowance which were supposed to be free; and (6)
requiring him to post a bond equivalent to three months salary to guarantee that he
would return (to complete his contract) when he applied for a vacation leave after two
years of work.
Despite the service of summons to Princess Joy and CBM, it was only Princess Joy
which made submissions to the labor arbiter. It denied that it recruited and deployed
Binalla for overseas employment, repudiating the involvement of Paguio and Lateo in
Binalla’s engagement by Al Adwani. It claimed that the two were not among its
officers, employees and representatives registered with the POEA. It alleged that it
was not Al Adwani’s Philippine agent, but CBM. It likewise denied that it participated in
the four-year contract presented in evidence by Binalla, claiming that it was not even
an employment contract as it was only Binalla who signed it; neither did it “re-process”
him.
If at all, it argued, the “repro-scheme” committed by Paguio and Lateo
constituted a prohibited recruitment practice outside the labor arbiter’s jurisdiction.
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
In his decision[9] dated October 28, 2005, Labor Arbiter (LA) Fructuoso T. Aurellano of
the National Labor Relations Commission’s Regional Arbitration Branch No. V found
merit in the complaint. LA Aurellano considered the complaint a money claim and
therefore within his jurisdiction under the law.[10] LA Aurellano found that Princess Joy
and CBM jointly undertook Binalla’s recruitment and deployment in Saudi Arabia
through “reprocessing.” He found credible Binalla’s contention that Paguio and Lateo,
who processed his papers, were working for Princess Joy, taking special note of the
“ticket/telegram/advise”[11] (with mention of “Princess Joy” and "Regie” [Paguio]),
handed by Paguio to Binalla.
LA Aurellano declared CBM and Princess Joy jointly and severally liable to pay Binalla
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076
2/12