G. R. No. 179177 14 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm indeed, respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS were notified of the adverse 23 July 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. It must be remembered that, by virtue of the Affidavit of Assumption of Responsibility dated 5 May 2003, respondent Sea Serve assumed full and complete responsibility for all contractual obligations to the seafarers originally recruited and processed by Nobel Shipping Inc. for the vessel(s) MV Algosaibi 1, 2, 22, 23, 24, 25, [53] 26 & MV Midnight Arrow; Algosaibi 21. Said affidavit was made pursuant to Sec. 6, [54] [55] Rule I, Book III, of the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulation Governing Overseas Employment, viz: Section 6. Transfer of Accreditation. - The accreditation of a principal or a project may be transferred to another agency provided that transfer shall not involve any diminution of wages and benefits of workers. The transferee agency in these instances shall comply with the requirements for accreditation and shall assume full and complete responsibility to all contractual obligations of the principals to its workers originally recruited and processed by the former agency. Prior to the transfer of accreditation, the Administration shall notify the previous agency and principal of such application. Let it be made clear that there is no issue as to the assumption by respondent Sea Serve of any accountability that may arise or may have arisen from the employment contracts previously instituted and processed by Nobel for respondent ADAMS; or the relief of Nobel from its contractual obligations to the Filipino overseas workers whose employment contracts it processed for respondent ADAMS. The transferee agency, respondent Sea Serve, had assumed long ago from Nobel, the full and complete responsibility of the contractual obligations of the principal, respondent ADAMS, including the alleged liability to petitioner Nisda that is subject of the case at bar. That being the case, therefore, it was imperative upon the Labor Arbiter to have notified respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS of the adverse decision taken against them. Unfortunately, the Labor Arbiter failed to take into account the import of aforementioned transfer of accreditation. This omission is obvious from the face of the Notice [56] dated 1 August 2003, attached to the Labor Arbiters Decision dated 23 July 2003, which informed merely petitioner Nisda and his counsel, Nobel, Guerrero and their counsel. In as much as respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS were left in the dark, so to speak, how can they be expected to question something that they have no knowledge of? It is indisputable that service of the decision of the labor arbiter should be made on parties or 1/28/2016 1:07 PM