5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Awadh Company without the participation of Eastern Overseas. It likewise ruled that Nomer was a worker-on-leave who returned to Al
Awadh Company in June 2011 to finish the unexpired portion of his contract; and that since Eastern Overseas did not have a hand in
the reemployment and redeployment of Nomer in June 2011, he was deemed not covered by a compulsory insurance policy.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision[16] dated April 27, 2018, the CA annulled, and set aside the NLRC Decision, and reinstated the LA Decision.
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether Nomer was covered by a compulsory insurance policy when he went back to work in
Saudi Arabia with Al Awadh Company in June 2011.
Court s Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
The pertinent portion of SEC. 37-A of RA 8042, as amended, provides:
SEC. 37-A. Compulsory Insurance Coverage for Agency-Hired Workers. - In addition to the performance bond to be filed by
the recruitment/manning agency under Section 10, each migrant worker deployed by a recruitment/manning agency shall
be covered by a compulsory insurance policy which shall be secured at no cost to the said worker. Such insurance policy
shall be effective for the duration of the migrant worker's employment x x x
xxxx
"For migrant workers classified as rehires, name hires or direct hires, they may opt to be covered by this insurance coverage
by requesting their foreign employers to pay for the cost of the insurance coverage or they may pay for the premium
themselves. To protect the rights of these workers, the POEA shall provide them adequate legal assistance, including
conciliation and mediation services, whether at home or abroad.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, insurance coverage is compulsory for agency-hired migrant workers. An Overseas Filipino
Worker (OFW) is agency-hired if he/she has availed himself of the services of a recruitment/manning agency duly authorized by the
Department of Labor and Employment through the POEA.[17]
On the other hand, insurance coverage is not mandatory for direct-hired or name-hired, and rehired OFWs. An OFW is direct-hired or
name-hired if he/she was engaged directly by foreign employers such as international organizations, diplomatic corps, and those who
were able to get an employment without the assistance or participation of any recruitment/manning agency.[18] A rehired OFW on the
other hand is one who has been re-engaged by the foreign principal without the participation of an agency.[19] Direct-hired, namehired, or rehired OFWs, however, can avail themselves of this insurance by requesting their foreign employers to pay for the cost of the
insurance coverage or they may pay for the premium themselves.
However, to resolve the issue of whether Nomer was covered by a compulsory insurance policy at the time of his death in 2012, the
Court must initially determine the following:
1) Whether Nomer was rehired by Al Awadh Company without the participation of Eastern Overseas when
his contract expired in 2009;
2) Whether Nomer returned to the Philippines in April 2011 as a worker-on-leave, or by virtue of an expired
contract; and
3) Whether Nomer returned to Saudi Arabia in June 2011 to finish the unexpired portion of his contract, or
by virtue of a new contract processed by Eastern Overseas.
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law. A question of fact
exists when there is a doubt as to the truth of certain facts, and it can only be resolved through a reexamination of the body of
evidence.[20] Here, the issue of whether Nomer was agency-hired or a rehire of Al Awadh Company will require the Court to re-examine
the evidence on hand.
It is well-settled that the Court is not a trier of facts. As a general rule, the Court will defer to the lower courts' or quasi judicial
agencies' appreciation and evaluation of evidence. However, there are exceptions to this general rule as eloquently enunciated in
jurisprudence.[21] such as when the factual findings of the CA and the NLRC are contradictory. Indubitably, the case at bar falls under
this exception. Thus, the Court proceeds to examine the factual milieu of the case.
Record shows that Nomer's employment contract ended in 2009. Notwithstanding the expiration of his contract, he continued working
with Al Awadh Company until 2011. While it may be argued that Nomer was rehired by AL Awadh Company without Eastern Overseas'
participation after the expiration of his contract in 2009, records show that Nomer came back to the Philippines in April 2011. Contrary
to Eastern Overseas' contention that Nomer was merely on leave when he went back to the Philippines in April 2011, and that Nomer
returned to Al Awadh Company in June 2011 as a rehire to finish the unexpired portion of his renewed 2009 contract, records disclose
that Nomer's return to Al Awadh Company was by virtue of a new contract, processed on his behalf by Eastern Overseas. The Court
notes Nomer's OFW Information Sheet22 for his June 2011 deployment, viz.:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66719
2/5