4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the POEA against petitioner Philsa and its foreign principal, Al-Hejailan., with the following causes of action: 1. Illegal dismissal; 2. Payment of salary differentials; 3. Illegal deduction/withholding of salaries; 4. Illegal exactions/refund of placement fees; and 5. Contract substitution.[4] The case was docketed as POEA Case No. (L) 85-05-0370. Under the rules of the POEA dated May 21, 1985, complaints involving employeremployee relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, including money claims, are adjudicated by the Workers' Assistance and Adjudication Office (hereinafter the "WAAO") thru the POEA Hearing Officers[5]. On the other hand, complaints involving recruitment violations warranting suspension or cancellation of the license of recruiting agencies are cognizable by the POEA thru its Licensing and Recruitment Office (hereinafter the "LRO").[6] In cases where a complaint partakes of the nature of both an employeremployee relationship case and a recruitment regulation case, the POEA Hearing Officer shall act as representative of both the WAAO and the LRO and both cases shall be heard simultaneously. In such cases, the Hearing Officer shall submit two separate recommendations for the two aspects of the case.[7] In the case at bench, the first two causes of action were in the nature of money claims arising from the employer-employee relations and were properly cognizable by the WAAO. The last two causes of action were in the nature of recruitment violations and may be investigated by the LRO. The third cause of action, illegal deduction/withholding of salary, is both a money claim and a violation of recruitment regulations and is thus under the investigatory jurisdiction of both the WAAO and the LRO. Several hearings were conducted before the POEA Hearing Officer on the two aspects of private respondents' complaint. During these hearings, private respondents supported their complaint with the presentation of both documentary and testimonial evidence. When it was its turn to present its evidence, petitioner failed to do so and consequently, private respondents filed a motion to decide the case on the basis of the evidence on record.[8] On the aspects of the case involving money claims arising from the employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal, the POEA rendered a decision dated August 31, 1988[9], the dispositive portion of which reads: "CONFORMABLY TO THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT AND SERVICE https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51157 2/12