SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 97945. October 8, 1998] PRIME MARINE SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, R & R MANAGEMENT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, and NAPOLEON CANUT, respondents. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the decision, dated February 21, 1991, of the National Labor Relations Commission, dismissing the appeal of petitioner Prime Marine Services, Inc. from the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration in POEA Case No. (L) 88-10-850, as well as the resolution, dated March 26, 1991, of the NLRC, denying reconsideration. Private respondent Napoleon Canut was recruited to work as a Tug Master for Arabian Gulf Mechanical Services and Contracting Co., Ltd. (Arabian Gulf) by R & R Management Services International (R & R Management) for a period of 18 months, commencing June 15, 1988. Private respondents employment was, however, preterminated allegedly on the ground that he was incompetent. He was repatriated to the Philippines on September 26, 1988.i[1] When private respondent reviewed his employment papers, he discovered that while R & R Management had acted as recruitment agency in processing his application, it was actually petitioner Prime Marine Services, Inc., as deployment agent, which had processed his papers and facilitated his going abroad. Further investigation showed that R & R Management was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. Accordingly, private respondent filed a complaint before the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, and recruitment violations against petitioner, R & R Management, and Arabian Gulf.ii[2] Petitioner denied that there was any employer-employee relationship between it and private respondent. It pointed out that private respondent admitted he had applied with and paid his placement fee to R & R Management. Petitioner likewise denied that it had any part in the processing of private respondents papers and argued that only Arabian Gulf and R & R Management should be held liable to private respondent. For this reason, petitioner filed a cross-claim against R & R Management seeking reimbursement for any amount which petitioner may be held liable for to private respondent.iii[3] R & R Management, on the other hand, averred that it referred private respondent to petitioner in order for the latter to facilitate private respondents employment abroad and