In the instant case, the alleged Employment Contract, Annex “A” for the complainant (herein petitioner) appears to be one which is not perfected by herein parties, because said contract does not bear the signatures of the respondents or any of their authorized representatives.  It only bears the signature and thumbmark of the complainant.  On its face, the Employment Contract readily shows that respondent agency has neither participated nor is it a [privy] to any party who executed the contract binding it to the terms and conditions of the same.               Even in the Complainant’s Overseas Employment Certificate No. 144592A, the name of respondent agency does not appear to be the one that recruited and deployed the complainant.  Likewise, the Balikbayan Info Sheet of complainant does not indicated that herein respondent agency is the contracting agency in the Philippines. x x x.               Complainant failed to submit evidence to disprove the allegations of the [respondents] that they neither participated in the contract of employment of complainant (Annex “A” for the complainant) nor were they privy to the terms and conditions appearing therein.  The evidence submitted are not sufficient to hold respondent agency liable.  The copy of the receipt for the alleged placement fee was not issued by the respondent agency but by the employer of complainant which is not its accredited principal – another fact which was nevercontroverted by the complainant.  This being the case, complainant has no cause of action against herein respondent and therefore, his money claims could not prosper in the instant case.               The Solidary Liability under Section [60] of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas and Filipino Act of 1995, will only apply if there is an existing valid contract and signed by the parties concerned.[30]     To this, we add our own observations.  Petitioner insists that he does not qualify as a balik-manggagawa as the term is defined under the law.  Nevertheless, it does not escape us that in his pleadings,[31] he asserts that respondent Skills International handled his deployment as a balik-manggagawa to expedite his deployment abroad.  In addition, he never denied having filled-up the entries in the Balik-Manggagawa Information Sheet leaving the portion pertaining to the name of the placement or recruitment agency blank.  To our mind, it is clear that petitioner utilizes the Balik-Manggagawa program of the government whenever it is convenient for him.  Thus, he availed himself of said program in order to fasttrack his deployment abroad and yet now that said Info Sheet is being used against