5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly also worthy to point out that the accomplished bio-data of Olarte with the letterhead of ROYAL referred to earlier was attached by no less than Nahas herself in her earlier pleading before the Labor Arbiter supposedly to show that Olarte withdrew her application with PETRA. It would be uncanny for Nahas to have in her possession and custody such document, if indeed she was but a mere staff of ROYAL or that she is no longer connected in any way with ROYAL, unless there remains an intimate relationship between her and ROYAL or that she once held an important position in the same. With the foregoing, We find nothing capricious or whimsical with the NLRC’s finding and thus affirm Nahas’ liability in accordance with Section 64 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8024), to wit: ‘Section 64. Solidary Liability – The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment placement agency on any and all claims under this Rule shall be [joint] and solidary. x x x. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. xxxx WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the NLRC dated 28 February 2003 and its Resolution of 30 June 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[19] The Motion for Reconsideration[20] thereto having been denied in the CA Resolution21 dated July 8, 2005, Nahas now comes to this Court via the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Parties’ Arguments Nahas insists that it is Royal Dream which is solely responsible for Olarte’s deployment and thus should be the one to answer for her claims. Be that as it may, she contends that Royal Dream was not served with summons; hence, the proceedings in this case is not binding upon it. Nahas also refutes the CA’s conclusion that since she interviewed and caused Olarte to sign an employment contract, she held an important position in Royal Dream. She maintains that she is a mere employee of Royal Dream and that interviewing and entertaining applicants per se do not establish that she is a corporate officer, director or partner in said company who could be held solidarily liable. Lastly, she avers that Olarte’s Complaint is bereft of allegations of attendant circumstances which warrant the grant of moral and exemplary damages. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56962 5/10