5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly First. Binalla was a victim of contract substitution. He worked under an employment contract whose terms were inferior to the terms certified by the POEA. Under the fouryear contract he signed and implemented by his employer, Al Adwani, he was paid only SR1500.00 or US$400 a month; whereas, under the POEA- certified two-year contract, he was to be paid $550.00. The POEA-certified contract – for all intents and purposes and despite his claim that his signature on the certified contract was forged – was the contract that governed Binalla’s employment with Al Adwani as it was the contract that the Philippine government officially recognized and which formed the basis of his deployment to Saudi Arabia. Clearly, the four-year contract signed by Binalla substituted for the POEA-certified contract. Under Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code on prohibited practices, “it shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor.” Further, contract substitution constitutes “illegal recruitment” under Article 38 (I) of the Code. Under the circumstances, Princess Joy is as liable as CBM and Al Adwani for contract substitution, no matter how it tries to avoid liability by disclaiming participation in the recruitment and deployment of Binalla to Al Adwani. Before labor arbiter, Princess Joy claimed that Paguio and Lateo were not employees/representatives or that the principal piece of evidence relied upon by the any the its the labor arbiter, the “ticket/telegram/advise (sic)”[40] handed to Binalla by Paguio had no probative value as it was merely an unsigned and unauthenticated printout or that the four-year employment contract was signed only by Binalla and there was no showing that it was the contract implemented by Al Adwani. Princess Joy’s protestations fail to convince us. We believe, as the labor arbiter did, that the ticket telegram/advice is proof enough that Princess Joy recruited Binalla. We quote with approval LA Aurellano’s observation on the matter: In the instant case, however, it was fortunate that the complainant was able to hold onto the ticket telegram/advise handed to him by Reginaldo Paguio. Clearly shown thereat, it carried the names “PRINCESS JOY” and “REGIE.” It would not be an unreasonable [presumption] that indeed xxx Princess Joy recruited complainant and that the latter had been transacting with Reginaldo Paguio (REGIE).[41] The same thing is true with the four-year contract Binalla signed. Again, we quote LA Aurellano’s observation on why Princess Joy’s participation was not indicated in the contract: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076 7/12