FACTS:

The petitioners, Ramon Prieto, Pacifico Canillo, and Wilfredo Azuela, filed a complaint against AR and Sons International Development Corporation, Saudi Services and Operations Co. Ltd., and Saudi Arabian Morrison. They alleged non-payment of wages, illegal dismissal, illegal exaction of placement fees, illegal imposition of performance bond, substitution of contract, and deployment of workers to an unaccredited principal. The complainants claimed that they were recruited by AR and Sons for employment with Saudi Services and Operating Co., Ltd. The approved Agency Worker Agreements provided for their respective positions and salaries. However, they were coerced into signing another employment contract with Saudi Arabian Morrison without the knowledge and approval of the POEA, which lowered their positions and salaries. They were further forced to sign another contract that significantly reduced their salaries. When they refused, they were confined and given spoiled food. Eventually, they were dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines.

The respondents denied the charges and claimed that the complainants entered into separate agreements and were rejected by the foreign employer. The POEA ruled in favor of the complainants and ordered the respondents to pay various amounts. However, the NLRC reversed the decision, finding that the complainants misrepresented themselves.

The case reached the Supreme Court, which favored the POEA's decision after considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Court rejected the respondents' argument and held that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the complainants.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of the private respondents, contrary to the evidence on record.

2. Whether the complainants were terminated because they were not qualified for their respective positions.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of the private respondents. The Court favored the decision of the POEA which ordered the payment of salaries and other benefits to the complainants.

2. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the complainants were terminated because they were not qualified for their respective positions. The Court presumed that the complainants were subjected to trade tests before their deployment, and there was no evidence of misrepresentation on their part.

PRINCIPLES:

• Factual findings of administrative bodies are binding on the Court, except when they are contrary to each other and there is a need to determine which findings are more conformable to the established facts.

• It is presumed that before deployment, workers are subjected to trade tests to ensure that they are qualified for their positions.