FACTS:

Josefina Echin (respondent) was hired by petitioner ATCI Overseas Corporation on behalf of its principal, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, as a medical technologist under a two-year contract with a monthly salary of US$1,200. The contract stipulated a probationary period of one year and stated that the employee would be covered by Kuwait's Civil Service Board Employment Contract No. 2.

Respondent was deployed on February 17, 2000 but was terminated from employment on February 11, 2001, allegedly for not passing the probationary period. The Ministry denied respondent's request for reconsideration, leading her to return to the Philippines on March 17, 2001 at her own expense.

On July 27, 2001, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ATCI and the Ministry with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was no just cause for respondent's dismissal and ordered petitioners to pay her US$3,600 representing the unexpired portion of her contract.

ATCI and the Ministry appealed to the NLRC, but the decision was affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the NLRC's decision, stating that a private employment agency can be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari was filed. Petitioners claim that they should not be held liable because respondent's employment contract stated that it would be governed by the civil service laws and regulations of Kuwait, and that the foreign principal's immunity from suit should be applied. They also argue that even if Philippine labor laws apply, the Ministry's liability has not been judicially determined.

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, stating that a private recruitment agency cannot evade responsibility for the money claims of OFWs by claiming that its foreign principal is immune from suit. The joint and solidary liability of recruitment agencies with their foreign principals is provided for by law to ensure immediate and sufficient payment of the workers' claims.

ISSUES:

1. Can the private recruitment agency be held jointly and solidarily liable with the foreign principal for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers?

2. Can the corporate officers, directors, and partners of a recruitment agency be held jointly and solidarily liable with the agency for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers?

RULING:

1. Yes, the private recruitment agency can be held jointly and solidarily liable with the foreign principal for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers. Under Republic Act No. 8042, private recruitment agencies assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas worker and can be sued jointly and severally with the foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.

2. Yes, corporate officers, directors, and partners of a recruitment agency may be held jointly and solidarily liable with the recruitment agency for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 provides that these individuals may be held liable for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers.

PRINCIPLES:

• Private recruitment agencies can be held jointly and solidarily liable with their foreign principals for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers.

• Corporate officers, directors, and partners of a recruitment agency may be held jointly and solidarily liable with the agency for money claims and damages awarded to overseas workers.