Scribd
Upload
180 views2 pages

Hornales Vs NLRC GR NO 118943 September10 2001ALBETRIA 1

The document summarizes a labor case from the Philippines Supreme Court. [1] The petitioner was recruited and sent to Singapore by private respondents to work as a fisherman but faced inhumane working conditions. [2] When he returned to the Philippines, the private respondents did not pay his salary as promised and instead required he surrender his passport. [3] The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the private respondents were responsible for his recruitment and deployment due to flaws in the evidence provided by the private respondents to argue otherwise.

Uploaded by

Mae Clare Bendo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
180 views2 pages

Hornales Vs NLRC GR NO 118943 September10 2001ALBETRIA 1

The document summarizes a labor case from the Philippines Supreme Court. [1] The petitioner was recruited and sent to Singapore by private respondents to work as a fisherman but faced inhumane working conditions. [2] When he returned to the Philippines, the private respondents did not pay his salary as promised and instead required he surrender his passport. [3] The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the private respondents were responsible for his recruitment and deployment due to flaws in the evidence provided by the private respondents to argue otherwise.

Uploaded by

Mae Clare Bendo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

HORNALES VS NLRC

GR NO 118943

September 19, 2001 (Albetria)

Facts;

 Private respondents sent petitioner, together with other Filipinos, to Singapore and
they were welcomed by Victor Lim owner of Step-up Employment Agency who
informed them they would be working as fishermen with a monthly salary of US
S200 each. They boarded a vessel by Min Fu Fishery Co. Ltd.

On board the vessel, petitioner was subjected to inhumane work conditions, like inadequate
supply of food and water, maltreatment by the ship captain, and lack of medical attendance.
He was also required to work for 22 hours a day without pay.

He and other Filipino workers left the vessel while it was docked at Mauritius Islands on July
15, 1992.Upon his return to the Philippines, petitioner asked private respondents to pay his
salary but instead they Instead of doing so, they required him to surrender his passport
promising that they would procure another job for him. Later, private respondents gave him
the amount of five hundred pesos (P500.00).

Private respondents filed an answer 7 claiming that, petitioner, Victor Lim and Min Fee
Fishery Co. Ltd are all "total strangers" to them. To bolster the claim, they offered in
evidence the Joint Affidavit8 of Efren B. Balucas and Alexander C. Natura, petitioner's co-
workers in Singapore, stating that while they were in Singapore, petitioner admitted to them
that he did not apply in any agency in the Philippines; that he came to Singapore merely as a
tourist; and that, he applied directly and personally with Step-Up Agency. These statements
were corroborated by the "Certification"9 issued by Step-Up Agency.

Issue;

Whether or not respondents are responsible for petitioner recruitment and deployment to
Singapore.

Ruling:

The scale of evidence must tilt in favor of petitioner.

I n a catena of labor cases, this Court has consistently held that where the adverse party is
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are generally rejected for
being hearsay, unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon.16 Private respondents' Joint Affidavit has no probative value. It suffers from two
infirmities, first, petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the two affiants
regarding the contents thereof, and second, the two affiants merely swore as to what
petitioner told them but not as to the truth of the statements uttered. 17

In the same vein, the Certification must not be given weight. Private respondents not only
failed to present Victor Lim before the POEA to be cross-examined by petitioner, but
tthe Certification was also not verified or under oath. 18 To our mind, it is just a last-ditch
attempt on the part of Step-Up Agency to help private respondents free themselves from
liability to petitioner. It bears noting that private respondents, Victor Lim and Step-Up
Agency, as shown by petitioner's evidence, acted in concert in his deployment to Singapore.
Hence, such certification is, at most, self-serving.

All other claims and counterclaims are denied.

You might also like