FINMAN GENERALASSURANCECORP v.

INOCENCIO
179 SCRA 480FELICIANO; November 15, 1989
FACTS
- Pan Pacific is a recruitment and employmentagency.It posted surety bond issued by
FinmanGeneralAssurance and was granted license tooperate by POEA.- Inocencio, Palero, Cardones,
Hernandez filed withPOEA complaints against Pan Pacific for violationofLabor Code and for refund of
placement fees.POEAAdministrator motu propio impleaded Finmanassurety for Pan Pacific.- Pan Pacific
moved out and no notice of transfer wasfurnished to POEA as required.POEAconsidered
thatconstructive service of complaints had been effected.- Finman denied liability and saidthat-POEA
had no jurisdiction over surety bonds; jurisdiction is vested in Insurance Commission-Finman had not
violated Labor Code-Complainants have no cause of action againstFinman-Amounts claimed were paid
as deposits and not asplacement fees.- POEA Administrator issued Order that respondentsshould
pay.Finman appealed to Secretary ofLabor.Secretary upheld the POEA order.
ISSUE
WON Finman can be held liable for complainants claims against Pan Pacific
HELD
YES-Under Insurance Code, liability of surety in asurety bond is joint and several with the
principalobligor.-Conditions of a bond specified and required in theprovisions of a statute providing for
submissionofthe bond, are incorporated into all bonds tenderedunder that statute even though not set
out
inprinters ink.
-POEA held and Secretary of Labor affirmed thatPan Pacific had violated Labor Code, and at leastoneof
the conditions for the grant and continued use ofthe recruitment license.POEA and SecretaryofLabor
can require Pan Pacific to refund the placementfees and to impose the fine.-If Pan Pacific is liable, and if
Finman is solidarilyliable with Pan Pacific, then Finman is liable bothtoprivate respondents and to POEA.-
Cash and surety bonds are required fromrecruitment companies as means of ensuringpromptand
effective recourse against such companies whenheld liable.Public policy will be effectivelynegated
ifPOEA and the DoLE were held powerless to compel asurety company to make good on
itssolidaryundertaking