39Capricorn Travel and Tours v. CAG.R. No. 91096, April 3, 1990Cortez,J.
DOCTRINE OF LAW:The requirement for theposting of a cash bond is an indispensableadjunct to the requirement that the agencyundertakes to assume joint and solidary liabilitywith the employer for all claims and liabilitieswhich may arise in connection with theimplementation of the contract of overseasemployment and to guarantee compliance withexisting labor and social legislation of thePhilippines and the country of employmentFACTS:This is a petition to review the decision of theCourt of Appeals (CA). Judgment was rendered infavor of Petitioner Capricorn Tours and against Privaterespondent (PR) Tagala. A writ of execution wasissued and a notice of garnishment of the cash bondposted by PR was served on the POEA. The POEAdelivered a check representing the amount of thecash bond to petitioner's counsel. PR moved to quashthe notice of garnishment which the CA granted,annulling the notice of garnishment, enjoiningpetitioner from attaching, levying and garnishing PR'scash bond, and ordering petitioner to return it to thePOEA, if still unreturned. Hence, this petition.ISSUES:W/N the cash bond posted by a recruitmentagency in the Philippine Overseas EmploymentAdministration (POEA) may be garnished by ajudgment creditor of the agencyRULING: No,petition denied.Considering therationale for requiring the posting of a cash bond andits nature, it cannot therefore be argued that the cashbond is not exempt from executionby a judgmentcreditor simply because it is not one of thoseenumerated in Rule 39, sec. 12 of the Rules of Court.To accede to such an argument would be tantamountto turning a blind eye to the clear intent of the law toreserve the cash bond for the employment-relatedclaims of overseas workers and for violations of laborlaws.constitutional mandate for the State to "afford fullprotection to labor, local and overseas" [Art. XIII,sec. 3]. From a different angle, neither may it be arguedthat petitioner's judgment credit, pertaining as itdoes to the value of airline tickets ostensibly usedby private respondent to transport overseasworkers abroad, this one of those for which thecash bond should answer.40Stronghold Insurance Co. v. CAG.R. No. 88050, January 30, 1992Cruz,J.DOCTRINE OF LAW:The surety bond required ofrecruitment agencies is intended for theprotection of citizens who are engaged foroverseas employment by foreign companies. Theforeign principal is outside the jurisdiction of ourcourts and would probably have no properties inthis country against which an adverse judgmentcan be enforced. This difficulty is corrected by thebond, which can be proceeded against to satisfythat judgment.FACTS:This is a petitioner for review on certiorari ofthe decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). Pan Asian(PA), a domestic recruiting agency, hired AdrianoUrtesuela as captain of vessel for 12 months andsubmitted a surety bond, along with PetitionerStronghold Insurance, to answer for the liabilities ofthe foreign employer. Under the bond, it was alsounderstood that
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
End of preview. Want to read all 12 pages?
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
