Dear PAO,
My father was a seafarer before he was injured while working on board a vessel. After the accident, he was repatriated to the Philippines. Months later, he was declared fit to work by the manning agency’s doctor. Due to continuous pain, my father sought a second opinion and was found to be unfit for sea duty. He then requested a referral to a third doctor, but the agency refused and instead proposed a possible settlement. The manning agency likewise refused to pay his disability benefits and reimburse his medical expenses. May the officers of the manning agency be held liable to pay for my father’s benefits?
-Ivana
Dear Ivana,
The answer to your question is governed by Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) 8042, otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,” as amended by Republic Act 10022, which provides that “the liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to de filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.”
In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ruthgar T. Parce v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruises Ltd., and/or Sorwin Joy G. Rivera (GR 241309, Oct. 13, 2025), the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, reiterated that corporate directors and officers of a recruitment or manning agency may be held jointly and severally liable with the agency for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).
As a general rule, corporate officers cannot be personally held liable for obligations incurred by the corporation in view of its separate and distinct juridical personality. Personal liability may nevertheless attach when a specific provision of law expressly makes them personally liable for their corporate acts. In this regard, the Supreme Court recognized that Section 10 of Republic Act 8042, as amended, expressly imposes such joint and solidary liability upon corporate officers and directors of recruitment or placement agencies.
Moreover, in the same case, the high court held that corporate officers and directors are presumed to have executed a verified undertaking to be jointly and severally liable with the recruitment or placement agency for claims arising from the employer-employee relationship when the agency applied for and obtained a license to operate a seafarers’ manning agency. It is likewise a settled rule that applicable laws are deemed incorporated into contracts, even in the absence of an express stipulation to that effect, particularly when the contract pertains to labor, which is imbued with public interest.
Applying the foregoing principles to your situation, your father may hold the corporate directors and officers of the recruitment or manning agency jointly and solidarily liable for his disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses, once proven he is entitled to such benefits. As earlier stated, corporate officers and directors are presumed to have undertaken joint and solidary liability with the agency for claims arising from the employer-employee relationship upon the issuance of the agency’s license to operate.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
