|
DEOGRACIAS CANSINO,
Petitioner, -versus- PRUDENTIAL SHIPPING AND MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION (in substitution for MEDBULK MARITIME MANAGEMENT CORPORATION) and
SEA JUSTICE, S.A., Respondents. |
G.R. No. 155338 Present: pUNO, CJ., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, *AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
The facts of the case, as gleaned from the records, are:
On
While on board the M/V Commander, the ship’s master,
Captain Nikolaos Kandylis, unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the
employment contract. Petitioner’s position
as seaman was changed to pumpman.
Actually this was a promotion considering that his initial monthly pay
of US$674.00 was raised to US$1,164.00.
Later, Captain Kandylis received several
derogatory reports against petitioner, such as drunkenness, insubordination,
abandonment of post, and disorderly behavior. These were duly recorded in the ship’s
logbook.
On
On
On
On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision, set aside the Labor
Arbiter’s judgment, thus:
ACCORDINGLY, premises
considered, the
SO ORDERED.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied.
Respondents then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
On
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. However, it was denied by the appellate
court on
Hence, the instant petition raising the sole issue of
whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner’s dismissal from
employment was for cause.
Section 2, Rule VII, Book IV of the POEA Rules And
Regulations Governing Overseas Employment provides:
SEC. 2. Grounds for
Disciplinary Action. – Commission by the worker of any of the offenses
enumerated below or of similar offenses while working overseas shall be subject
to appropriate disciplinary actions as the Administration may deem necessary:
x x x
(c)
Desertion or abandonment;
(d)
Drunkenness, especially where the
laws of the host country prohibit intoxicating drinks;
x x x
(g) Creating trouble at the worksite
or in the vessel;
Appendix
2 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino migrant workers
contains a list of offenses with corresponding sanctions. This list includes drunkenness.
Petitioner contends that Captain Kandylis has a grudge
against him, the reason why he entered in the Master’s Report that he (petitioner)
was involved in a fight among several members of the crew.
There is
nothing in the records of this case that supports petitioner’s contention. On the contrary, the ship’s log of the M/V
Commander states that he was drunk four (4) times and was not in his post
once.
The Master’s Report[4]
dated October 6, 1996 signed by Captain Kandylis contains these entries: “the
illegal consumption of alcoholic drinks by the Philippine crew put in danger
the crew, the vessel, her cargo, the other nearby sailing vessels as well as
environment from eventual destruction.” One of the crew members named therein was
petitioner. The Report shows that he was always drunk, disorderly and disobedient;
and that the “Conformity for
Sobriety” which every member of the crew was made to sign was violated every
day.
In Haverton Shipping Ltd v. National Labor Relations
Commission,[5] we described
the ship’s log as the official record of a ship’s voyage which its captain is
obligated by law to keep wherein, among others, he records the decisions he has
adopted, a summary of the performance of the vessel, and other daily events. The entries made therein by a person
performing a duty required by law are prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. In Abacast Shipping and Management Agency, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission,[6] we
said that the logbook is “a respectable record that can be relied upon” when
the entries therein are presented in evidence. In Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services (Phils.),
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[7] citing
Haverton and Abacast, we reiterated the evidentiary value of the
ship’s log. Consequently, we find no reason why we should
not give credence to Captain Kandylis’ Master’s Report.
In the earlier case of Seahorse Maritime Corporation v.
National Labor Relations Commission,[8]
which likewise involved a seaman who was prone to intoxication and creating
trouble aboard ship when drunk, we held that serious misconduct in the form
of drunkenness and disorderly and violent behavior, habitual neglect of duty,
and insubordination or willful disobedience to the lawful orders of his
superior officer, are just causes for dismissal of an employee under
Article 282[9] of the
Labor Code, and that where the dismissal is for cause, the erring seaman is
neither entitled to separation pay or to the salaries for the unexpired portion
of his contract.
We likewise cannot sustain petitioner’s claim that he was
underpaid. In fact, Captain Kandylis increased his monthly compensation from US$674.00
to US$1,164.00 which he received. While
the contract as altered was not approved by the POEA, however, the lack of such
approval is inconsequential since the alteration redounded to petitioner’s
benefit.
WHEREFORE,
we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57111.
Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
(On official leave) ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
* On official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 259-268. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Candido V. Rivera (both retired).
[2] Annex “D-47” of the petition, Rollo, p. 107.
[3] Subsequently, Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation substituted Medbulk Maritime Management Corporation as respondent.
[4] Rollo, p. 108.
[5] G.R. No. 65442,
[6] G.R. Nos. 81124-26,
[7] G.R. No. 105396,
[8] G.R. No. 84712,
[9] ART. 282. Termination of employment. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or duly authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.