Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
FLOURISH MARITIME SHIPPING and LOLITA UY, Petitioners, - versus - DONATO A. ALMANZOR, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177948 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 14, 2008 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Donato A. Almanzor entered
into a two-year employment contract with Flourish Maritime Shipping as fisherman,
with a monthly salary of NT15,840.00 with free meals every day. It was, likewise, agreed that respondent
would be provided with suitable accommodations.[5]
On
While on board, the master of the
vessel gave respondent orders which he could not understand; thus, he failed to
obey him. Consequently, enraged at not
being obeyed, the master struck him, hitting the right dorsal part of his body.
He then requested medical assistance, but the master refused.[7] Hence, he sought the help of petitioner
Lolita Uy (the manning agency owner), who then talked to the master of the
vessel.
While the vessel was docked at the
Thus, respondent filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal, payment for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract, earned wages, moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.
Petitioners countered that respondent
voluntarily resigned[8]
from his employment and returned to the
On
WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondents guilty of illegal dismissal.
Respondents Flourish Maritime Shipping and Wang Yung Chin are hereby ordered to jointly and solidarily pay complainant Donato A. Almanzor the amount of NT15,840.00 times six (6) months or a total of NT Ninety-Five Thousand Forty (NT95,040.00). Respondents shall pay the total amount in its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment plus legal interest.
All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases.
SO
ORDERED.[10]
On
appeal to the NLRC, the Commission affirmed in
toto the Labor Arbiter’s findings.
Unsatisfied,
petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals on petition for certiorari.[11] The appellate court agreed with the Labor
Arbiter’s conclusion (as affirmed by the NLRC) that respondent was illegally
dismissed from employment. It, however,
modified the NLRC decision by increasing the monetary award due respondent in
accordance with its interpretation of Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) 8042.[12]
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
Board of Commissioners awarded such amount equivalent to respondent’s salary
for six (6) months (3 months for every year of the unexpired term) considering
that respondent’s employment contract covered a two-year period and he was
dismissed from employment after only 26 days of actual work. The CA, however, disagreed with such
interpretation. According to the CA,
since respondent actually worked for 26 days and was thereafter dismissed from
employment, the unexpired portion of the contract is one (1) year, eleven (11)
months and four (4) days. For the unexpired
one (second) whole year, the court awarded three months’ salary. As to the 11 months and 4 days of the first
year, the appellate court refused to apply the three-month rule. Instead, in addition to three months (for the
unexpired second year), it awarded full compensation corresponding to the whole
unexpired term of 11 months and 4 days.
Thus, the CA deemed it proper to award a total amount equivalent to the
respondent’s salary for 14 months and 4 days.[13]
Petitioners now raise the following
issues for resolution:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE THREE LETTERS ARE RESIGNATION LETTERS OR QUITCLAIMS.
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE MODIFICATION OF THE NLRC
DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONTRARY TO LAW.[14]
Simply stated, petitioners want this
Court to resolve the issue of whether respondent was illegally dismissed from
employment and if so, to determine the correct award of compensation due
respondent.
The Labor Arbiter concluded that petitioners,
who had the burden of proof, failed to adduce any convincing evidence to
establish and substantiate its claim that respondent voluntarily resigned from
employment.[15] Likewise, the NLRC held that petitioners
failed to show that respondent was not physically fit to perform work due to
his old age. Moreover, the labor
tribunal said that petitioners failed to prove that the employment contract
indeed provided a grievance machinery.[16] Clearly, both labor tribunals correctly
concluded, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that respondent was not
redeployed for work, in violation of their employment contract. Perforce, the termination of respondent’s
services is without just or valid cause.
We reiterate the dictum that this
Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in
labor cases. Factual questions are for
the labor tribunals to resolve. In this
case, the factual issues were resolved by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Their findings were affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. Judicial review by this Court
does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which
the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[17]
On the amount of the award due
respondent, Section 10 of R.A. 8042 provides:
SECTION 10. Money Claims. – x x x
x x x x
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
x x x x.
The correct interpretation of this
provision was settled in Marsaman Manning
Agency Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[18]
where this Court held that “the choice of which amount to award an illegally
dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e.,
whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, or
three (3) months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less,” comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term
of at least one (1) year or more.[19]
The employment contract involved in
the instant case covers a two-year period but the overseas contract worker
actually worked for only 26 days prior to his illegal dismissal. Thus, the three months’ salary rule applies. There is a similar factual milieu between the
case at bench and Olarte v. Nayona.[20] The only difference lies in the length of the
subject employment contract: Olarte involved a one-year contract;
while the employment in this case covers a two-year period. However, they both fall under the three
months’ salary rule since the term of the contract is “at least one year or
more.” In Olarte, as well as in JSS Indochina Corporation v. Ferrer,[21] we ordered the employer of an illegally
dismissed overseas contract worker to pay an amount equivalent to three (3)
months’ salary.
We are not in accord with the ruling
of the Court of Appeals that respondent should be paid his salaries for 14
months and 4 days. Records show that his
actual employment lasted only for 26 days.
Applying the above provision, and considering that the employment
contract covers a two-year period, we agree with the Labor Arbiter’s disposition,
as affirmed by the NLRC, that respondent is entitled to six (6) months’ salary. This is obviously what the law provides.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals, dated
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene
Gonzales-Sison, concurring; rollo,
pp. 57-67.
[2] Rollo, p. 72.
[3] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier, with Commissioners Tito F. Genilo and Gregorio O. Bilog, III, concurring; rollo, pp. 42-48.
[4] Rollo, pp. 32-35.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] The petitioners presented three “resignation” letters denominated as Breach of Contract Agreement Letter and Breach of Contract and Transfer to New Employer Agreement Letter; rollo, pp. 16-18.
[9] Rollo, p. 44.
[10]
[11]
[12] Otherwise
known as “The Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.”
[13] Rollo, p. 65.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Becton
Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos.
159969 & 160116, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 123, 142; Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 310, 318 (2001).
[18] 371 Phil. 827 (1999).
[19]
[20] 461 Phil. 429 (2003).
[21] G.R. No. 156381,