Republic of
the
Supreme Court
|
NFD International
Manning Agents |
|
G.R. No. 165389 |
|
and A/S VULCANUS |
|
|
|
Petitioners, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
- versus - |
|
Chairperson, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CARPIO MORALES,* |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, and |
|
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS |
|
NACHURA, JJ. |
|
COMMISSION, JOSE
I. ILAGAN, JR. |
|
|
|
and CONSTANTINO
CO, JR., |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
October 17, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Assailed in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the June 21, 2004 Decision[1] and
The facts of the case
are as follows:
Jose I. Ilagan, Jr. and Constantino Co,
Jr. (private respondents) were among 21 Filipino seamen hired by herein
petitioner NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. (NFD) to work on board the
chemical tanker M/T Lady Helene, a vessel owned and operated by
petitioner A/S Vulcanus
On
On
Meanwhile, on May 6,
1997, private respondents, together with eight (complainants) of the 21 seamen
whose employments were terminated, filed with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), National Capital Region in Quezon
City, a Complaint[4]
for wrongful breach of contract, illegal dismissal and damages against NFD and Vulcanus, contending that: they were summarily dismissed
from their employment without just and valid cause and in gross violation of
the terms of their employment contracts; they were forcibly disembarked from
the vessel; at the time of their discharge, and up to the filing of their
complaint, they had not been paid their accrued salaries, guaranteed overtime
pay and leave pay; for their summary dismissal, forcible disembarkation and
subsequent repatriation, they seek recovery of their unpaid wages and other
benefits as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
In their Position Paper,[5] NFD and Vulcanus (petitioners) contended: The complainants were
validly and lawfully dismissed from their employment for their acts of “mutiny,
insubordination, desertion/attempting to desert the vessel and conspiracy among
themselves together with the other Filipino seamen in refusing and or failing to
join M/T Lady Helene in its next
trip or destination to Mauritius without just and valid cause”; contrary to
complainants' claim, they were not forcibly disembarked from the vessel; four
out of the ten complainants had already withdrawn their complaints; out of the
remaining six complainants, five were given the option to return to M/T Lady
Helene and rejoin it in its next trip to Mauritius; the filing of the
complaint was merely an afterthought of the complainants after NFD filed cases
for disciplinary action against them; complainants were not entitled to any of the amounts which they sought to
recover, instead, they should reimburse NFD for the expenses incurred by the
latter in connection with their valid dismissal and subsequent repatriation to
the Philippines.
In their Reply to
Respondents' Position Paper,[6]
complainants averred that no single specific act of insubordination, desertion
or attempt to desert the vessel or refusal to sail with the vessel was
attributed to them; the Filipino crewman who reportedly instigated the alleged
mutiny was among those absolved of any liability by petitioners in exchange for
a waiver or quitclaim which he may have had against the latter; the
disciplinary cases filed against them was a tactical move resorted to by herein
petitioners to preempt complainants from filing a complaint for illegal
dismissal; nothing was alleged and no evidence was presented to prove that
complainants were accorded the benefit of due process before they were
terminated from their employment.
In their Rejoinder,[7] private respondents
contended that the Affidavit[8] of Anselmo V. Rodriguez, NFD President and General Manager,
contained several attachments proving the illegal acts of the complainants;
that it was an act of desperation on the part of complainants to put color to
the action of NFD in promptly reporting to the POEA the illegal acts committed
by the latter; that, on the contrary, the complaint for illegal dismissal,
which was filed three months after their termination from employment took
place, was the complainants' belated move to serve as a smokescreen for their
illegal acts.
On
Complainants filed an
appeal with the NLRC.[10]
On
WHEREFORE,
the assailed decision is set aside. The respondents [herein petitioners] are
directed to jointly and severally pay the appellants complainants[herein
private respondents and their companions] their wages for the payment of the
unexpired portion of their respective contracts, and unpaid wages including
moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 each and ten percent (10%) attorney's
fees of the total amount awarded. The complaint of Alcesar
Baylosis is hereby dismissed in view of the
settlement of the monetary claims effected on
SO ORDERED.[12]
Herein petitioners then
filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[13] On
Complainants filed a
Motion for Reconsideration[15] but it
was denied by the NLRC in its Order[16]
promulgated on
Thereafter, five out of the ten original complainants, to wit: Jose I. Ilagan, Jr. (herein private respondent), Reynaldo G. Digma, Francisco C. Octavio, Constantino D. Co, Jr. (herein private respondent) and Jesus G. Domingo filed a special civil action
for certiorari with the CA assailing the April 9, 2002 Resolution and
the June 16, 2003 Order of the NLRC.[17]
On September 17, 2003,
the CA issued a Resolution[18] denying
due course to and dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground
that only one out of the five petitioners therein signed the verification and
certificate against forum-shopping attached to the petition without any showing
that such petitioner was duly authorized to sign for and in behalf of the other
petitioners.
On
In a Resolution[20] dated
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The resolution and order
dated
SO ORDERED.[21] (Underscoring supplied)
Herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[22] but the
CA denied it in its Resolution of
Hence, the present petition
with the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN
DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, WHICH FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVING THAT
RESPONDENTS WERE DISMISSED FOR JUST AND VALID CAUSE.
THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD PROVES THAT RESPONDENTS
WERE GUILTY OF MUTINY, INSUBORDINATION, DESERTION/ATTEMPTING TO DESERT THE
VESSEL AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE OTHER FILIPINO SEAFARERS IN REFUSING AND/OR
FAILING TO JOIN M/T LADY HELENE IN ITS NEXT TRIP OR DESTINATION.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT [RESPONDENTS'] TERMINATION WAS EFFECTED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT [RESPONDENTS'] TERMINATION WAS ATTENDED BY BAD FAITH OR DONE
CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS OR PUBLIC POLICY.[23]
The petition has no
merit.
The basic issue to be
resolved in the instant case is whether private respondents' termination from
their employment was valid.
There are two
requisites which must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal of
employees, to wit: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause;
and (2) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be
given opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[24]
Anent the first requisite, it is a basic principle that in
the dismissal of employees, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show
that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would
necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified.[25] This is in consonance with the guarantee of
security of tenure in the Constitution and in the Labor Code. A dismissed employee is not required to prove
his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[26] The determination of the existence and
sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith
and after observing due process.[27]
The Court is not
persuaded by petitioners' contentions in its first and second assigned errors
that the CA should have accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact
and conclusions of the LA as these are supported by substantial evidence; that
petitioners, in fact, were able to present substantial evidence to prove that
private respondents were guilty of mutiny, insubordination, desertion/attempt
to desert their vessel and conspiracy with the other Filipino seamen in
refusing to join said vessel in its next trip.
Factual findings
of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within
their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but
even finality. However, the rule is not
without exceptions, one of which is when the findings of fact of the labor
officials on which the conclusion is based are not supported by substantial
evidence.[28] Another exception is when it is perceived that
far too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from bare facts adduced in
evidence.[29] Moreover,
when the findings of the LA and the NLRC are inconsistent with that of the CA,
as in the instant case, there is a need to review the records to determine
which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[30]
The Court finds that the present case falls under the above-mentioned
exceptions.
After a review of the arguments and
evidence of the parties, the Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the
CA, the same being in accord with the facts and law of the case.
The Court agrees with
the following findings and conclusion of the CA, to wit:
[Herein
petitioners] charged [herein private respondents] for mutiny, insubordination,
desertion and conspiracy in refusing to join the vessel in its next trip.
However, except for the disagreement between Capt. Andersen and Engine Fitter
Castillo, when the latter refused to resume his work in the Engine Room wherein
the other Filipino crew sided with Castillo, there is no proof showing the
alleged mutinous and concerted actions of the [private respondents] against
Capt. Andersen. There is also the glaring absence of corroborative statements
of other officers or crew on board attesting that [private respondents]
participated directly or indirectly to any wrong doing, or even intervened in
the quarrel between Andersen and Castillo. The records fail to establish
clearly the commission of any threat, or any serious misconduct which would
justify [private respondents'] dismissal.[31]
which affirmed the
earlier finding of the NLRC in its
We also noted that [herein petitioners'] various charges against the
[private respondents] were bereft of factual details showing the alleged
mutinous and concerted actions of herein [private respondents] against the ship
captain. The absence of competent evidence or corroborative statements of other
officers or crew on board attesting to the fact that complainants have
participated directly or indirectly, to any wrongdoing or intervened in the
quarrel of the Ship Captain with Fitter Bautista[32]
deters us in considering the said charges with probity.[33]
Moreover, the above-quoted
findings of the CA and the NLRC are consistent with the findings of the POEA in
its
Aside
from telexes and telefax messages exchanged between
complainant NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. and its principal AS Vulcanus which are all self-serving in nature, no other
proof, such as official logbook extracts, was adduced in support of the
complaint. Had respondents committed the offense charged, this should at least
deserve attention, entry and/or proper documentation in the vessel's
logbook/journal.
Inciting
mutiny, being a serious offense, and punishable under the “Table of Offense and
Corresponding Administrative Penalties of the Standard Employment Contract
Governing Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean Going Vessels” for
two to three year suspension, must be established by clear, strong, and
incontrovertible pieces of evidence. In the absence of substantial evidence,
such as in the instant case, the charge of inciting mutiny/refusal to sail
cannot be given credence.[34]
Indeed, there is no
record in the logbook or journal of the ship to indicate that the 21 Filipino
seamen, including herein private respondents who were terminated from their
employment, threatened to cease and desist from working and to abandon their
vessel as a result of the misunderstanding that happened between the Ship
Master and a Filipino crew member.
Petitioners' claim that
private respondents and their fellow Filipino seamen were guilty of conspiracy
in committing mutiny, insubordination, attempting to desert their vessel and
refusing to sail with the vessel is not supported by substantial evidence.
Aside from the communications, through telex messages, sent by representatives
of petitioner Vulcanus and the President and General
Manager of NFD, no competent documentary proof was presented to substantiate
the charges against private respondents and the other Filipino seamen. No
record of any hearing or investigation was presented. Moreover, petitioners did not present the Ship
Master or any member of the ship's crew in order to validate or verify the
truth regarding the charge against the 21 Filipino seamen. All that were presented by petitioners were
allegations which they claimed to have gathered from information provided by
the Ship Master that herein private respondents and their fellow Filipino
seamen were guilty of the various acts of which they were accused to have
committed.
Petitioners insist that
the findings and conclusions of the LA should be respected. However, the Court finds that the LA failed to
cite substantial evidence to support his conclusions. It is not enough for the LA to declare in his
Decision that “the established facts of the case, however, reveal that complainant[s]
were lawfully dismissed for just cause”; or that “records show that
complainants were discharged from their employment for committing acts of
mutiny, insubordination and desertion and/or attempting to desert the vessel as
well as conspiracy among themselves in refusing to join M/T Lady Helene
in its next trip to Mauritius without just and valid cause x x x” without specifying the
evidence upon which he derived his conclusions.
It is true that the LA cited documents consisting of the
following: (1) telex message, dated February 11, 1997, sent by a certain
Marianne D. Hovland whose connection with or position
at Vulcanus was not indicated, informing NFD that
there had been no solution to their problems; and that a Filipino crewman named
Castillo has not left the vessel; and that “some other crew” have communicated
their intention to leave if Castillo would leave;[35] (2)
telex message, dated February 11, 1997,
from the NFD President and General Manager addressed to all NFD officers
and crew warning them of the possible consequences, should they decide to leave their vessel to accompany Castillo,
and advising them to refrain from refusing to work and to treat their problem
intelligently and not to involve others;[36] (3)
telex message, dated February 12, 1997, from a Captain Helge
Grotle whose position at Vulcanus
was also not indicated, informing NFD that the Ship Master of M/T Lady
Helene decided to dismiss its crew for refusal to go to sea with the
vessel, and that according to Grotle, the act of the
crew constituted mutiny;[37] (4)
telex message, dated February 12, 1997, from Captain Andersen informing NFD of his decision to give 14 of
the Filipino seamen, which included herein petitioners, the option to return to
the vessel on the ground that these seamen were not involved in the alleged
mutiny;[38] (5)
letter from the NFD President and General Manager, dated February 28, 1997,
informing the POEA about the dismissal of the 21 Filipino seamen on grounds of
mutiny and conspiracy for their concerted refusal to work and join the vessel
in going to its next destination.[39]
However, these
documents, standing alone and uncorroborated by any other competent evidence,
do not constitute substantial proof that herein private respondents are indeed
guilty of mutiny. On the contrary, it
proves their innocence. First, the
evidence consisting of the telex messages from supposed representatives of Vulcanus and NFD are hearsay because they did not come
directly from the Ship Master or officer of M/T Lady Helene. The information
contained in these communications were merely based on
the alleged report or message which came from the Ship Master. However, petitioners failed to present any
telex message, testimony or even an affidavit of the Ship Master or any other
crew member or officer of the subject vessel to prove that private respondents
and their companions were guilty of the acts with which they were charged. Second, the telex message dated
Even the NLRC, in its
subsequent Resolution dated April 9, 2002, subject of herein petition, wherein
it set aside its August 30, 2001 Decision and reinstated the LA's Decision, did
not cite any specific evidence as basis for adopting the factual findings of
the LA.
The Court also finds
that in their pleadings before the LA, the NLRC, the CA and this Court,
petitioners failed to cite any direct and substantial evidence to support their
claim that private respondents and their companions were guilty of mutiny and
conspiracy.
Hence, the CA was
correct in reinstating the NLRC
The next question is
whether there was compliance with the second requisite of a valid dismissal
which is due process.
The Court does not
agree with petitioners' asseverations in their third assigned error that in
dismissing respondents from their employment, the Ship Master simply acted
within his management rights in order to protect the safety of the vessel and its crew, which act, according to petitioners, is recognized
under the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
The minimum requirement
of due process in termination proceedings, which must be complied with even
with respect to seamen on board a vessel, consists of notice to the employees
intended to be dismissed and the grant to them of an opportunity to present
their own side on the alleged offense or misconduct, which led to the
management’s decision to terminate.[40] To meet the requirements of due process, the
employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices
before termination of employment can be legally effected, i.e., (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent
notice after due hearing which informs the employee of the employers' decision
to dismiss him.[41]
Petitioner
maintains that the Ship Master is allowed to dismiss an erring seafarer without
notice under Section 17, paragraph D of the Revised Standard Employment Terms
and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board
Ocean-Going Vessels[42]
issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Section 17 sets forth the disciplinary
procedures against erring seafarers, to wit:
Section 17. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
The Master shall comply with the following
disciplinary procedures against an erring seafarer:
A. The Master shall furnish the seafarer with a written
notice containing the following:
1. Grounds for the charges as listed in Section 31 of this
Contract.
2. Date, time and place for a formal investigation of the charges against
the seafarer concerned.
B. The
Master or his authorized representative shall conduct the investigation or
hearing, giving the seafarer the opportunity to explain or defend himself
against the charges. An entry on the investigation shall be entered into the
ship’s logbook.
C. If,
after the investigation or hearing, the Master is convinced that imposition of
a penalty is justified, the Master shall issue a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it to
the seafarer, with copies furnished to the Philippine agent.
D. Dismissal
for just cause may be effected by the Master without furnishing the seafarer
with a notice of dismissal if doing so will prejudice the safety of the crew or
the vessel. This information shall be
entered in the ship’s logbook. The
Master shall send a complete report to the manning agency substantiated by witnesses,
testimonies and any other documents in support thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
Under
paragraph D, Section 17 of the Revised Standard Employment Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels,
the Ship Master is excused from furnishing a seafarer with the required notice
of dismissal if doing so will prejudice the safety of the crew and the vessel,
as in cases of mutiny.
Explaining
the notice requirements under Section 17, this Court held in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira,[43]
that :
x x x
under Section 17 of what is termed the Standard Format, the “two-notice rule”
is indicated. An erring seaman is given a written notice of the charge against
him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should
sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it
shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case
of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the
required notices are dispensed with; but just the same, a complete
report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence
of the findings.[44] (Emphasis
supplied)
However, in the instant case, petitioners failed to
establish that private respondents and their companions were guilty of mutiny
or that, in any other manner, they posed a clear and
present danger to the vessel and its crew which would have justified the Ship
Master in dispensing with the required notices. Even if the Ship Master was justified in
dispensing with the notice requirements, still, it was essential that his
decision to dismiss the Filipino seamen should have been entered in the ship's
logbook; and that a complete report, substantiated by witnesses, testimonies
and any other documents in support thereof, duly sent to the manning agency. The record of this case is bereft of any such
entry in the ship's logbook or journal and of any report and supporting
documents. Instead, respondents and the
other Filipino seamen were verbally ordered to disembark from the vessel and were
repatriated to the
There
being no mutiny, petitioners should have complied with Section 17A quoted
above.
The records reveal that Section 17A was
not complied with by the Ship Master. Petitioners
failed to present evidence to prove that private respondents and their fellow
complainants were served written notices stating the particular acts or
omissions constituting the grounds for their termination. Neither was there evidence to show that
private respondents and their companions were given opportunity to answer the
charges against them.
Thus, the Court sustains the findings of the CA that private respondents
and the other complainants were not given the benefit of procedural due process
before they were terminated from their employment.
Anent
the last assigned error. While
the Court agrees with petitioners that there is no evidence to prove that
force, violence or intimidation was employed to effect the disembarkation of
the Filipino seamen, the Court still sustains the finding of the CA that the
dismissal of private respondents and their companions was done in bad faith,
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, arbitrary and oppressive to
labor, thus entitling them to the award of moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages are recoverable
where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy.[45] On the other hand, exemplary damages are
proper when the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner, and public policy requires that these acts must be suppressed and
discouraged.[46]
In the instant case, it is undisputed
that respondents and the other Filipino seamen were actually engaged in the
performance of their assigned tasks aboard M/T Lady Helene and were even
rendering overtime work when they were unceremoniously directed to disembark
from their vessel. Moreover, the total
absence of any prior written notice of the charges against them, the
opportunity to defend themselves against such charges and a written notice of
the subsequent decision of the Ship Master to terminate their employment
establish the arbitrary and oppressive character of the dismissal from
employment of private respondents and their companions.
WHEREFORE, the
instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been 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, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* In lieu of
Justice Ruben T. Reyes, per Raffle dated
[1] Penned
by Justice Eliezer R. de los
[2] CA
rollo, p. 341.
[3] CA
rollo, p. 151.
[4]
[5] CA
rollo, pp. 68-83.
[6]
[7]
[8] Annex
“F”, rollo, p. 85.
[9] See
Labor Arbiter's Decision, CA rollo,
pp. 98-113.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] CA
rollo, pp. 211-219.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] CA
rollo, p. 297.
[22]
[23] Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[24] Skippers
United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad, G.R. No. 166363,
[25] De
Jesus v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 151158,
[26] Philippine
Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Carilla, G.R. No.
157975, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 586, 594.
[27]
[28] Felix
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 148256,
[29] Felix
v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note
28, at 477.
[30] Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank), G.R. No. 169570, March 2, 2007, 517
SCRA 309, 319; Macahilig v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158095, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 375,
383.
[31] CA
rollo, p. 296.
[32] Should be “Castillo” per records.
[33]
[34] CA
rollo, pp. 156-157.
[35] CA
rollo, p. 273.
[36]
[37] CA
rollo, p. 275.
[38]
[39]
[40] Skippers
United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad, supra note 24, at 663.
[41] Skippers
United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad, supra note 24, at 663.
[42] POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 055-96 made effective on
[43] G.R.
No. 144314,
[44]
[45] De
Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 167701, December
12. 2007, 540 SCRA 21, 37; Aguilar v. Burger Machine
Holdings, Corporation, G.R. No. 172062,
[46]