THIRD
DIVISION
|
MIGUEL
DELA PENA BARAIRO, Petitioner, - versus - OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT and MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 189314 Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO,
JJ. Promulgated: June
15, 2011 |
x
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Miguel Barairo (petitioner)
was hired[1]
on June 29, 2004 by respondent MST Marine Services (Phils.) Inc., (MST) for its
principal, TSM International, Ltd., as Chief Mate of the vessel Maritina, for a contract period of six months. He boarded the vessel and discharged his
duties on July 23, 2004, but was relieved[2]
on August 28, 2004 ostensibly for transfer to another vessel, Solar.
Petitioner thus disembarked in Manila on August 29, 2004.
Petitioner was later to
claim that he was not paid the promised stand-by fee in lieu of salary that
he was to receive while awaiting transfer to another vessel as in fact the
transfer never materialized.
On October 20, 2004,
petitioner signed a new Contract of Employment[3]
for a six-month deployment as Chief Mate in a newly-built Japanese vessel, M/T Haruna.
He was paid a one-month standby fee in connection with the Maritina contract.
Petitioner boarded the
M/T Haruna on October 31, 2004 but he
disembarked a week later as MST claimed that his boarding of M/T Haruna was a sea trial which, MST maintains,
was priorly made known to him on a stand-by fee. MST soon informed petitioner that he would be
redeployed to the M/T Haruna on
November 30, 2004, but petitioner refused, prompting MST to file a complaint[4]
for breach of contract against him before the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA).
Petitioner claimed,
however, that he was placed on forced vacation when he was made to disembark
from the M/T Haruna, and that not
wanting to experience a repetition of the previous termination of his
employment aboard the Maritina, he
refused to be redeployed to the M/T Haruna.
By Order[5]
of April 5, 2006, then POEA Administrator Rosalinda D. Baldoz penalized
petitioner with one year suspension from overseas deployment upon a finding
that his refusal to complete his contract aboard the M/T Haruna constituted a breach thereof.
On appeal by petitioner,
the Secretary of Labor, by Order[6]
of September 22, 2006, noting that it was petitioners first offense, modified the POEA Order by shortening
the period of suspension from one year to six months.
The Office of the
President (OP), by Decision[7]
of November 26, 2007, dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing
National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma.[8]
The OP held that
appeals to it in labor cases, except those involving national interest, have
been eliminated. Petitioners motion for
partial reconsideration was denied by Resolution[9]
of June 26, 2009, hence, the present petition.
Following settled
jurisprudence, the proper remedy to question the decisions or orders of the
Secretary of Labor is via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not via an
appeal to the OP. For appeals to the OP in labor cases have indeed
been eliminated, except those involving national interest over which the
President may assume jurisdiction. The rationale behind this development is mirrored
in the OPs Resolution of June 26, 2009 the pertinent portion of which reads:
.
. . [T] he assailed DOLEs Orders were
both issued by Undersecretary Danilo P. Cruz under the authority of the DOLE
Secretary who is the alter ego of the President. Under the Doctrine of Qualified Political
Agency, a corollary rule to the
control powers of the President, all executive and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in
cases where the Chief Executive is required by Constitution or law to act in
person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the
multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.[10]
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It cannot be gainsaid
that petitioners case does not involve national interest.
Petitioners appeal of
the Secretary of Labors Decision to the Office of the President did not toll
the running of the period, hence, the assailed Decisions of the Secretary of
Labor are deemed to have attained finality.
Although appeal is
an essential part of our judicial process, it has been held, time and again,
that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is
merely a statutory privilege.
Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding
appeal will render the judgment final and executory. Once a decision
attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the
decision is erroneous or not and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has
the power to revise, review, change or alter the same. The basic rule of
finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy
and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of
courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some
definite date fixed by law.[11]
(underscoring in the original, emphasis supplied)
At all events, on the
merits, the petition just the same fails.
As found by the POEA
Administrator and the Secretary of
Labor, through Undersecretary Danilo P. Cruz,
petitioners refusal to board the M/T Haruna on November 30, 2004 constituted unjustified breach of his contract of employment under Section 1
(A-2) Rule II, Part VI [sic]
of the POEA Seabased Rules and Regulations.[12] That petitioner believed that respondent
company violated his rights when the period of his earlier Maritina contract was not followed and his stand-by fees were not
fully paid did not justify his refusal to abide by the valid and existing Haruna contract requiring him to serve
aboard M/T Haruna. For, as noted in the assailed DOLE Order, if
petitioners rights has been violated as he claims, he has various remedies
under the contract which he did not avail of.
Parenthetically, the
Undersecretary of Labor declared that the real reason [petitioner] refused to
re-join Haruna on November 30, 2004,
is that he left the Philippines on November 29, 2004 to join MT Adriatiki, a vessel of another manning
agency, which declaration petitioner has not refuted.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA 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
Courts Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Vide Contract of Employment, rollo, p. 110.
[2] Id. at 112.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Vide Complaint-Affidavit of
Captain Alfonso R. del Castillo, id. at 113-114.
[5] Id.
at 132-134.
[6] Id.
at 174-177. Penned by Undersecretary
Danilo P. Cruz.
[7] Id.
at 55-66. Penned by Undersecretary
Pilita P. Quizon-Venturanza.
[8] G.R.
No. 123426, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 405.
[9] Rollo, pp. 105-108. Penned by Undersecretary Pilita P.
Quizon-Venturanza.
[10] Vide June 26, 2009 Resolution of
the Office of the President, id. at 105-108 at 107.
[11] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 190660, April 11, 2011 citing Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. v. New
Pacific Timber and Supply Co., et al., G.R. No. 143275, 399 SCRA 376, 385.
[12] RULE II
Disciplinary Action Against Seafarers
SECTION 1. Grounds for Disciplinary Action
and their Penalties. Commission by a seafarer of any of the offenses
enumerated below or of similar offenses shall be a ground for disciplinary
action for which the corresponding penalty shall be imposed:
A.
Pre-Employment Offenses
1.
Submission/furnishing or using false information or documents or any form of
misrepresentation for purpose of job application or employment.
1st Offense: One year to two years suspension from
participation in the overseas employment program
2nd Offense: Two years and one day suspension from participation in the
overseas employment program to Delisting from the POEA Registry
2.
Unjust refusal to join ship after all
employment and travel documents have been duly approved by the appropriate
government agencies.
1st
Offense: One year to two years suspension from participation in the overseas
employment program
2nd offense: Two years and one day suspension from participation in the
overseas employment program to Delisting from the POEA Registry (emphasis
supplied)