Case Digest (G.R. No. 195792)
Facts:
Abosta Ship Management and/or Artemio Corbilla v. Wilhilm M. Hilario, G.R. No. 195792, November 24, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Abosta Ship Management Corporation (through or together with Artemio Corbilla) contracted with respondent Wilhilm M. Hilario on 24 October 2002 to hire him as bosun aboard the foreign vessel Grand Mark for nine months at USD 566 per month; the contract was approved by the POEA on 25 October 2002. Communications contemporaneous to hiring showed the foreign principal selected respondent for the position, but later communications indicated the foreign principal promoted an able seaman instead, and petitioner asked respondent to wait for two to three months while allowing cash advances as assistance.
Respondent filed a complaint with the POEA on 28 January 2003 for violation of the POEA Rules (non-deployment) and filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter on 6 February 2003 seeking actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner moved to dismiss in the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction, but the Labor Arbiter denied the motion as it considered actions for damages arising from employment relations within its jurisdiction.
On 13 February 2004 the NLRC granted petitioner’s appeal and reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding no employer-employee relationship existed and that the POEA had administrative jurisdiction over non-deployment claims. Respondent secured relief from the Court of Appeals (CA): on 17 March 2006 the CA granted certiorari and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdictional findings. After hearings the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay respondent nine months’ salary (USD 10,071) for breach of the POEA-approved contract, but found no bad faith to justify moral damages.
On 11 March 2009 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding non-deployment arose from a valid exercise of the foreign principal’s management prerogative and dismissed the complaint while ordering petitioner to deploy respondent as soon as possible or face consequences. Respondent sought certiorari relief in the CA, which on 3 December 2010 reversed the NLRC, finding grave abuse of discretion: the CA held that once respondent had been hired for the boatswain position there was no vacancy to justify promotion of another, that petitioner was jointly and solidarily liable under POEA rules, and that the NLRC’s deployment directive in 2009 was nonsensical given the lapse of time. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave reversible error in upholding the award of actual damages to respondent for non-deployment?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in overturning the NLRC’s finding that non-deployment was a valid exercise of management prerogative and in holding petitioner jointly and solidarily liable wi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)