Case Digest (G.R. No. 140364)
Facts:
Ace Navigation Co., Inc. and/or Conning Shipping Ltd. v. Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division), National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Orlando Alonsagay, G.R. No. 140364, August 15, 2000, Supreme Court First Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ace Navigation Co., Inc. (Ace Nav) and its principal Conning Shipping Ltd. recruited respondent Orlando Alonsagay in June 1994 to serve as a bartender aboard the M/V "Orient Express" under a POEA‑approved one‑year employment contract. The contract set a basic monthly salary of US$450.00 "flat rate, including overtime pay for 12 hours of work daily" and contained a separate line stating "plus tips of U.S.$2.00 per passenger per day"; it also provided 2.5 days of vacation leave with pay per month.
Alonsagay boarded the vessel on June 13, 1994, and after the contract expired on June 13, 1995 he returned to the Philippines and demanded his vacation leave pay; Ace Nav did not immediately pay, asserting such pay should have been settled prior to repatriation, and Conning failed to remit any amount. On November 25, 1995 Alonsagay filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (NLRC Case No. NCR‑00‑11‑00760‑95) claiming US$450.00 for vacation leave pay and US$36,000.00 in unpaid tips.
On November 15, 1996 Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati ordered Ace Nav and Conning to pay jointly and severally the vacation leave pay of US$450.00 and dismissed the tips claim for lack of merit. Alonsagay appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on February 3, 1997. In a decision promulgated November 26, 1997 (First Division, penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurred in by Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo), the NLRC reversed in part and ordered payment of the alleged unpaid tips of US$36,000.00 in addition to the vacation leave pay.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC on February 2, 1998, which the NLRC denied on May 20, 1999. Thereafter, on July 2, 1999 petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division) (CA G.R. SP No. 53508) seeking annulment of the NLRC decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a resolution promulgated July 28, 1999 (authored by Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, concurred in by Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Elvi John S. Asuncion); its denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration was handed down October 8, 1999.
Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), challenging (a) the CA’s alleged rigid technical application of Section 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioners’ petition for certiorari on the ground of defective proof of service?
- Are petitioners liable to pay the US$36,000.00 in alleged tips to Orlando Alonsagay under the parties’ employment contract?
- Are petitioners liable to pay Alonsagay his vacation...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)