Facts:

The case involves Rommel S. Alenaje as the petitioner against C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., Reederei Claus-Peter Offen (GmbH & Co.), and Roberto B. Davantes as the respondents. On April 13, 2015, Alenaje entered into an Employment Contract with Reederei Claus-Peter Offen through its local agent C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. to serve as a steward on the vessel M/V CPO New York for a six-month period. His basic monthly salary was $644. He began his service on April 14, 2015. However, after boarding, he learned that he was the sole steward aboard the ship, which led him to undertake additional responsibilities beyond his role, often working until early hours and rising shortly thereafter to prepare meals.

On April 17, 2015, while arranging provisions, he was directed by Chief Mate Lukasz Leszek Kucharz to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor, a task not included in his job description. Alenaje requested to perform this task later in the day, but was accused of ins

...

Facts:

Employment and Contractual Background

• Petitioner Rommel S. Alenaaje, with 18 years of seafaring experience, entered into a Contract of Employment on April 13, 2015.
• The contract was with Reederei Claus-Peter Offen (GMBH & Co.) KG (foreign principal) through its local agent, C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc.
• He was engaged as a steward on board the vessel M/V CPO New York for a six‐month period, with a basic monthly salary of US$644.00 among other benefits.
• On April 14, 2015, he boarded the vessel and soon discovered that he was the only steward, and no mess man was assigned to the crew, which compelled him to perform additional tasks.

Incident Leading to the Dispute

• On the morning of April 17, 2015, while he was occupied with arranging provisions, Chief Mate Lukasz Leszek Kucharz ordered him to strip and wax the navigational bridge floor.
• The task was not part of his regular duties as a steward.
• Petitioner responded by suggesting he could perform the task in the afternoon so as not to conflict with his meal preparation responsibilities.
• In response, Chief Mate Kucharz accused him of insubordination and threatened him with dismissal.

Hearings and Immediate Consequences

• On April 18, 2015, petitioner received a Show Cause Notice charging him with insubordination.
• A hearing was held the same day, during which petitioner explained that the assigned task was outside his duty and that he merely requested a rescheduling of the task, not an outright refusal.
• Subsequently, he received a Notice of Formal Warning stating that future non-compliance could lead to his dismissal.
• Despite his explanations, Chief Mate Kucharz continued to threaten him with dismissal, contributing to a tense work environment.

Resignation and Formal Dismissal

• Feeling harassed and pressured by the continuing warnings and threats, petitioner tendered his resignation on April 21, 2015.
• His resignation was accepted on the same day via an email from Jan Wehner, the Senior Personnel Officer of the foreign principal.
• A Notice of Dismissal was issued on May 20, 2015, and petitioner was subsequently repatriated with salary for one month and eight days.

Respondents’ Version of Events

• Respondents contended that petitioner disobeyed a lawful order by refusing to clean the navigational bridge floor.
• They alleged that he was disrespectful, that he raised his voice aggressively during the hearing, and that he demanded repatriation immediately.
• Minutes of Hearing recorded his admission of disregarding the order and his demand for repatriation, thereby supporting the insubordination charge.

Proceedings Prior to the Court of Appeals

• Labor Arbiter Decision (November 24, 2015):
• The Labor Arbiter found petitioner constructively dismissed based on the argument that he was forced to perform non-duty tasks and harassed by threats of dismissal.
• Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of unexpired contract values, damages, and attorney’s fees.
• NLRC Ruling (January 29, 2016):
• The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding that petitioner had voluntarily resigned.
• It emphasized that the Notice of Dismissal, though issued later, did not negate the fact that his resignation was effective as accepted.
• The NLRC further ruled that, under the POEA Standard Contract, petitioner was bound to obey the lawful commands concerning safety and maintenance, including tasks like stripping and waxing.
• Petitioner failed to prove that his work conditions had become unbearable or that the acts committed by respondents amounted to constructive dismissal.
• Motion for Reconsideration:
• Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated May 20, 2016.

Court of Appeals Involvement

• Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA challenging the NLRC’s ruling.
• On March 28, 2018, the CA issued its Decision dismissing the petition and affirming the NLRC’s decision that petitioner’s resignation was voluntary.
• The CA also addressed procedural issues including the timeliness and validity of the motion for reconsideration and the issue of whether the dismissal amounted to a double penalty for the same infraction.

Procedural and Technical Issues Raised by Respondents

• Respondents argued that the NLRC decision had attained finality due to the petitioner's failure to file his motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.
• They also contended that the CA Decision should be upheld on the basis that any technical deficiencies (e.g., unsigned pleadings) should not affect the merits, which supported the dismissal.
• The Court examined these issues in light of the relevant rules and previous jurisprudence, ultimately deferring to the NLRC’s exercise of discretion.

Issue:

Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed from his employment despite his resignation.

• Examination of whether the conditions on board and the actions of the superiors rendered continued employment intolerable.

Whether petitioner’s dismissal was illegal in that he was subjected to double penalization for the same alleged act of insubordination.

• Analysis of whether the imposition of a formal warning and the subsequent issuance of a Notice of Dismissal for the same incident constituted a double penalty.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)