Facts:

The case of Adriano A. Arellano, Jr. vs. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al. (G.R. No. 127896) originated when Arellano was employed as an Ordinary Seaman (O.S.) aboard the vessel M/V OOCL Envoy through All Oceans Maritime Agency. He started his employment on August 5, 1993, and was expected to serve a contract of twelve months. On September 10, 1993, only a month after his hiring, Arellano was repatriated to the Philippines for allegedly refusing to execute his duties. The incident that led to his termination occurred on August 21, 1993, while the vessel was sailing off the coast of Seattle, Washington, when Arellano declined an officer's order to assist in cleaning the engine room’s scavenge space, claiming it was not his job. Despite reminders regarding the vessel's Inter-Departmental Flexibility System (IDFS), which mandates crew members to perform various tasks outside their specific duties, Arellano stood firm in his refusal.

The matter escalated when

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Adriano A. Arellano, Jr. was hired by private respondent All Oceans Maritime Agency as an ordinary seaman aboard the vessel M/V OOCL Envoy for a 12‑month contract.
• He boarded on 5 August 1993 and was expected to discharge his duties in accordance with the Standard Employment Contract and additional policies governed by the vessel’s operational systems.

Incident Leading to Repatriation

• On 21 August 1993, while the vessel was sailing off the coast of Seattle, Washington, an officer ordered petitioner to assist the mechanic in cleaning the scavenge space in the engine room.
• Petitioner refused, arguing that cleaning the scavenge space was not part of his duties as an ordinary seaman.
• The officer reminded him of the inter-departmental flexibility system (IDFS) in effect, which allowed for the assignment of tasks outside the usual scope of duty, but petitioner remained defiant.
• An incident report was made by an officer, informing the master of petitioner’s alleged insubordination.
• The report detailed that petitioner refused the assigned task and highlighted his insistence on performing only deck work.
• Petitioner’s signature was affixed to this report, thereby indicating that he had received notice of the charge of gross insubordination.

Repatriation and Subsequent Administrative Proceedings

• Following the report, the master of the vessel, by an undated handwritten order, arranged for petitioner’s repatriation.
• The records do not clearly show if petitioner was formally informed of the master’s order; however, his repatriation was executed promptly.
• On 9 September 1993, while the vessel was in Hong Kong, petitioner was discharged, and on 10 September 1993 he was repatriated to the Philippines.
• Petitioner then filed a case for illegal dismissal before the POEA, alleging:
• He was not informed of the IDFS system existing aboard the vessel.
• He was dismissed without being given an opportunity to explain his side, thus violating his right to due process.

Prior Ruling and Evidentiary Matters

• The POEA, based on petitioner’s allegations and his affidavit, held that he had a right to protest the assignment that was outside his job description and ruled in his favor by awarding unpaid salary and additional benefits.
• On appeal, the NLRC reversed the POEA decision by finding:
• There was substantial evidence of petitioner’s insubordination, as indicated by his signed incident report and IDFS form.
• The ship’s IDFS policy was valid despite not having POEA approval, since its provisions were not contrary to law, morals, or public policy.
• Petitioner’s affidavit was discredited under the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus due to the contradiction with documentary evidence.

Additional Submissions and Observations

• Private respondents argued that petitioner’s prior behavior and repeated instances of not following orders supported his pattern of insubordination.
• The Solicitor General, while concurring with the NLRC on the entry of evidence against petitioner’s claims, pointed out that:
• Although just cause for repatriation was established, private respondents did not fully observe procedural due process.
• Petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the repatriation order was executed, which warranted a sanction in favor of petitioner.
• Ultimately, the Court was compelled to address the dual contentions: just cause for repatriation and the lack of due process in executing it.

Issue:

• Whether petitioner’s refusal to perform a task under the vessel’s IDFS constituted grounds for just cause termination (illegal dismissal).
• Whether petitioner’s signature on the incident report and the IDFS form effectively indicated his awareness and acceptance of the vessel’s operational policies.
• Whether the procedures for termination were in accordance with the due process requirements, specifically regarding notice of charges, the opportunity to be heard, and the subsequent notice of judgment.
• Whether the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus should be applied to discredit petitioner’s affidavit in light of his conflicting written evidence.
• Whether a sanction (indemnity) was warranted against the private respondents for failure to observe the proper sequence of procedural due process in effecting petitioner’s repatriation.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)