Facts:

The case at hand involves Wilfredo P. Asayas as the petitioner and Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., Avin International S.A., and Antoniette Guerrero as respondents. Asayas was employed as a Third Officer aboard the M/T Samaria, which was owned by Avin International S.A. On October 25, 2009, before the expiration of his employment contract, the vessel was sold to Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise, Pte. Ltd., leading to Asayas' repatriation to the Philippines with a promise to transfer him to another vessel, the M/T Platinum. However, he was never deployed to the M/T Platinum and was subsequently assigned to the M/T Kriti Akti. Before his deployment, the M/T Kriti Akti was also sold, resulting in Asayas not being deployed to complete his contract.

On April 23, 2010, Asayas filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against the respondents for full payment of his employment contract. This complaint was settled through a compromise ag

...

Facts:

Background of Employment and Vessel Sale

• The petitioner was employed as Third Officer by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. on board the M/T Samaria, owned by Avin International S.A.
• Prior to the expiration of his employment contract, on October 25, 2009, the shipowner sold the M/T Samaria to Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise, Pte. Ltd.
• As a result of the vessel’s sale, the petitioner was discharged from the vessel and repatriated to the Philippines, with assurances of a transfer to another vessel (M/T Platinum) by the respondents.
• The promised re-deployment did not materialize; instead, he was engaged as Second Mate on board the M/T Kriti Akti, which also was sold on April 8, 2010, to Mideast Shipping and Trading Limited.
• Consequently, the petitioner was not deployed on any vessel to complete his contract.

Pre-Litigation Negotiations and Initial Complaints

• On April 23, 2010, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) demanding full payment for his employment contract, which was later settled via a compromise agreement with quitclaim in which he received separation pay (net of cash advances).
• Two months later, the petitioner filed another complaint before the NLRC alleging illegal dismissal and non-payment for the unexpired portion of his contract (NLRC Case No. 04-05764-10).

Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter (LA) and NLRC

• On October 29, 2010, the LA rendered a decision declaring the petitioner’s termination illegal and ordered payment of salaries for the remaining ten months along with attorneys’ fees.
• The LA’s decision rested on the principle that the burden of proving a valid cause for dismissal rests on the employer; there was no evidence that the petitioner had been re-engaged as promised.
• A writ of execution was issued on December 14, 2010, and despite the respondents’ motion to quash that writ, the LA affirmed the writ on January 17, 2011.
• Respondents appealed the LA’s decision to the NLRC, but on May 9, 2011, the NLRC dismissed their appeal, thereby affirming the LA’s ruling.

Further Administrative and Appellate Proceedings

• Respondents brought a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in dismissing their appeal and motion for reconsideration.
• On November 28, 2011, the CA granted the respondents’ petition for certiorari, annulling the LA’s decision and reversing the NLRC ruling.
• The CA reversed the decision, ordered the petitioner to return the amounts previously received (with legal interest), and dismissed the complaint regarding illegal dismissal.

Notable Points Regarding Service of the LA Decision

• The LA’s copy of the decision, sent by registered mail, was returned with the notation “Moved Out.”
• The NLRC found that service by registered mail was deemed complete upon the “Return To Sender” marking, even if actual receipt was not effected.
• There was no substantial evidence that the respondents did not receive proper notice, thus the service was held to be regular and effective.

Issue:

The Merits of the CA’s Granting of the Petition for Certiorari

• Whether the CA was justified in granting the respondents’ petition for certiorari on the basis of alleged grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in dismissing their appeal and motion for reconsideration.
• Whether the absence of any showing that the NLRC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without jurisdiction warrants the overturning of the LA’s and NLRC’s decisions.

The Effect and Finality of the LA and NLRC Decisions

• Whether the LA’s decision, once properly served through registered mail—even if returned marked as “Moved Out”—attained finality and executory status.
• Whether administrative and judicial rules mandating the finality of judgments preclude subsequent modifications even if the decision contains errors.

Applicability of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Employment of Filipino Seafarers

• Whether the termination of the petitioner’s employment was justified pursuant to Sections 23 and 26 of the Standard Terms and Conditions, particularly in situations involving vessel sale or change of principal.
• Whether the petitioner’s prior acceptance of and later waiver through a “Compromise Agreement with Quitclaim” barred the claims of illegal dismissal and non-payment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)