G.R. No. 162195 - Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. vs. Chua

Reynaldo Chua was hired by Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. as a restaurant waiter aboard the luxury cruise liner M/S Black Watch under a POEA-approved contract.
The employment contract, dated October 9, 1996, covered a period of nine (9) months, from October 18, 1996 to July 17, 1997.
On October 18, 1996, Chua departed Manila for Heathrow, England, to report on board where he was to be assigned his duties.

On February 15, 1997, Chua reported for duty 1½ hours late, his first known offense.
On February 17, 1997, the ship’s master issued an official warning-termination form concerning this tardiness.
On March 8, 1997, an inquisitorial hearing was conducted by the ship captain, Thor Fleten, to investigate the incident.
On March 9, 1997, based on an unsigned and undated dismissal notice (accompanied by an alleged record of the investigation), Chua was dismissed.

On March 24, 1997, Chua filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims with Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala.
Chua alleged:

Underpayment: He was paid US$300 per month instead of the US$410 stipulated in his contract for five months, resulting in a claimed deficiency of US$110 per month.
Unauthorized deductions: His salary was reduced by US$20 per month for alleged union dues for membership in a union (AMOSUP or ITF), a claim disputed by Chua on the grounds of lack of proof.

Asserting that an addendum to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was received from its foreign principal, Blackfriars Shipping Company, Ltd.
Requesting permission from the POEA (dated March 17, 1997) to amend the salary scale to US$300 per month.
Arguing that Chua’s history of tardiness, including incidents before February 15, 1997, justified the termination.

Declared the dismissal illegal, noting that a single tardiness should have warranted a lesser penalty, such as suspension.
Awarded Chua monetary relief including:

Salary for the unexpired portion of the contract (limited to three months under R.A. No. 8042).
Additional money claims comprising:

On December 23, 1998, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s award by deducting an amount equivalent to one day’s salary from the unexpired portion award.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied on February 15, 1999.

On August 28, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision which affirmed the NLRC’s ruling but modified it by deleting the three-month salary cap.
The CA also denied the petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

The petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Key contentions included:

Whether the CA could grant additional affirmative relief (by increasing the monetary award) although Chua had not appealed the lower tribunal’s decisions.
Whether the tardiness (and associated alleged abandonment of duty) constituted valid grounds for dismissal.
Whether or not overtime pay, which was factored into the unexpired salary award, should be included despite the lack of substantiation of overtime work.

The Court noted that all factual determinations (especially regarding habitual tardiness) fell within the expertise of the LA and NLRC, whose determinations were supported by substantial evidence.

Whether the Court of Appeals had the authority to grant additional affirmative relief by increasing the monetary award, given that the respondent did not appeal the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions.
Whether reporting for work 1½ hours late and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal (including the use of an unsigned and undated notice) constitute valid grounds for an employee’s dismissal.
Whether the computation of backwages, particularly the removal of the three-month salary cap and the inclusion of overtime pay, is justified under the applicable law and factual record.
Whether the factual finding of habitual tardiness is adequately supported by evidence, considering that no other documented warnings or infractions were established prior to the incident.
Whether a technical non-appeal should preclude an award that fully compensates an illegally dismissed employee under R.A. No. 8042.