Case Digest (G.R. No. 167938)
Facts:
Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167938, February 19, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company, Ltd. (formerly Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd.) sought relief by special civil action for certiorari to annul the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 27, 2004 and Resolution dated March 9, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 74536, which had modified a National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) resolution and awarded respondent Lauro B. Ramos full salaries for the unexpired portion of his overseas employment contract.
The factual background is that Ramos applied on October 29, 1992 with recruitment agency Multiline Resources Corporation for employment as a barber under a 12‑month contract paying US$265 monthly to work in Saudi Arabia for Hanjin (the Saudi-based principal). On arrival the barber position was reported filled, leaving Ramos without work; he returned to the Philippines after five days and filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal/termination against Hanjin and Multiline.
The POEA Administrator, in a Decision dated September 26, 1995, awarded Ramos the equivalent of one year’s salary (US$3,180) plus ten percent attorney’s fees. Multiline appealed to the NLRC; an initial NLRC order (March 28, 1996) denied Multiline’s petition but was set aside by the NLRC on August 28, 1996 for reasons related to the POEA’s loss of jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 8042, and the case was remanded to a Labor Arbiter.
The labor proceedings were administratively irregular: a Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for failure to appear (February 18, 1997), Ramos moved to reopen and the case was dismissed without prejudice (August 14, 1997), Ramos refiled (August 18, 1997), and on February 9, 1999 the Labor Arbiter dismissed Ramos’s complaint on the merits as his dismissal was legal. On appeal the NLRC reversed on July 30, 2002, declaring Ramos illegally dismissed and awarding US$795 (three months’ salary), P25,000 moral damages, and 10% attorney’s fees.
Ramos appealed the NLRC award to the Court of Appeals seeking full recovery for the one‑year unexpired contract; Hanjin and Multiline did not appeal the NLRC resolution. The Court of Appeals, in its August 27, 2004 Decision, granted Ramos’s petition and modified the NLRC award by granting the full one‑year salary. Hanjin then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging, inter alia, denial of due process (failure to serve Hanjin’s counsel a copy of the CA petition), absence of employer‑employee relationship, validity of the dismissal, erroneous upward modification of damages, and lack of bad faith to justify moral damages.
Issues:
- Was the petition properly filed under Rule 65, or is the special civil action an inappropriate mode of bringing the present challenge to the Court of Appeals’ decision?
- Did the NLRC (and ultimately the Court of Appeals) correctly find that Ramos was illegally dismissed?
- Was Ramos properly awarded the full one‑year salary for the unexpired portion of his contract?
- Was Ramos properly awarded moral damages?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)