G.R. No. 7426 - Quintana vs. Lerma

Jimmy S. Gallego was repeatedly hired as a Marine Engineer by WALLEM Maritime Services, Inc. since 1981.
In 1999, he was re-engaged on a contractual basis with a defined term—from December 1999 until December 10, 2000—to serve on board M/V Eastern Falcon.

On August 4, 2000, Gallego’s service was abruptly cut short, and he was repatriated to Manila.
He contended that he was an intra-company transferee worker for SCANDIC Ship Management, Ltd. (the foreign principal of WALLEM).

Immediately after repatriation, Gallego sought re-deployment with WALLEM; however, he was repeatedly advised to await the results of the training conducted for the newly recruited crew members of M/V Eastern Falcon.
Over the years 2001, 2002, and until 2003, he persistently returned to the WALLEM office only to be met with assurances that his re-hiring was forthcoming.

On July 1, 2004, frustrated by the empty promises of re-deployment, Gallego filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of salary and benefits.
WALLEM argued that his termination was valid because M/V Eastern Falcon had been sold to another shipping company and that Gallego’s complaint was barred by prescription (given the three-year filing rule under the POEA-SEC).

The Labor Arbiter of the National Labor and Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision on December 16, 2004, ruling that Gallego was illegally dismissed; ordering his reinstatement and the payment of unpaid salaries, backwages, moral, and exemplary damages.
The NLRC later reversed this ruling on the ground that Gallego’s action was barred by prescription, determining that the cause of action was reckoned from his August 2000 repatriation.
On September 27, 2006, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in Gallego’s favor, holding that his cause of action actually accrued in February 2003 when the final false promise was made, thus not barring his claims.
Subsequently, in the Amended Decision dated February 28, 2011, the CA dismissed Gallego’s petition for certiorari due to alleged procedural defects, including issues with service of process, submission of required documents, and failure to correct formal defects.

Gallego filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA’s Amended Decision, asserting that the underlying procedural lapses were not his fault and that the CA should not have dismissed his case.
Respondents contended that Gallego’s petition contained multiple procedural defects, such as the lack of a legible certified true copy of the assailed decision, proper verification, certification of non-forum shopping, and an affidavit of service. They further argued that the CA’s failure to serve them with proper process undermined jurisdiction.

Whether Gallego’s cause of action arose at the time of his repatriation in August 2000 or later in February 2003 when the last false promise was made.
The impact of the accrual date on the applicability of the three-year prescriptive period under the POEA-SEC.

Whether the Court of Appeals properly exercised jurisdiction over the respondents given the alleged defects in service of process and the lack of certain procedural documents in Gallego’s petition.
The extent to which procedural lapses can be relaxed in the interest of substantive justice.

Whether the termination of Gallego’s employment due to the alleged sale of M/V Eastern Falcon was valid under Section 23 of the POEA-SEC.
Whether respondents complied with the mandatory procedural requirements, such as due notice, immediate payment of benefits, or arrangements for re-deployment.

Whether the CA’s strict application of technical requirements, at the expense of substantive justice for an illegally dismissed employee, was warranted.