G.R. No. 102310-12 - Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. vs. Palmos

Private respondents Jose Marius F. Palmos and Alexander C. Sevilla were employed as Able Seamen (AB) for the M.V. African Camellia.
They were hired by a local manning agent, co-petitioner Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc., on behalf of petitioners Denholm Ship Management (HK), Ltd.
The manning contract stipulated a twelve (12) month employment period, effective 23 March 1989, with a monthly salary of US$280 and a fixed monthly overtime pay of US$84.

On 1 July 1989 at the Port of Santos, Brazil, after returning from shore leave, Palmos and Sevilla were involved in an altercation with Chief Officer Romeo C. Paredes.
According to petitioners, the seamen, allegedly intoxicated and armed with a knife (with Palmos wielding the knife), assaulted Chief Officer Paredes without provocation.
Private respondents, however, contended that the incident originated from an unprovoked verbal scolding by Chief Officer Paredes for their tardiness, which escalated into a verbal altercation only; no physical assault or imminent threat materialized.

Following the heated exchange in the vessel’s passageway, a near-fistfight ensued though cooler heads intervened and the situation appeared to subside.
Despite the fading of the altercation, a demand was made by Chief Officer Paredes that the two seamen be “signed off” from the vessel, based on his insistence on not sailing with them.
Captain H.R. Mogul, though initially reluctant, eventually acceded to Paredes’ demand, largely to preserve the confidence and safety of the crew and maintain minimum safe manning as required by Liberian shipping regulations.

The two seamen were ordered to disembark and were repatriated to Manila; their salary for June 1989 was also withheld by Klaveness.
Prior to repatriation, although the seamen attempted to clarify their version of events, Captain Mogul had already decided to dismiss them to appease the Chief Officer, who was considered indispensable by the master.
Port security personnel were briefly involved, but ultimately, the matter was treated as an internal vessel dispute rather than a disturbance requiring external intervention.

The seamen filed complaints for illegal dismissal as well as non-payment and underpayment of wages with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Petitioners counter-filed for disciplinary action and reimbursement of repatriation expenses.
The POEA consolidated the cases and ruled in favor of the seamen, finding that the dismissal was without just cause. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later affirmed this decision on appeal.

Petitioners Denholm and Klaveness filed a Petition for Certiorari challenging the NLRC’s decision, alleging grave abuse of discretion in disregarding their evidence and in failing to demonstrate due process and a just or authorized cause.
A subsequent temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued by the Supreme Court to enjoin the NLRC from executing its decision while the petition was pending.

Private respondents argued that the petition was prematurely filed because a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was allegedly omitted.
The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is not indispensable when the issues presented are essentially legal and have been properly adjudicated by the lower tribunals.

Whether the dismissal of Palmos and Sevilla was based on a just or authorized cause.

Determining if the seamen’s alleged misconduct (intoxication and assault) was adequately substantiated by the evidence.
Assessing if the dismissal was genuinely triggered by actions of the seamen or due to the personal demands of Chief Officer Paredes.

Evaluating the requirement for notice and opportunity to be heard prior to termination.
Considering whether the urgency of the situation (i.e., the need to depart promptly) justified bypassing a full inquiry into the allegations against the seamen.

Addressing whether the absence of a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC rendered the Petition for Certiorari premature.
Determining if the issues raised were sufficiently legal in nature to permit direct recourse to the Supreme Court.