Case Digest (G.R. No. 191495)
Facts:
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. and Diamantides Maritime, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Wilfredo T. Cajeras, G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. (Marsaman) and its foreign principal Diamantides Maritime, Inc. (Diamantides) employed private respondent Wilfredo T. Cajeras under an overseas employment contract dated 15 June 1995 as Chief Cook Steward aboard the MV Prigipos for a ten‑month term at US$600 monthly. Cajeras boarded on 8 August 1995. He was repatriated on 28 September 1995 and the Seaman’s Service Record Book recorded the cause of discharge as “Mutual Consent.” Cajeras denied having consented and returned to Manila on 29 September 1995.
On 17 November 1995 Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, alleging his repatriation was not by mutual consent and seeking unpaid wages, overtime, damages, and attorney’s fees. He claimed excessive duties, illness while on board, denial of immediate medical attention by the master, later physician examination in Rotterdam, and abrupt repatriation without being shown a medical certificate or given opportunity to contest the entry in the log.
Petitioners maintained Cajeras himself asked for repatriation, supported by an entry in the ship’s Deck Log by Capt. Alekos and a Medical Report by Dr. Wden Hoed diagnosing “paranoia” and “other mental problems,” which they said justified repatriation on medical grounds. They also alleged Cajeras had requested repatriation because he could no longer perform duties.
Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol, in a decision dated 29 January 1996, found the repatriation and dismissal illegal, holding that the alleged mutual consent was not proved in writing as required by Section H of the Standard Employment Contract; he discounted the Deck Log entry and Dr. Hoed’s report as of little probative value and awarded USD 5,100 (salaries for the unexpired portion) plus USD 510 as 10% attorney’s fees; claims for unpaid wages and damages were dismissed or withdrawn. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which on 16 September 1996 affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings and on 12 November 1996 denied reconsiderati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that private respondent Cajeras was illegally dismissed?
- Were the vessel’s Deck Log entry and Dr. Hoed’s Medical Report sufficient to prove mutual consent or just cause for repatriation?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees proper?
- Does Section 10 of RA 8042 apply to this case and, if so, should the monetary award be limited to three months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term or to the salari...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)