G.R. No. 171790 - Merin vs. National Labor Relations Commission

In 1999, petitioner Brendo D. Merin was hired by Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation for its foreign principal, IMC Shipping Co., Pte. Ltd., to serve as an ordinary seaman aboard the MT "Selandang Permata" for a 10‑month period.
Approximately three months after boarding, petitioner was repatriated from the vessel by the master, an action that set in motion the ensuing dispute.

Failure to report for duty after attending a party where he consumed too much alcohol; he later apologized and submitted a letter of apology to the master.
Being found asleep in the crew's smoke room, with indications of intoxication (bloodshot eyes) upon being awakened by the master.

Petitioner inquired from the Chief Officer whether his behavior would lead to his repatriation, at one point even warning that his strong connections with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) would render the ship agent liable for any consequences.
This conversation was duly recorded in the vessel’s logbook.
A complaint letter from the vessel’s bosun and petitioner’s immediate superior documented previous instances of disobedience to instructions and noted that petitioner threatened to harm the bosun upon learning of his impending repatriation.

Upon being repatriated, petitioner sought an explanation from his local employer, Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation (GSM), but no sufficient reason was provided.
Petitioner filed a claim for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The case was initially handled by Labor Arbiter Antonio A. Cea, who on 28 August 2003 ruled the repatriation illegal, emphasizing that:

Offenses which had been previously condoned or penalized should not be used as the sole basis for dismissal.
Bragging about POEA connections did not independently constitute just cause for terminating an employment contract.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s decision on 29 December 2004, finding substantial evidence that petitioner had indeed committed the cited offenses.

The NLRC also referenced the POEA Administrator’s order dated 9 February 2001 and its subsequent affirmation by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on 26 July 2002, which suspended petitioner for three years from the POEA Registry of Overseas Filipino Workers.
The NLRC further cited a precedent (Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC) to underscore the high standard of conduct expected of Filipino seafarers.

Petitioner then sought reconsideration of the NLRC decision, which was denied due to lack of merit.
A petition for certiorari was subsequently filed before the Court of Appeals, which was also denied based on:

The “totality of infractions” committed by petitioner during his short employment, which collectively justified the repatriation.
The recognition that petitioner’s behavior was unreasonable and demeaning both to his colleagues and to the reputation of the Filipino seamen and the Philippine Government.

However, the Court of Appeals did find that petitioner was not accorded due process, and accordingly it awarded him nominal damages of P50,000.00.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the appellate decision was likewise denied.

Argued that dismissal without observance of due process amounted to illegal dismissal, contending that:

The dismissal was not legally executed as required procedures under Section 17 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (which mandates the issuance of a written notice of charges, setting of a hearing, and formal investigation) were not followed.

Claimed that the decision was contrary to law for failing to award him his money claims, although he failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support nonpayment.
Emphasized that the POEA Standard Employment Contract is designed to protect seafarers’ rights rather than to oppress them, thereby invoking its protective purpose.

Whether petitioner’s cumulative infractions and repeated misconduct during his employment constitute just cause for his dismissal.
Whether the doctrine of “totality of infractions” supports the employer’s decision to repatriate petitioner despite prior penalties for some of the offenses.

Whether the failure to comply with the procedural requirements under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (i.e., failure to provide a written notice, specify time and place for a hearing, and conduct a formal investigation) renders the dismissal illegal.
Whether the noted procedural deficiencies necessitate a voiding of the dismissal or merely warrant remedial measures such as the payment of nominal damages.

Whether petitioner substantiated his claim of non-payment of his money claims.
The extent to which the evidence presented supports or refutes the allegation of arrears in payment prior to his repatriation.