G.R. No. 192398 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.

Fermin F. Guerrero, a seaman hired as Master Mariner, filed a complaint against OSM Shipping Philippines, Inc. and its principal, Philippine Carrier Shipping Agency Services Co. (PC-SASCO), alleging illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries, overtime, and vacation leave pay.
The employment arrangement was established through a crew agreement which detailed a contract period of ten (10) months with a basic monthly salary of US$1,070.00; additional benefits included a US$220.00 allowance, US$321.00 fixed overtime pay, and US$89 vacation leave pay per month, computed for 44 hours of work per week.
Guerrero began his employment on July 21, 1994, on board the vessel M/V aPrincess Hoaa, and he faithfully rendered service despite not receiving any compensation for almost seven (7) months—from July 1994 to January 1995.

The employment contract was perfected when both parties agreed to its essential elements, namely: the consent of the contracting parties, the object (rendering of services on board the vessel), and the cause of the obligation.
Guerrero’s service as Master Mariner was executed under the assumption of proper and timely payment, which did not materialize, leading to a claim for illegal dismissal and outstanding monetary benefits.
The underlying agreement was characterized by clear terms on remuneration and allowances, but its execution was adversely affected by non-payment, which the Labor Arbiter and subsequently the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) recognized as constituting constructive dismissal given the extended period without salary.

Initially, the vessel M/V aPrincess Hoaa was intended for overseas service, and on July 26, 1994, Concorde Pacific (the vessel’s American owner) appointed a ship manager to handle crewing and related processes through PC-SASCO.
The shipowner later altered its plans by deciding to use the vessel exclusively for coastwise trade, a change which involved:

Conversion of the vessel from foreign to Philippine registry through a bareboat charter to Philippine Carrier Shipping Lines Co. (PCSLC) on September 28, 1994.
Termination of the management agreement with PC-SASCO by a letter dated September 20, 1994, followed by the termination of the crew agreement by PC-SASCO on December 5, 1994.

Petitioner (OSM) argued that this change in the vessel’s deployment and its subsequent charter constituted a novation that effectively rendered Guerrero’s employment contract invalid due to the absent object of overseas deployment.

At the NLRC level, the decision ordered OSM and PC-SASCO to jointly and severally pay Guerrero his unpaid salaries, accrued fixed overtime, allowances, vacation leave, and termination pay, recognizing that the worker was not compensated despite rendering his services.
Later, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitions filed by the petitioner from challenging the NLRC decision, primarily on procedural grounds pertaining to compliance with Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
The petitioner’s subsequent filing for certiorari under Rule 45 sought to set aside resolutions dismissing its petition and to challenge both the procedural and substantive bases of the awards rendered by the NLRC and confirmed by the CA.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the attachment of duplicate originals or certified true copies for all supporting documents accompanying a petition for certiorari.
Whether the failure to include a duplicate original or certified true copy of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision — as opposed to a mere machine copy — was a fatal defect in the petitioner’s submission.
Whether the omission of the actual address of Private Respondent Fermin F. Guerrero in the petition affected the validity of service of process, given that service was effected through his counsel.

Whether the unilateral decision by the shipowner to convert the vessel’s use from overseas to coastwise trade, and the corresponding termination of the crew agency and management agreements, constituted a novation that could invalidate the pre-existing employment contract.
Whether, on the merits, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of Guerrero, awarding him unpaid salaries and other monetary benefits despite petitioner’s argument of contract novation.