G.R. No. 91332 - Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Rusel was employed in April 1996 as a GP/AB seaman by PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. for its foreign principal, U-Ming Marine Transport Corporation.
His deployment was aboard the vessel MV Cemtex General under a twelve-month contract with a compensation package that included:

On July 16, 1996, while cleaning the ship’s kitchen, Rusel slipped and sustained a broken and/or sprained ankle on his left foot.
A request for a medical examination was refused by the vessel’s captain.
On August 13, 1996, due to unbearable pain, Rusel jumped off the vessel using a life jacket and swam the approximate two nautical miles to shore.
He was brought to a hospital in Takehara, Japan, where he remained confined for eight days.
On August 22, 1996, after being fetched from the hospital by a vessel’s agent, he was repatriated to the Philippines.

On September 26, 1996, Rusel filed a complaint before the NLRC for the following claims:

In his answer, petitioners (PCL Shipping and U-Ming Marine) contended that Rusel had deserted his employment by jumping off the vessel.
On July 21, 1998, the labor arbiter ruled in favor of Rusel by awarding:

US$2,625.00 for three months’ salary due to illegal dismissal
US$1,600.00 as sick wage benefits
US$550.00 for living allowance, overtime pay, and special allowance for two months
US$641.66 for unpaid wages from August 11-22, 1996
Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award

On March 22, 2000, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s findings but modified the award by cutting the three months’ salary award to US$1,620.00 and deleting the award for sick wage benefits.

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on May 3, 2000.
A petition for certiorari was subsequently filed with the Court of Appeals (CA).

On December 18, 2001, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on April 10, 2002.
Petitioners assigned three errors on appeal:

That the CA erred in ruling that Rusel was illegally dismissed from employment.
That the CA erred in not upholding petitioners’ right to pre-terminate Rusel’s employment under Section 19(C) of the applicable POEA memorandum.
That Rusel is not entitled to other money claims, notably the award of attorney’s fees.

Rusel’s act of jumping from the vessel evidenced his intent to abandon his post.
Rusel’s capability to swim two nautical miles while in pain was implausible.
Additional evidence presented in the logbook and Marine Note Protest, though belated, supported a finding of desertion.
The alternative defense allowing pre-termination under Section 19(C) should have been upheld.
The monetary awards, particularly for living allowance and overtime pay, were invalid due to lack of evidence.
The deduction of repatriation costs from wages was justified under Section 19(E) of the applicable memorandum.
Attorney’s fees should be denied as no reasons were given for such an award in prior decisions.

The issues raised by petitioners were questions of fact already settled by the labor arbiter, NLRC, and CA.
Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, except in limited circumstances.
The evidence did not substantiate a finding of desertion.
Due process rights, including the requirement for notice and hearing prior to dismissal, must be strictly observed regardless of the employment’s situs.
The award for attorney’s fees was proper considering that Rusel had incurred expenses to enforce his lawful claims following his illegal dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC and labor arbiter findings that:

Rusel was illegally terminated from his employment.
Rusel’s act of jumping ship did not conclusively establish an intent to abandon his job (i.e., desertion).

Whether petitioners’ alternative defense of pre-terminating the employment under Section 19(C) of the POEA memorandum ought to have been considered.
Whether the CA erred in upholding certain monetary awards by:

Awarding living allowance, overtime pay, vacation pay, and special allowance.
Granting attorney’s fees without clearly stating the basis in the NLRC or labor arbiter decisions.

Whether it was proper to apply deductions (i.e., the repatriation costs) from Rusel’s wages in light of the disputed mode of termination.