G.R. No. 157373 - Pentagon International Shipping Inc. vs. Adelantar

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157373)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Employment Contracts and Terms

On August 16, 1997, respondent William B. Adelantar was hired by Dubai Ports Authority of Jebel Ali under a first employment contract providing for an unlimited period of employment with a monthly salary of 5,500 dirhams (Dhs 5,500).
On September 3, 1997, Adelantar and petitioner Pentagon International Shipping, Inc. (Pentagon) executed a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (“second contract”) for a fixed period of 12 months, with a basic monthly salary of US$380.00 and fixed overtime pay of US$152.00.

Adjustments to Employment Terms

Upon completion of his probationary period on April 5, 1998, Adelantar’s basic salary was increased to 5,890 dirhams.
His fixed overtime pay was also raised, effective April 1, 1998, to 2,356 dirhams.

Dismissal and Termination

On June 11, 1998, management barred Adelantar from entering the port due to a previous dispute with his superior, and he was required to surrender his health and employment card.
On the same day, Adelantar received a termination letter alleging assault against his superior officer, despite a promise of employment in another company.
Adelantar was repatriated after nine (9) months and seven (7) days of service.

Filing of the Complaint and Initial Awards

After nearly a year of unemployment following his repatriation, Adelantar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC NCR OFW (M) 99-05-0693.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and ordered Pentagon to pay an award equivalent to three (3) months basic salary (inclusive of overtime pay) estimated at 24,738 dirhams.
The NLRC affirmed the award granted by the Labor Arbiter, albeit awarding backwages equivalent to three months basic salary exclusively (excluding overtime pay).

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Modified Award

Dissatisfied with the limited award, Adelantar appealed, leading the Court of Appeals (CA) to modify the amounts.
The CA ruled for full backwages computed from the time of dismissal up to the finality of the decision, basing the computation on the unlimited first contract.
The CA held that Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), which contemplates a fixed period of employment, was inapplicable to Adelantar’s case.
Instead, the CA relied on Article 279 of the Labor Code, which is designed for regular employment, thereby extending backwage computation beyond the three-month limit.

Arguments Presented by Pentagon International Shipping, Inc.

Pentagon contended that the CA erred by:

Ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling in Millares v. NLRC, et al.
Inappropriately applying Articles 279 and 280 of the Labor Code in lieu of R.A. 8042 and the applicable POEA rules and regulations.

Pentagon further argued that:

The validity and binding effect of the contract executed exclusively between Adelantar and Dubai Ports Authority, under foreign labor laws without POEA approval and Pentagon’s participation, should be questioned pursuant to the doctrines of forum non conveniens and lex loci contractus.
The award of attorney’s fees was unwarranted and exceeded what was originally prayed for by Adelantar.

Clarification on the Applicable Contract and Employment Status

Despite the existence of dual contracts, the factual matrix revealed that:

The first contract provided for an unlimited period employment and was used in computing certain salary awards.
The second contract, being POEA-sanctioned with a 12-month term, was the basis for determining the extent of Pentagon’s liability.

The NLRC and subsequent jurisprudence emphasized adherence to the fixed-term nature of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which governs the rights and liabilities in the employment of seafarers.
The CA’s reliance on the first contract was discouraged because it conflicted with explicit POEA rules regarding contract duration.

Additional Observations and Contextual Points

Jurisprudence and related cases (e.g., Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. NLRC and Millares v. NLRC) underscore that:

Employment of seafarers is inherently contractual with a fixed period.
Seafarers cannot be classified as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.

The CA, while awarding attorney’s fees (10% of the monetary award) to Adelantar, was deemed correct given his necessity to litigate for the protection of his rights.

Issues:

Appropriateness of the Backwages Computation Method

Whether the CA erred in awarding backwages computed from the time of dismissal to the finality of the decision.
The contention revolves around the applicability of Article 279 of the Labor Code versus Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 in determining the proper measure of backwages.

Determination of the Applicable Employment Contract

Whether the unlimited employment contract (first contract) or the fixed-term POEA Standard Employment Contract (second contract) should govern the computation of benefits and liabilities.
The legal issue of whether a contract executed under foreign labor laws, without POEA’s approval and Pentagon’s participation, is valid and binding.

Award of Attorney’s Fees

The propriety of granting attorney’s fees beyond what was consistently and originally prayed for by the respondent.
Whether the additional attorney’s fees were justified on the ground of litigation expenses incurred by Adelantar.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157373) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157373) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157373)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157373)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model