G.R. No. 157975 - Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Carilla

On November 18, 1993, Felicisimo Carilla was hired by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (petitioner) as Master on board MV Handy-Cam Azobe, under a POEA-approved contract.
The contract, effected on behalf of Anglo-Eastern Shipmanagement Ltd., provided for a basic monthly pay of US$1,700.00, fixed monthly overtime of US$765.00, a master’s allowance of US$170.00, and leave with pay of six days per month amounting to US$340.00, totaling US$2,975.00 per month.

Respondent boarded the vessel on November 29, 1993, in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Africa.
While the vessel was in Bombay, India, on June 6, 1994, respondent was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines without notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

On August 25, 1994, respondent filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency (POEA) for illegal dismissal.
He claimed that his dismissal was without notice, hearing, and any valid reason, causing him to lose the expected monthly benefits for the unexpired portion of his contract (calculated as US$2,975.00 per month for 5 months and 18 days).
Additionally, respondent alleged that petitioner withheld specific allotments: US$1,700.00 for the entire month of May 1994, US$396.67 for June 1–7, and accrued leave pay amounting to US$2,119.33.

The petitioner, in its answer, contended that the dismissal was for just cause based on respondent’s alleged incompetence in ensuring the safety of the vessel and its cargo.
It argued that prior warnings were given and that his lapses culminated in severe financial damages due to cargo claims and vessel repair costs.
Petitioner further sought moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees as a counterclaim, asserting a wider latitude in dismissing a managerial employee.

The case was transferred to the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995).
On December 1, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision in favor of respondent, deeming his dismissal illegal and ordering payment for the unexpired contract, withheld allotments, and leave pay.
The petitioner’s appeal to the NLRC was dismissed on June 14, 2001, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in upholding the LA decision.
Central to the petitioner’s arguments was the contention that the documentary evidence (the typewritten “Logs of Events During Capt. Carilla Command” and the Senior Officer Evaluation Reports) was authentic, while the LA had erroneously declared them self-serving and unreliable.
Additional issues raised included claims for the inclusion of overtime and leave pays in the computation of the unexpired contract portion, with arguments invoking the “no work, no pay” principle and limitations under RA No. 8042.

Whether the petitioner failed to present authenticated and reliable documentary evidence (vessel logbook and evaluation reports) to substantiate the claim that respondent’s dismissal was for just cause.
Whether the factual determination of just cause for dismissal, especially regarding alleged incompetence, falls outside the scope of judicial review on a petition for certiorari.
Whether respondent is entitled to payment for the unexpired portion of his contract, including or excluding overtime and leave pay, considering he was repatriated and no longer rendering service.
Whether the burden of proof, particularly on the petitioner in demonstrating the justification of dismissal and substantiation of incurred damages, was properly discharged.