Title
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 167614
Decision Date
Mar 24, 2009
A Filipino seafarer challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8042's "subject clause," which limited illegally dismissed OFWs' salary recovery to 3 months. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, affirming full contractual compensation for the unexpired term.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 167614)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Contract and employment
    • Antonio M. Serrano, a Filipino seafarer, was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. under a 12-month POEA-approved contract as Chief Officer at US$1,400 basic pay, US$700 fixed overtime, and 7 days’ vacation leave per month.
    • On departure (March 19, 1998) he was downgraded to Second Officer at US$1,000 with promise of promotion by end of April.
    • Respondents failed to promote him; he refused to continue and was repatriated on May 26, 1998, after 2 months 7 days of service, leaving 9 months 23 days unexpired.
  • Money-claims and Labor Arbiter decision
    • Serrano filed for constructive dismissal, back wages (US$26,442.73), moral/exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
    • The Labor Arbiter (July 15, 1999) declared illegal dismissal and awarded US$8,770 (3-month salary at US$2,590/month), US$45 salary differential, and 10% attorney’s fees; moral/exemplary damages were denied.
  • NLRC and Court of Appeals rulings
    • NLRC (June 15, 2000) modified award to US$4,669.50 (3 months at US$1,400/month, US$45 differential, 10% fees), excluding overtime and leave pay.
    • CA (Dec. 8, 2004; April 1, 2005 Resolution) affirmed NLRC, reduced computation but refused to rule on constitutional challenge to the “three-month cap” clause.
  • Supreme Court proceedings
    • Serrano filed a Rule 45 petition challenging constitutionality of the cap in R.A. 8042 § 10(5).
    • He later sought withdrawal for medical reasons but urged resolution of the constitutional issue and partial execution of undisputed awards.
    • SC directed full merits briefing and took up the constitutionality of the “three months for every year…whichever is less” clause.

Issues:

  • Does the last clause of Section 10(5), R.A. No. 8042—limiting illegally dismissed OFWs’ money claims to salaries for the unexpired contract or “three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”—violate:
    • The impairment-of-contracts clause (Art. III, Sec. 10)?
    • The equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) and labor special protection (Art. II, Sec. 18; Art. XIII, Sec. 3)?
    • The substantive due process guarantee (Art. III, Sec. 1)?
  • Should overtime and vacation leave pay stipulated in a seafarer’s contract form part of the “salaries” for computing the money claims under R.A. 8042 § 10(5)?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.