Case Digest (G.R. No. 184318)
Facts:
Antonio E. Unica v. Anscor Swire Ship Management Corporation, G.R. No. 184318, February 12, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Antonio E. Unica was a seafarer repeatedly employed by respondent Anscor Swire Ship Management Corporation, a manning agency. In his last engagement he was contracted from January 29, 2000 to October 25, 2000, but was actually repatriated only on November 14, 2000 — twenty (20) days after the contract's stated expiry. Petitioner alleged that being allowed to remain aboard for those 20 days constituted an implied renewal of his contract and that his November 14, 2000 repatriation therefore amounted to illegal dismissal; he sought payment for illegal dismissal, retirement, disability and medical benefits, separation and holiday pay.
Respondent maintained that the employment was for a fixed term co-terminous with the written contract and that the repatriation on November 14, 2000 was due to completion of the agreed term and logistical necessity (the vessel being at sea), not an unlawful dismissal or an implied extension.
At the Labor Arbiter, petitioner prevailed. On May 31, 2004 the Labor Arbiter found an implied renewal for another nine months because petitioner was allowed to remain on board until November 14, 2000, and awarded salary for the unexpired portion of the implied term, medical benefits and attorney’s fees. Respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on August 24, 2005 affirmed the Labor Arbiter with modification: the NLRC likewise found an implied extension for nine months entitling petitioner to payment for the unexpired term, but deleted medical benefits and reduced attorney’s fees.
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated August 15, 2006, annulled and set aside the NLRC decision, holding there was no implied renewal and that petitioner’s twenty-day stay resulted from the ship being at...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there an implied renewal of petitioner's employment contract when he remained aboard for 20 days after the contract's stated expiration?
- If there was no implied renewal, is petitioner nevertheless entitled to wages for the period between the contract's expiration and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)