Case Summary (G.R. No. 201792)
Employment Background
Asayas was contracted as a seafarer on August 26, 2009. His employment was disrupted when the M/T Samaria was sold on October 25, 2009, to Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise, Pte. Ltd. As promised by the respondents, he was to be transferred to the M/T Platinum, but this transfer did not occur. Instead, he was later informed of an opportunity to work as a Second Mate on the M/T Kriti Akti, which was also sold before his deployment.
Initial Complaints and Settlements
After the sale of the M/T Samaria, Asayas lodged a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on April 23, 2010, seeking the full payment for his employment contract. This was resolved through a compromise agreement, after which he received separation pay. Subsequently, he initiated another complaint in NLRC Case No. 04-05764-10 concerning illegal dismissal and claims for the unexpired portion of his contract.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
On October 29, 2010, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Asayas had been illegally terminated and ordered the respondents to pay him a total amount of $22,300 for the remaining ten months of his contract, along with attorney’s fees. The ruling was based on the premise that the employer failed to prove just cause for dismissal, as required under Philippine labor law. The Arbiter reiterated that Asayas was entitled to earned wages consequent to the sale of the vessel without a proper transfer to another ship.
NLRC Upholding the Labor Arbiter's Decision
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on May 9, 2011, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence presented by the respondents to justify the termination and serving as a basis for the motion dismissal.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
The respondents appealed the NLRC’s decision, claiming it had gravely abused its discretion. On November 28, 2011, the Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari, reversing the decisions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, and directed Asayas to return the amounts he had received from the respondents.
Basis for the Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals based its ruling on several provisions from the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers, particularly addressing the terms under which a seafarer may be terminated due to vessel sale or other circumstances. The Court noted that Asayas had executed a Compromise Agreement with Quitclaim, suggesting he relinquished any claims related to his employment.
Supreme Court Ruling
Upon review, the Supreme Court found the appeal meritorious, asserting that the Court of Appeals acted
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201792)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around Wilfredo P. Asayas, a seafarer, who challenges the adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that overturned the favorable decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which had declared his termination illegal.
- Asayas was employed as a Third Officer on the vessel M/T Samaria, owned by Avin International S.A., when the vessel was sold, leading to his repatriation and subsequent claims against his employers.
Antecedents
Employment Background:
- Wilfredo P. Asayas was employed by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. as a Third Officer on the M/T Samaria.
- On October 25, 2009, while still under contract, the vessel was sold to another company, which prompted his discharge from the vessel.
- He was promised a transfer to another vessel, M/T Platinum, but was never deployed to it.
Subsequent Employment Issues:
- Asayas was later offered a position as a Second Mate on M/T Kriti Akti but again faced non-deployment due to the vessel's sale.
Initial Complaint and Settlement:
- On April 23, 2010, he filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for full payment of his employment contract.
- The issue was settled through a compromise agreement, which included a quitclaim, after which he received separation pay.
Follow-up Complaint:
- Two months later, Asayas filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal and sought payment for the unexpired portion of his contract, leading to NLRC Case No. 04-05764-10.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
Ruling on Illegal Dismissal:
- On October 29, 2010, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Asayas was illegally dismissed and ordered that he be paid for the remaining ten months of his contract, totaling $22,300, plus attorney’s fees.
Legal J