Title
Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 167938
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2009
Lauro Ramos, hired for overseas work, was denied employment upon arrival. Courts ruled his illegal dismissal, awarding full one-year salary, upheld by Supreme Court.
employee
salaries
illegal dismissal
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108395)

Factual Background

Multiline Resources Corporation acted as a recruitment agency for the deployment of workers to Saudi Arabia. Hanjin served as the Saudi-based principal of Multiline and also held office in the Philippines. On October 29, 1992, Ramos applied with Multiline for overseas employment as a barber. He underwent and passed the examination and interview conducted by Multiline. He then submitted the necessary travel documents, signed a contract, and signed his job order.

Under the contract, Ramos was to work for twelve months as a barber for a monthly salary of US$ 265. Upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, Ramos reported to Hanjin’s office. He was informed that the position he applied for had already been filled and that there was no further vacancy. Ramos was then left without the promised placement and was forced to beg for food and share sleeping quarters with other Filipinos in Saudi Arabia. After five days, he returned to the Philippines.

Proceedings Before the POEA and the First NLRC Reversal

Ramos filed a Complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against Hanjin and Multiline for illegal dismissal/illegal termination of contract. In a Decision dated September 26, 1995, the POEA Administrator ordered the respondents—named in the decision as Multiline Resources Corporation, Hanil Development Corporation, and Country Bankers Insurance Corporation—to jointly and severally pay Ramos US$ 3,180.00 (or its Philippine peso equivalent at the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment), representing salaries for one year, plus ten percent (10%) as attorney’s fees.

Multiline appealed to the NLRC. In an Order dated March 28, 1996, the NLRC denied Multiline’s petition. However, in an Order dated August 28, 1996, the NLRC set aside the earlier NLRC denial. The NLRC reasoned that the POEA Administrator had rendered the decision on September 26, 1995 at a time when the Administrator had already lost jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Republic Act No. 8042, and thus the POEA Administrator’s decision, which had been brought to the NLRC on appeal by Multiline, had to be set aside and forwarded to Labor Arbiter Teresita C. Lora.

The case was reassigned. A Labor Arbiter later issued an Order dated February 18, 1997 dismissing the case for failure of both parties to appear on several scheduled meetings despite due notice. Ramos moved to reopen the case. On August 14, 1997, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case without prejudice. Ramos re-filed the case on August 18, 1997, and it was given due course.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Ruling on Illegality of Dismissal

On February 9, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Ramos’s complaint after finding that his dismissal was legal. Ramos appealed. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in a Resolution dated July 30, 2002. The NLRC declared Ramos illegally dismissed and annulled and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC ordered Hanjin to pay Ramos: US$ 795.00 (at its peso equivalent at the time of payment) representing salaries for three months; P25,000.00 as moral damages; and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of Ramos’s total monetary award.

Court of Appeals Modification and the Petitioner’s Grounds

Hanjin and Multiline did not appeal the NLRC ruling. Ramos appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting that he was entitled to the salary equivalent to the full unexpired portion of his employment contract, which was for one year. Hanjin’s petition before the Court of Appeals thus faced a posture in which Ramos had sought full contractual salary recovery, and the other respondents had not challenged the NLRC’s illegality finding.

In a Decision dated August 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted Ramos’s petition and modified the NLRC Resolution dated July 30, 2002 by awarding Ramos his full salaries for one year instead of the NLRC’s award for only three months. The dispositive portion granted the petition and modified the NLRC resolutions accordingly.

Hanjin then filed the present petition in the Supreme Court, assigning grounds that in substance challenged: (1) the Court of Appeals’ alleged error in giving due course despite Ramos’s alleged failure to furnish Hanjin with a copy of the petition; (2) the alleged lack of employee-employer relationship between Ramos and Hanjin; (3) the supposed error of the Court of Appeals in holding dismissal illegal; (4) the alleged excess in modifying the NLRC award by granting full one-year salaries; and (5) the supposed failure to reverse the award of moral damages for lack of bad faith, fraud, or wanton, oppressive, or malevolent dismissal.

The Court of Appeals record, however, showed that only Ramos had appealed the NLRC ruling, and Hanjin had not taken steps to contest the NLRC’s illegal dismissal finding.

Threshold Procedural Issues on the Certiorari Petition

Before addressing the merits, the Supreme Court addressed threshold procedural questions. Respondents argued that Hanjin’s petition should be dismissed because it elevated the case via certiorari under Rule 65 instead of through the proper remedy under Rule 45.

The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is not and cannot serve as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. The Court reasoned that Hanjin failed to demonstrate that it had no appeal or any other efficacious remedy. It emphasized that under Rule 45, decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case may be appealed to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari, which functions as a continuation of the appellate process. By contrast, Rule 65 provides an independent civil action based on the specific grounds therein provided and generally cannot be used to replace a lost appeal.

The Supreme Court further found that Hanjin should have appealed the NLRC’s adverse ruling of illegal dismissal to the Court of Appeals. The records indicated that only Ramos appealed the NLRC decision, and Ramos did so to seek the award of the full monetary value of the unexpired portion of his employment contract, not only his three-month salary under Republic Act No. 8042. Accordingly, as to Hanjin, the NLRC’s illegal dismissal factual finding had already become final.

Finality of NLRC Findings and Consequence of Wrong Mode of Appeal

The Supreme Court invoked doctrine on the jurisdictional nature of the perfection of appeal. It cited Asuncion v. NLRC, holding that perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment.

The Court also held that by availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition warranted outright dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90, which provides that an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

It added that the issues Hanjin raised, though framed as grave abuse of discretion, were essentially for the correction of errors of judgment rather than errors of jurisdiction. The Court observed that even if the appellate court had committed errors of fact or erroneous appreciation of facts, such errors would not amount to grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that where the issue affects the wisdom of a decision rather than the j

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms