Title
Supreme Court
J-Phil Marine, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 175366
Decision Date
Aug 11, 2008
Seafarer disputes unpaid wages and medical claims, evolves into P450K compromise upheld by Supreme Court; counsel’s opposition deemed unauthorized, agreement voluntary and binding.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10651)

Claims and Proceedings

Initially, Dumalaog sought a total claim of P864,343.30, which included P195,928.66 for attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter Fe Superiaso-Cellan dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on August 29, 2003. However, upon appeal, the NLRC reversed this decision on September 27, 2004, ordering the petitioners to pay US$50,000.00 in disability benefits but dismissing other claims due to insufficient basis or jurisdiction.

Further Legal Action by Petitioners

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals following the NLRC’s decision. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed this petition on September 22, 2005, due to failures in documentation and verification. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading them to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Compromise Agreement

During the pendency of the case, Dumalaog entered into a compromise agreement with the petitioners, signing a Quitclaim and Release under the Labor Arbiter's supervision. On May 8, 2007, the petitioners informed the Supreme Court about the amicable settlement. In contrast, Dumalaog’s counsel objected, arguing that the amount received was insufficient and sought a deduction from the NLRC's judgment.

Legal Implications of the Compromise

Article 227 of the Labor Code mandates that any compromise settlement voluntarily agreed upon shall be final and binding unless evidence of fraud or coercion is presented. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement as long as it was reasonably obtained, reiterating that the presence of counsel during such agreements is not strictly necessary for them to be valid.

Counsel's Authority Questioned

The Court affirmed that the objection raised by Dumalaog’s counsel concerning the unconscionability of the settlement was beyond his authority, as any dissatisfaction regarding the compromise must come from the respondent himself. The Court also noted that the quitclaim acknowledged pa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.