Title
Pagdanga, Jr. vs. Sarmiento
Case
G.R. No. 206555
Decision Date
Sep 17, 2014
Seafarer Sarmiento sued for unpaid wages and benefits; CA held ex-corporate officers liable, but SC ruled petition filed late, reinstating NLRC's decision absolving them.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206555)

Facts of the Case

On May 8, 2008, Sarmiento was hired for a seven-month contract as Chief Mate, which was extended before he was repatriated due to health issues diagnosed while docked in Nigeria. Following his return, Sarmiento filed a labor complaint against Sea Gem and several individuals for unpaid wages and other claims, including petitions against the petitioners who denied all liability, asserting they were no longer employees during the relevant period.

Labor Arbiter Ruling

In a January 19, 2010 decision, the Labor Arbiter found petitioners and others jointly liable for Sarmiento's claims of unpaid salaries and sickness allowance, awarding him a total of US$32,821.00. The Arbiter denied claims for disability benefits and reimbursements due to inadequate evidence. The Arbiter's decision asserted that corporate officers could not escape liability merely by resigning.

NLRC Appeal

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, reiterating non-liability and emphasizing no direct connection to Sarmiento’s employment at the time of his claims. On September 30, 2010, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but modified it by absolving petitioners of liability based on the lack of their connection to Sea Gem at the time. The NLRC's ruling was not appealed by other parties involved.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Sarmiento filed a certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals on April 7, 2011, arguing that the NLRC had abused its discretion. Petitioners contended that Sarmiento’s petition was filed beyond the allowable period, emphasizing that notices served to a counsel of record are binding on the client. The Court of Appeals did not address this timeliness issue directly but ruled to reinstate the Labor Arbiter’s decision on October 23, 2012, finding petitioners liable based on their roles during Sarmiento's employment period.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled favorably for the petitioners, concluding that Sarmiento’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was filed out of time as it was not timely noted from the correct date of notice to Atty.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an analytical tool focused on understanding Philippine cases deeply, not a general AI assistant.