Title
Singa Ship Management Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 119080
Decision Date
Apr 14, 1998
Mario Sangil, a Filipino seafarer, was constructively dismissed after a workplace altercation caused injury and fear for his safety. The Supreme Court upheld NLRC's ruling, awarding him compensation for the unexpired contract term.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119080)

Employment Contract and Incident Background

On May 22, 1990, Sangil signed an employment contract with Singa Ship Management Phils., Inc. on behalf of Royal Cruise Line for a one-year position as utility man/assistant steward on the Crown Odyssey, with a monthly salary of $50 plus tips. Following his departure to join the vessel on June 2, 1990, an altercation occurred on July 20, 1990, between Sangil and the Greek steward Athanasius Zakkas during passenger disembarkation, resulting in physical injury to Sangil. Sangil was pushed by Zakkas, fell, and sustained a head injury requiring medical attention.

Response to the Incident

After the incident, Sangil reported to the Philippine Embassy and subsequently informed the ship's captain about his intention to leave due to fears for his safety and ongoing harassment from the Greek crew. He was temporarily hospitalized and was repatriated to the Philippines on July 24, 1990. Subsequently, on March 6, 1991, he filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) seeking redress for illegal dismissal and unpaid salaries.

Procedural History

The POEA initially dismissed Sangil's complaint on March 20, 1992, citing lack of merit, arguing that he voluntarily signed off from the vessel. However, upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on December 14, 1994, ordering the employers to pay Sangil $500 for his unexpired contract period and attorney's fees, while dismissing claims for overtime pay and tips.

Arguments of the Petitioners

In appealing the NLRC's decision, the petitioners contended that there was no illegal dismissal, positing that Sangil's actions were voluntary and self-induced, arguing he was the aggressor in the altercation. They claimed that the evidence supported their position, alleging Sangil's departure was an act of his own making.

NLRC Findings and Legal Reasoning

The NLRC's findings, which were upheld by the court, indicated that Sangil was not the aggressor but a victim who was pushed, as supported by the ship's logbook. The court emphasized that Sangil's response to the incident was grounded in legitimate fear for his safety and that his departure from the vessel was not voluntary but motivated b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.