PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc v.

NLRC (December 14, 2006)

Facts In April 1996, Rusel was employed as seaman by P ! "#ippin$ P#ilippines %or and in be#al% o% i&s %orei$n principal, '()in$ )arine* Rusel &#ereby +oined &#e ,essel )- em&e. %or 12 mon&#s wi&# a basic mon&#ly salary o% '"/400*00, li,in$ allowance o% '"/140*00, %i.ed o,er&ime ra&e o% '"/120*00 per mon&#, ,aca&ion lea,e wi&# pay o% '"/40*00 per mon&# and special allowance o% '"/101*00* 2n 3uly 16, 1996, w#ile Rusel was cleanin$ &#e ,essel4s 5i&c#en, #e slipped, and as a conse6uence &#ereo%, #e su%%ered a bro5en7sprained an5le on #is le%& %oo&* A re6ues& %or medical e.amina&ion was %la&ly denied by &#e cap&ain o% &#e ,essel* 2n Au$us& 18, 1996, %eelin$ an unbearable pain in #is an5le, Rusel +umped o%% &#e ,essel usin$ a li%e +ac5e& and swam &o s#ore* 9e was brou$#& &o a #ospi&al w#ere #e was con%ined %or : days* 2n Au$us& 22, 1996, a ,essel4s a$en& %e&c#ed Rusel %rom &#e #ospi&al and was re6uired &o board a plane bound %or &#e P#ilippines* 2n "ep&ember 26, 1996, Rusel %iled a complain& %or ille$al dismissal, non(paymen& o% wa$es, o,er&ime pay, claim %or medical bene%i&s, sic5 lea,e pay and dama$es a$ains& P ! "#ippin$ and '()in$ )arine be%ore &#e arbi&ra&ion branc# o% &#e ;!R * In &#eir answer, &#e la&&er alle$ed &#a& Rusel deser&ed #is employmen& by +umpin$ o%% &#e ,essel* !abor Arbi&er #eld &#a& responden& is liable %or &#e un+us& repa&ria&ion o% &#e complainan&* ;!R a%%irmed &#e %indin$ o% &#e !abor Arbi&er*

Issue: Whether or not respondent was guilty o desertion to !usti y his dis"issal. #eld: No <or a seaman &o be considered as $uil&y o% deser&ion, i& is essen&ial &#a& &#ere be e,idence &o pro,e &#a& i% #e lea,es &#e s#ip or ,essel in w#ic# #e #ad en$a$ed &o per%orm a ,oya$e, #e #as &#e clear in&en&ion o% abandonin$ #is du&y and o% no& re&urnin$ &o &#e s#ip or ,essel* In &#e presen& case, #owe,er, pe&i&ioners %ailed &o presen& clear and con,incin$ proo% &o s#ow &#a& w#en pri,a&e responden& +umped s#ip, #e no lon$er #ad &#e in&en&ion o% re&urnin$* =#e %ac& alone &#a& #e +umped o%% &#e s#ip w#ere #e was s&a&ioned, swam &o s#ore and sou$#& medical assis&ance %or &#e in+ury #e sus&ained is no& a su%%icien& basis %or pe&i&ioners &o conclude &#a& #e #ad &#e in&en&ion o% deser&in$ #is pos&*

Issue: Whether or not the provisions o the Constitution as well as the La$or Code which a ord protection to la$or apply to Filipino e"ployees wor%ing a$road.

#eld: &es, it does. Pe&i&ioners admi& &#a& &#ey did no& in%orm pri,a&e responden& in wri&in$ o% &#e c#ar$es a$ains& #im and &#a& &#ey %ailed &o conduc& a %ormal in,es&i$a&ion &o $i,e #im oppor&uni&y &o air #is side* 9owe,er, pe&i&ioners con&end &#a& &#e &win re6uiremen&s o% no&ice and #earin$ applies s&ric&ly only w#en &#e employmen& is wi&#in &#e P#ilippines and &#a& &#ese need no& be s&ric&ly obser,ed in cases o% in&erna&ional mari&ime or o,erseas employmen&* =#e our& does no& a$ree* =#e pro,isions o% &#e ons&i&u&ion as well as &#e !abor ode w#ic# a%%ord pro&ec&ion &o labor apply &o <ilipino employees w#e&#er wor5in$ wi&#in &#e P#ilippines or abroad* )oreo,er, &#e principle o% lex loci contractus (&#e law o% &#e place w#ere &#e con&rac& is made) $o,erns in &#is +urisdic&ion* In &#e presen& case, i& is no& dispu&ed &#a& &#e on&rac& o% >mploymen& en&ered in&o by and be&ween pe&i&ioners and pri,a&e responden& was e.ecu&ed #ere in &#e P#ilippines wi&# &#e appro,al o% &#e P#ilippine 2,erseas >mploymen& Adminis&ra&ion (P2>A)* 9ence, &#e !abor ode &o$e&#er wi&# i&s implemen&in$ rules and re$ula&ions and o&#er laws a%%ec&in$ labor apply in &#is case* Accordin$ly, as &o &#e re6uiremen& o% no&ice and #earin$ in &#e case o% a sea%arer, &#e our& #as already ruled in a number o% cases &#a& be%ore a seaman can be dismissed and disc#ar$ed %rom &#e ,essel, i& is re6uired &#a& #e be $i,en a wri&&en no&ice re$ardin$ &#e c#ar$es a$ains& #im and &#a& #e be a%%orded a %ormal in,es&i$a&ion w#ere #e could de%end #imsel% personally or &#rou$# a represen&a&i,e* 9ence, &#e employer s#ould s&ric&ly comply wi&# &#e &win re6uiremen&s o% no&ice and #earin$ wi&#ou& re$ard &o &#e na&ure and si&us o% employmen& or &#e na&ionali&y o% &#e employer* Pe&i&ioners %ailed &o comply wi&# &#ese &win re6uiremen&s* ?#ere%ore, &#e pe&i&ion is par&ly $ran&ed* =#e our& o% Appeals4 Decision da&ed December 1:, 2001 and Resolu&ion da&ed April 10, 2002 are a%%irmed wi&# modi%ica&ion &o &#e e%%ec& &#a& &#e award o% '"/1620*00 represen&in$ pri,a&e responden&4s &#ree mon&#s salary is reduced &o '"/1200*00* =#e award o% '"/110*00 represen&in$ pri,a&e responden&4s li,in$ allowance, o,er&ime pay, ,aca&ion pay and special allowance %or &wo mon&#s is dele&ed and in lieu &#ereo%, an award o% '"/010*00 is $ran&ed represen&in$ pri,a&e responden&4s li,in$ allowance, special allowance and ,aca&ion lea,e wi&# pay %or &#e same period*