Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services v.

NLRC
STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES V. NLRC
258 SCRA 643
ROMERO, J.
FACTS
1. Respondent Meynardo J. Hernandez was hired by Stolt-Nielsen Marine Servies
!"hils.# $n. as radio o%%ier on board M&T Stolt Condor %or a period o% ten 'onths. He
boarded the vessel on Jan(ary )*+ 1,,*.
). -n April ).+ 1,,*+ the ship aptain ordered private respondent to arry the ba//a/e
o% rew 'e'ber 0ito 0overia who was bein/ repatriated. He re%(sed to obey the
order o(t o% %ear in view o% the (tterane o% said rew 'e'ber 1'a2a2asa2sa2 a2o1
and also bea(se he did not pereive s(h tas2 as one o% his d(ties as radio o%%ier.
3. As a res(lt o% s(h re%(sal+ private respondent was ordered to dise'bar2 on April 3*+
1,,* and was hi'sel% repatriated on May 14+ 1,,*. He was paid his salaries and
wa/es only (p to May 1.+ 1,,*.
5. "rivate respondent %iled be%ore p(bli respondent "-6A a o'plaint %or ille/al
dis'issal and breah o% ontrat payin/ %or+ a'on/ other thin/s+ pay'ent o% salaries+
wa/es+ overti'e and other bene%its d(e hi' %or the (ne7pired portion o% the ontrat
whih was si7 !.# 'onths and three !3# days.
4. "etitioner in its answer alle/ed that private respondent re%(sed to %ollow the 1re8(est1
o% the 'aster o% the vessel to e7plain to 0olito 0overia+ the reason %or the latter9s
repatriation and to assist hi' in arryin/ his ba//a/e+ all in violation o% Artile ::$;+
Setion $ o% the Colletive <ar/ainin/ A/ree'ent !C<A# and the "-6A Standard
Contrat. Hene+ private respondent+ a%ter bein/ a%%orded the opport(nity to e7plain
his side+ was dis'issed %or /ross ins(bordination and serio(s 'isond(t.
.. Respondent denied that the 'aster o% the vessel re8(ested hi' to e7plain to 0overia
the reason %or the latter9s repatriation.
=. Therea%ter+ "-6A Ad'inistrator rendered an award in %avor o% private respondent.
>. A//rieved+ petitioner Stolt-Nielsen appealed to the National 0abor Relations
Co''ission !N0RC#. The N0RC on(rred with the "-6A Ad'inistrator in r(lin/
that private respondent+ havin/ been ille/ally dis'issed+ was+ there%ore+ entitled to
the 'onetary award.
,. $t %(rther stated that private respondent9s d(ty as a radio o%%ier or radio operator
does not inl(de the arryin/ o% the l(//a/e o% any sea'an or e7plainin/ to said
sea'an the reason %or his repatriation. Th(s+ onl(ded the N0RC+ his ter'ination
on this /ro(nd was not proper and+ there%ore+ he had every ri/ht to the 'onetary
award. The N0RC li2ewise /ranted private respondent9s lai' %or %i7ed overti'e pay
and attorney9s %ees.
$SS?6S
1. Whether or not private respondent was legally dismissed on the ground of gross
insubordination and serious misconduct.
2. Whether or not private respondent was entitled to the award of over-time pay.
H60@
1. A6S. Bill%(l disobediene o% the e'ployer9s law%(l orders+ as a C(st a(se %or the
dis'issal o% an e'ployee+ envisa/es the on(rrene o% at least two !)# re8(isites.
The e'ployee9s assailed ond(t '(st have been will%(l or intentional+ the
will%(lness bein/ haraterized by a 1wron/%(l and perverse attit(de1+ and the order
violated '(st have been reasonable+ law%(l+ 'ade 2nown to the e'ployee and '(st
pertain to the d(ties whih he had been en/a/ed to dishar/e. The Co(rt a/rees
that by virt(e o% the a%ore'entioned C<A and "-6A Standard Contrat provisions
ited by petitioner+ private respondent is indeed bo(nd to obey the law%(l o''ands
o% the aptain o% the ship+ b(t only as lon/ as these pertain to his d(ties. The order to
arry the l(//a/e o% a rew 'e'ber+ while bein/ law%(l+ is not part o% the d(ties o% a
radio o%%ier. Ass('in/ ar/(endo that law%(l o''ands o% a ship aptain are
s(pposed to be obeyed by the o'ple'ent o% a ship+ private respondent9s so-alled 1at o%
disobediene1 does not warrant the s(pre'e penalty o% dis'issal. $n instant
ase+ the "-6A %o(nd that private respondent9s at(ation whih led to his dis'issal
was the %irst and only at o% disobediene d(rin/ his servie with the petitioner+
F(rther'ore+ e7a'ination o% the ir('stanes s(rro(ndin/ private respondent9s
disobediene shows that the repatriated sea'an9s (tterane o% 1'a2a2asa2sa2 a2o1
so instilled %ear in private respondent that he was deterred %ro' arryin/ o(t the
order o% the aptain. Hene+ his at o(ld not be ri/ht%(lly haraterized as one
'otivated by a 1wron/%(l and perverse attit(de.1 <esides+ said inident posed no
serio(s or s(bstantial dan/er to the well-bein/ o% his other o-e'ployees or o% the
/eneral p(bli doin/ b(siness with petitioner e'ployer+ neither did s(h behavior
threaten s(bstantial preC(die to the b(siness o% his e'ployer.
). N-. The Co(rt reiterated that the rendition o% overti'e wor2 and the s(b'ission o%
s(%%iient proo% that said wor2 was at(ally per%or'ed are onditions to be satis%ied
be%ore a sea'an o(ld be entitled to overti'e pay whih sho(ld be o'p(ted on the
basis o% 3*D o% the basi 'onthly salary. $n short+ the ontrat provision /(arantees
the ri/ht to overti'e pay b(t the entitle'ent to s(h bene%it '(st %irst be established.
Realistially spea2in/+ a sea'an+ by the very nat(re o% his Cob+ stays on board a ship
or vessel beyond the re/(lar ei/ht-ho(r wor2 shed(le. For the e'ployer to /ive hi'
overti'e pay %or the e7tra ho(rs when he 'i/ht be sleepin/ or attendin/ to his
personal hores or even C(st l(llin/ away his ti'e wo(ld be e7tre'ely (n%air and
(nreasonable.
Principle the orret riterion in deter'inin/ whether or not sailors are entitled to overti'e pay
is not+ there%ore+ whether they were on board and annot leave ship beyond the re/(lar ei/ht
wor2in/ ho(rs a day+ b(t whether they at(ally rendered servie in e7ess o% said n('ber o%
ho(rs.