Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 140364 August 15, 2000
ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC. an!o" CONNING S#IPPING $T%., petitioners,
vs.
COURT O& APPEA$S 'T#IRTEENT# %IVISION(, NATIONA$ $A)OR RE$ATIONS
COMMISSION '&IRST %IVISION( an OR$AN%O A$ONSAGA*, respondents.
D ! I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for revie" of the resolutions
#
of the !ourt of $ppeals
%
that dis&issed
the petition for certiorari filed b' petitioners and "hich denied their &otion for
reconsideration, respectivel'.
First, the facts.
In (une #))*, $ce Navi+ation !o., Inc. ,$ce Nav- recruited private respondent Orlando
$lonsa+a' to "or. as a bartender on board the vessel M/V 0Orient 1press0 o"ned b'
its principal, !onnin+ Shippin+ 2td. ,!onnin+-. 3nder their PO$ approved contract of
e&plo'&ent, Orlando shall receive a &onthl' basic salar' of four hundred fift' 3.S.
dollars ,3.S. 4*56.66-, flat rate, includin+ overti&e pa' for #% hours of "or. dail' plus
tips of t"o 3.S. dollars ,3.S. 4%.66- per passen+er per da'. 7e, "as also entitled to %.5
da's of vacation leave "ith pa' each &onth. The contract "as to last for one ,#- 'ear.
Petitioners alle+ed that on (une #8, #))*, Orlando "as deplo'ed and boarded M/V
0Orient 1press0 at the seaport of 7on+ 9on+. $fter the e1piration of the contract on
(une #8, #))5, Orlando returned to the Philippines and de&anded fro& $ce Nav his
vacation leave pa'. $ce Nav did not pa' hi& i&&ediatel'. It told hi& that he should
have been paid prior to his dise&bar.ation and repatriation to the Philippines. Moreover,
!onnin+ did not re&it an' a&ount for his vacation leave pa'. $ce Nav, ho"ever,
pro&ised to verif' the &atter and as.ed Orlando to return after a fe" da's. Orlando
never returned.
On Nove&ber %5, #))5, Orlando filed a co&plaint
8
before the labor arbiter for vacation
leave pa' of four hundred fift' 3.S. dollars ,3.S. 4*56.66- and unpaid tips a&ountin+ to
thirt' si1, thousand 3.S. dollars ,3.S. 48:,666.66-.
*
On Nove&ber #5, #)):, 2abor
$rbiter Felipe P. Pati ordered $ce Nav and !onnin+ to pa' ;ointl' and severall' Orlando
his vacation leave pa' of 3S4*56.66. The clai& for tips of Orlando "as dis&issed for
lac. of &erit.
5
Orlando appealed
:
to the National 2abor Relations !o&&ission ,N2R!- on Februar' 8,
#))<. In a decision
<
pro&ul+ated on Nove&ber %:, #))<, the N2R! ordered $ce Nav
and !onnin+ to pa' the unpaid tips of Orlando "hich a&ounted to 3S48:,666.66 in
addition to his vacation leave pa'. $ce Nav and !onnin+ filed a &otion for
reconsideration on Februar' %, #))= "hich "as denied on Ma' %6, #))).
=
On (ul' %, #))), $ce Nav and !onnin+ filed a petition for certiorari before the !ourt of
$ppeals to annul the decision of the N2R!. On (ul' %=, #))), the !ourt of $ppeals
pro&ul+ated a three>pa+e resolution
)
dis&issin+ the petition. Their &otion for
reconsideration filed on Septe&ber =, #))) "as denied on October =, #))). 7ence this
appeal.
In assailin+ the dis&issal of their petition on technical +rounds, petitioners ar+ued that
the !ourt of $ppeals erred in ri+idl' and technicall' appl'in+ Section #8, Rule #8
#6
and
Section #, Rule :5
##
of the #))< Rules of !ivil Procedure.
#%
The' also contend that the
respondent court erred in rulin+ that the' are the ones liable to pa' tips to Orlando.
The' point out that if tips "ill be considered as part of the salar' of Orlando, it "ill &a.e
hi& the hi+hest paid e&plo'ee on M/V 0Orient 1press.0 The ship captain, the hi+hest
ran.in+ officer, receives 3.S.48,666.66 per &onth "ithout tips. Orlando, "ho is a
bartender, "ill receive 3.S.48,*56.66 per &onth. $lle+edl', this "ill co&pel forei+n ship
o"ners to desist fro& hirin+ Filipino bartenders. It "ill create an unfavorable precedent
detri&ental to the future recruit&ent, hirin+ and deplo'&ent of Filipino overseas "or.ers
speciall' in service oriented businesses. It "ill also be a case of double co&pensation
that "ill un;ustl' enrich Orlando at the e1pense of petitioners. The' also stress that
Orlando never co&plained that the' should pa' hi& the said tips.
Respondent filed a t"o>pa+e co&&ent to the petition adoptin+ the resolution of the
!ourt of $ppeals dated (ul' %=, #))).
?e find &erit in the petition.
Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial ;ustice.
#8
ven
the Rules of !ourt &andates a liberal construction in order to pro&ote their ob;ective of
securin+ a +ust, speed' and ine1pensive disposition of ever' action and proceedin+.
#*

Since rules of procedure are &ere tools desi+ned to facilitate the attain&ent of ;ustice,
their strict and ri+id application "hich "ould result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
1
rather than pro&ote substantial ;ustice &ust al"a's be avoided.
#5
Thus, the dis&issal of
an appeal on purel' technical +round is fro"ned upon especiall' if it "ill result to
unfairness.
?e appl' these sound rules in the case at bar. Petitioners@ petition for certiorari before
the !ourt of $ppeals contained the certified true cop' of the N2R!@s decision dated
Nove&ber %:, #))<,
#:
its order dated Ma' %, #)))
#<
and the s"orn certification of non>
foru& shoppin+.
#=
Petitioners also e1plained that their counsel e1ecuted an affidavit of
proof of service and e1planation in the afternoon of (ul' #, #))). 7o"ever, he for+ot to
attach it "hen he filed their petition the follo"in+ da' because of the volu&e and
pressure of "or. and lac. of office personnel. 7o"ever, the Re+istr' Receipt,
#)
"hich is
the proof of &ailin+ to Orlando@s counsel, issued b' the !entral Post Office "as
attached on the ori+inal petition the' filed "ith the respondent court. It "as also
sta&ped
%6
b' the N2R! "hich is proof of receipt of the petition b' the latter. The affidavit
of service, "hich "as ori+inall' o&itted, "as attached on their &otion for
reconsideration.
%#
Si+nificantl', it "as dated (ul' #, #))). In vie" of the surroundin+
circu&stances, the subseAuent filin+ of the affidavit of service &a' be considered as
substantial co&pliance "ith the rules.
?e no" co&e to the &erits of the case. The issue is "hether petitioners are liable to
pa' the tips to Orlando.
The "ord B0tip0C has several &eanin+s, "ith ori+ins &ore or less obscure, connected
"ith 0tap0 and "ith 0top.0 In the sense of a su& of &one' +iven for +ood service, other
lan+ua+es are &ore specific, e.+., Fr. pourboire, for drin.. It is su++ested that Bthe "ordC
is for&ed fro& the practice, in earl' #=th c. 2ondon coffeehouses, of havin+ a bo1 in
"hich persons in a hurr' "ould drop a s&all coin, to +ain i&&ediate attention. The bo1
"as labelled To Insure Pro&ptnessD then ;ust "ith the initials T.I.P.
%%
It is &ore freAuentl' used to indicate additional co&pensation, and in this sense 0tip0 is
defined as &eanin+ a +ratuit'D a +iftD a presentD a feeD &one' +iven, as to a servant to
secure better or &ore pro&pt service. $ tip &a' ran+e fro& pure +ift out of benevolence
or friendship, to a co&pensation for a service &easured b' its supposed value but not
fi1ed b' an a+ree&ent, althou+h usuall' the "ord is applied to "hat is paid to a servant
in addition to the re+ular co&pensation for his service in order to secure better service
or in reco+nition of it. It has been said that a tip denotes a voluntar' act, but it also has
been said that fro& the ver' be+innin+ of the practice of tippin+ it "as evident that,
"hether considered fro& the standpoint of the +iver or the recipient, a tip lac.ed the
essential ele&ent of a +ift, na&el', the free besto"in+ of a +ratuit' "ithout a
consideration, and that, despite its apparent voluntariness, there is an ele&ent of
co&pulsion in tippin+.
%8
Tippin+ is done to +et the attention and secure the i&&ediate services of a "aiter,
porter or others for their services. Since a tip is considered a pure +ift out of
benevolence or friendship, it can not be de&anded fro& the custo&er. ?hether or not
tips "ill be +iven is dependent on the "ill and +enerosit' of the +iver. $lthou+h a
custo&er &a' +ive a tip as a consideration for services rendered, its value still depends
on the +iver. The' are +iven in addition to the co&pensation b' the e&plo'er. $ +ratuit'
+iven b' an e&plo'er in order to inspire the e&plo'ee to e1ert &ore effort in his "or. is
&ore appropriatel' called a bonus.
The N2R! and the !ourt of $ppeals held that petitioners "ere liable to pa' tips to
Orlando because of the contract of e&plo'&ent. ThusE
0The contract of e&plo'&ent entered into b' and bet"een the co&plainant and $ce
Navi+ation !o., Inc. ,p. =%, Record- clearl' provides 111E
@That the e&plo'ee shall be e&plo'ed on board under the follo"in+ ter&s and
conditionsE
#.# Duration of !ontractE ,#% &onths- #6 &onths re&ainin+ duration of contract
#.% PositionE Fartender
#.8 Fasic Monthl' Salar'E 3.S.4*56.66 Flat rate includin+ overti&e pa' for
#.* 7ours of ?or.E #% hrs. "or. dail'.
#.5 Overti&eE Plus tips of 3.S.4%.66 per passen+er per da'.
#.: Vacation 2eave "ith Pa'E %.5 da's/&o.@ ,record, p. =%-
0The record of this case sho"s that the respondent, in the !ontract of &plo'&ent 111
undertoo. to pa' to co&plainant @tips of 3.S.4%.66 per passen+er per da'.@ Get, there is
no sho"in+ that the said underta.in+ "as co&plied "ith b' the respondents.
0It "as thus a serious error on the part of the 2abor $rbiter to rule that the tips "ere
alread' paid, &uch less to rule that said tips "ere directl' paid to the cre" of M/V
0ORINT PRIN!SS.0 ?ith $rticle * of the 2abor !ode re&indin+ us that doubts should
be resolved in favor of labor, "e all the &ore find it co&pellin+ to rule that the
co&plainant is still entitled to the contractuall' covenanted su& of 3S48:,666.66. 111.0
2
?e disa+ree. The contract of e&plo'&ent bet"een petitioners and Orlando is
cate+orical that the &onthl' salar' of Orlando is 3S4*56.66 ,-at "at.. This alread'
included his overti&e pa' "hich is inte+rated in his #% hours of "or.. The "ords 0plus
tips of 3S4%.66 per passen+er per da'0 "ere "ritten at the line for overti&e. Since
pa'&ent for overti&e "as included in the &onthl' salar' of Orlando, the supposed tips
&entioned in the contract should be dee&ed included thereat.
The actuations of Orlando durin+ his e&plo'&ent also sho" that he "as a"are his
&onthl' salar' is onl' 3S4*56.66, no &ore no less. 7e did not raise an' co&plaint
about the non>pa'&ent of his tips durin+ the entire duration of his e&plo'&ent. $fter the
e1piration of his contract, he de&anded pa'&ent onl' of his vacation leave pa'. 7e did
not i&&ediatel' see. the pa'&ent of tips. 7e onl' as.ed for the pa'&ent of tips "hen
he filed this case before the labor arbiter. This sho"s that the alle+ed non>pa'&ent of
tips "as a &ere afterthou+ht to bloat up his clai&. The records of the case do not sho"
that Orlando "as deprived of an' &onthl' salar'. It "ill no" be un;ust to i&pose a
burden on the e&plo'er "ho perfor&ed the contract in +ood faith.
Further&ore, it is presu&ed that the parties "ere a"are of the plain, ordinar' and
co&&on &eanin+ of the "ord 0tip.0 $s a bartender, Orlando can not fei+n i+norance on
the practice of tippin+ and that tips are nor&all' paid b' custo&ers and not b' the
e&plo'er.
It is also absurd that petitioners intended to +ive Orlando a salar' hi+her than that of the
ship captain.1wphi1 $s petitioners point out, the captain of M/V 0Orient Princess0
receives 3S48,666.66 per &onth "hile Orlando "ill receive 3S48,*56.66 per &onth if
the tip of 3S4%.66 per passen+er per da' "ill be +iven in addition to his 3S4*56.66
&onthl' salar'. It "ill be a+ainst co&&on sense for an e&plo'er to +ive a lo"er ran.ed
e&plo'ee a hi+her co&pensation than an e&plo'ee "ho holds the hi+hest position in
an enterprise.
7o"ever, Orlando should be paid his vacation leave pa'. Petitioners denied this liabilit'
b' raisin+ the defense that the usual practice is that vacation leave pa' is +iven before
repatriation. Fut as the labor arbiter correctl' observed, petitioners did not present an'
evidence to prove that the' alread' paid the a&ount. The burden of provin+ pa'&ent
"as not dischar+ed b' the petitioners.
IN VIE/ /#EREO&, the resolutions of the !ourt of $ppeals in !$ H.R. SP No. 5856=
are reversed and set aside. The decision of the labor arbiter orderin+ petitioners to pa'
;ointl' and severall' the unpaid vacation leave pa' of private respondent, Orlando
$lonsa+a', in the a&ount of 3S4*56.66 and dis&issin+ his other clai& for lac. of &erit
is reinstated.
SO ORDRD.
3