G.R. No.

78409 September 14, 1989

NORBERTO SORIANO, petitioner,
vs.
OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.S., and
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), respondents.
Facts: Petitioner was hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through an
authorized shipping agent. He was hired as Third Marine Engineer with a salary of
US$ 800 a month. The contract was extended for 6 months by mutual agreement on
the promise of the employer that petitioner will be promoted as Second Engineer.
He joined the vessel on July 23, 1985 but he signed off on November 27, 1985 due
to the failure of private respondent to fulfill its promise of promoting him and the
alleged unilateral alteration of his basic salary from US$ 800 to US$ 560. Petitioner
was made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila.
On his return, he filed with POEA complaint against private respondent for payment
of salary differential, overtime pay, unpaid salary for November 1985 and refund for
his airfare and his cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20,000. He contended that
private respondent unilaterally altered the contract and compelled him to request
for his repatriation to the Philippines.
POEA found that petitioner-complainants total monthly salary was US$ 800
inclusive of the fixed overtime which was in accordance with the Wage Scale
submitted to the Accreditation Department of its office therefore the petitioner was
not entitled of any salary differential; the allegation of the petitioner-complainant
that there was contract substitution was not true because the Employment
Contract correction was in accordance with the Wage Scale duly approved by POEA;
and the petitioner is not entitled with refund of on his repatriation expense because
it was voluntary on his part. Lastly, he only deposited P15,000 of cash bond instead
of P 20, 000.
POEA ruled that private respondent pay the petitioner the amount of P15,000 for
the reimbursement of cash bond and 10% of the said award for attorneys fee. The
decision was appealed to NLRC but both are dismissed, the complainant-petitioner
for lack of merit while respondents appeal was filed out of time. Petitioners motion
for reconsideration was also denied.
Issue: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded
the alteration of the employment contract, which is prohibited under Art. 34 of the
Labor Code ,when in fact it is in accordance with the wage scale approved by the
POEA?
Held: There was no alteration in the contract. The correction was only made to
specify the salary and overtime pay. It was a mere breakdown of the total amount of
US$560 as basic wage and US$ 240 as overtime pay. The court held that the

presence of petitioners signature makes it impossible for him to misunderstand the

amount of compensation. His acts were tainted with bad faith: he failed to disclose
that he was the one who requested for his repatriation when the promise of
promoting him did not prosper; he only posted P 15, 000 instead of P20,000 as cash
bond; he claimed that his salary for November was not paid when in fact he was the
one who owed private respondent for cash advancement and; when he finished his
contract, despite of the prodding to continue his work until the renewal of his
contract, petitioner insisted on his termination. The conflict centers on the failure of
the respondent company to give the petitioner the promised promotion. Although
alteration of contract is a serious violation of the law, the court held that laws
should be given reasonable interpretation. It should not be interpreted in such a
way that it defeats the purpose of the law. And the purpose of Art. 34 of the Labor
Code was the protection of both parties. While it is true that when there is doubt on
the interpretation of agreement and writings, it should be resolved in favor of the
employee, it does not mean that the employers right should be disregarded. Doing
so for the interests solely of the labor would also be unjust and unacceptable.
Ruling: petition was denied. The assailed decision of the NLRC is affirmed in toto.