Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships Management, GR No.

179532, 30 May 2011

FACTS:
Yap was employed as electrician of the vessel by Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. in
behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping Limited for a 12 month contract.
3 months after Yap commenced his job as electrician, the vessel was sold and scrapped.
Yap insisted that he was entitled to the payment of the unexpired portion of his contract
since he was illegally dismissed from employment.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC Commission sided with seafarers arguments and
ruled that there was illegal dismissal and granted the nine months wages remaining in his
contract.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the illegal dismissal but only granted three
months wages as per Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers Act).
o Under Section 10 of Republic Act 8042, the liability of the employer for illegal
termination of the employment of an overseas worker is: his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
ISSUE:
Whether the provision of three months violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the aforesaid provision of three months violates the
equal protection clause of the Constitution as it only applies to overseas workers with less
than one year contacts and not to local workers with fixed term employment and also not
to overseas workers with unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling on illegal dismissal but ruled that seafarer should
be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. Thus, seafarer
should be paid his remaining nine months salary and not just three months as ruled by
the Court of Appeals.
The doctrine of operative fact is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will
impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
o This case should not be included in the aforementioned exception. To rule
otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect,
send a wrong signal that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies
may violate an OFWs security of tenure which an employment contract
embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an unconstitutional
provision of law.