Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
*
G.R. No. 138193. March 5, 2003.
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
607
608
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
1
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February
11, 1999 and the March 26, 1999 Resolutions of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 50667. The assailed
Resolutions dismissed a Petition filed in the CA,
challenging an adverse ruling of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). The first Resolution
disposed as follows:
2
“We resolve to OUTRIGHTLY DISMISS the petition.”
______________
609
3
The second Resolution denied petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration.
On the other hand, the NLRC Decision disposed in this
wise:
The Facts
______________
610
611
pay and termination pay. The Decision held that there was
a constructive dismissal of private respondent, since he had
not been paid his salary for seven months. It also dismissed
petitioner’s contention that there was a novation of the
employment contract.
On appeal, the NLRC (Third Division) affirmed the LA’s
Decision, with a modification as to the amount of liability.
On January
7
28, 1999, petitioner filed with the CA a
Petition to set aside the NLRC judgment. The petition was
dismissed, because petitioner had allegedly failed to comply
with the requirements of Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court. Specifically, petitioner had attached to its
Petition, not a duplicate original or a certified true copy of
the LA’s Decision, but a mere machine copy thereof.
Further, it had not indicated the8 actual address of Private
Respondent Fermin F. Guerrero.
9
Hence, this Petition.
The Issues
612
Procedural Issue:
Compliance with the Rules of Court
______________
613
______________
614
Substantive Issue:
Liability of Petitioner for Unpaid Salaries
______________
615
now on its ninth year since its inception, at the LA’s office.
Its remand to the CA will only unduly 20
delay its disposition.
In the interest of substantial justice, this Court will decide
the case on the merits based upon the records of the case,
particularly those relating to the OSM Shipping
Philippines’ Petition before the CA.
On behalf of its principal, PC-SASCO, petitioner does
not deny hiring Private Respondent Guerrero as master
mariner. However, it argues that since he was not deployed
overseas, his employment contract became ineffective,
because its object was allegedly absent. Petitioner contends
that using the vessel in coastwise trade and subsequently
chartering it to another principal had the effect of novating
the employment contract. We are not persuaded.
As approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency (POEA), petitioner
21
was the legitimate manning
agent of PC-SASCO. As such, it was allowed to select,
recruit, hire and deploy seamen on board the vessel M/V
Princess22 Hoa, which was managed by its principal, PC-
SASCO. It was in this capacity that petitioner hired
private respondent as master mariner. They then executed
and agreed upon an employment contract.
An employment contract, like any other contract, is
perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree upon
its terms; and (2) concur in the essential elements thereof:
(a) consent of the contracting parties, (b) object certain
which is the subject
23
matter of the contract, and (c) cause of
the obligation. Based on the perfected contract, Private
Respondent Guerrero complied with his obligations
thereunder and rendered his services on board the vessel.
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the contract had an
object, which was the rendition of service by private
respondent on board the vessel. The non-deployment of the
ship overseas did not affect the validity of the perfected
employment contract. After all,
______________
616
______________
24 Security Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Cuenca, 341 SCRA 781,
October 3, 2000; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 239, July 27, 1998;
Tiu Siuco v. Habana, 45 Phil. 707, February 21, 1924.
25 Philippine Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation v. NLRC, 264
SCRA 418, November 19, 1996; Chavez v. Bonto-Perez, 242 SCRA 73,
March 1, 1995; Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 212
SCRA 132, August 4, 1992.
26 “SEC. 1. Requirements for Issuance of License.—Every applicant for
license to operate a private employment agency or manning agency shall
submit a written application together with the following requirements:
x x x x x x x x x
f. A verified undertaking stating that the applicant:
x x x x x x x x x
(3) Shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and
liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the contract;
including but not limited to payment of wages, health and disability compensation
and reparation [.]
617
VOL. 398, MARCH 5, 2003 617
OSM Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission
——o0o——
______________
29 Id., p. 695, citing NLRC Resolution in the same case, per Cortes, J.
618
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.