THE EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE TOLERATED AS IT AMOUNTS TO A

DECEPTIVE SCHEME TO UNCONDITIONALLY ABSOLVE EMPLOYERS FROM EVERY

LIABILITY.
JUAN B. HERNANDEZ vs. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., MYKONOS SIDPPING
CO., LTD., and ELEAZAR DIAZ

G.R. No. 209098, November 14, 2016

Facts: Petitioner Juan B, Hernandez has been working continuously for respondents Mykonos
Shipping Co., Ltd. (Mykonos ), Crossworld Marine Services, Inc. (Crossworld), and Eleazar Diaz
(Diaz) - Crossworld's President/Chief Executive Officer - since November 14, 2005, under
different employment contracts covering the latter's several oceangoing vessels. On October 7,
2008, petitioner was once more engaged by respondents to work as Chief Cook aboard the vessel
M/V Nikomarin. When his contract expired, petitioner's service was extended for an additional five
months. Thereafter, he was repatriated on December 19, 2009.
With a view to serving respondents anew under a new contract, petitioner was made to undergo
a pre-employment medical examination on March 22, 2010, and he was found to be suffering
from hypertension and diabetes mellitus. He was declared fit for duty and required to take
maintenance medication. However, respondents deferred his employment on account of his state
of health. Petitioner consulted two separate physicians who turned out the same diagnosis: that
he was suffering from hypertension, stage 2, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, and was therefore unfit
for sea duty in whatever capacity as seaman. Petitioner demanded compensation by way of
disability benefits and medical expenses from respondents, but the latter refused to pay.
LA ruled against the claim of petitioner while NLRC reversed the LA. CA, however, ruled against
the claim of petitioner. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2012, respondents paid petitioner the amount of
the judgment award - or the sum of ₱2,702,766.00. In return, petitioner was made to sign a
Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment (All Without Prejudice to the Pending Petition for Certiorari in
the Court of Appeals)
Issue: Whether the petition was rendered moot and academic by the voluntary payment of the
judgment award by respondents.
Held: Yes. by affixing his signature upon the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment, Receipt of
Payment, and Affidavit, petitioner effectively surrendered all his rights and waived all his claims
and causes of action in all jurisdictions, and in exchange for nothing. Indeed, in the Affidavit,
petitioner even went so far as to certify and warrant that he will not file any other complaint or
prosecute any suit or action here or in any other country after receiving the settlement amount.
Within the context of the constitutional, legislative, and jurisprudential guarantees afforded to
labor, the position petitioner has been led into is unjust, unfair, and arbitrary.
Respondents could have simply paid the judgment award without attaching conditions that have
far-reaching consequences other than those intended by a simple compliance with what was
required under the circumstances - that is, the mandatory execution proceedings following a
favorable judgment allowed under the Labor Code. But they did not; they had to find a way to tie
petitioner's hands permanently, dangling the check as bait, so to speak. To borrow from a fairly
recent ruling of the Court, ''[t]he execution [of the documents] cannot be tolerated as it amounts
to a deceptive scheme to unconditionally absolve employers from every liability. For what they
did, respondents are guilty of bad faith, and should suffer the consequences of their actions.
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY THE EMPLOYEE WHICH JUSTIFIES THE EMPLOYER IN
TERMINATING HIS OR HER EMPLOYMENT.
MARY ANN G. VENZON, EDDIE D. GUTIERREZ, JOSE M. GUTIERREZ, JR. AND MONA LIZA
L. CABAL v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ENGR. FIDEL S. CORREA,
GENERAL MANAGER
G.R. No. 213934, November 09, 2016
Facts: Petitioner Jose M. Gutierrez, Jr. was the Manager of Administrative and Personnel
Department, Mary Ann Venzon was the Manager of Member Service Department, Eddie Gutierrez
was a member of the Operation and Disconnection Team and Monaliza L. Cabal was an
accounting staff. All of them were employees of ZAameco II.

OIC-General Manager Engr. Alvin Farrales designated petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. as Officer-in-
Charge of the cooperative during his official travel to Manila on September 3, 2009. On
September, 3, 2009, the CDA authorities arrived in ZAMECO II to assume management of the
cooperative. This was opposed by the existing management of ZAMECO II. The following day,
September 4, 2009, Petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. issued a Memorandum for and in behalf of Farrales
directing the employees to proceed to the main office in compliance with the directive of the CDA
appointed officers. Thus, a meeting was held on the same date at ZAMECO II's office in San
Antonio led by CDA representatives which was participated by petitioners Gutierez, Jr., Venzon
and Gutierez.
Engr. Farrales issued a memoranda directing them to explain why no disciplinary action should
be taken against them for failure to report for work on the said date and for violating the Company
Code of Ethics and Discipline and the Employees Code of Conduct. On October 27, 2009,
petitioners were dismissed from employment. The order of dismissal was served to them on
November 20, 2009 but they refused to receive the same. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of 13th month pay, damages payment of allowances.
LA declared that the petitioners were illegally dismissed. NLRC reversed the LA. CA affirmed the
NLRC.
Issue: Whether the petitioners were validly dismissed.
Held: Yes. A lawful dismissal must meet both substantive and procedural requirements; in fine,
the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary due
process of notice and hearing. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides the just causes for
dismissing an employee. One of the grounds is serious misconduct by the employee which
justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment. Petitioners obviously aligned
themselves with the former Board of Directors led by Dominguez in trying to wrest control of the
management of ZAMECO II. In deciding to get involved in the power play, petitioners relinquished
their duties as employees. They defied the instructions and directives of the Interim Board of
Directors as well as that of the General Manager. Instead, they followed the instructions of the
Board of Directors and officers designated by the CDA.

Under these factual premises, We cannot help but consider the petitioners' misconduct to be of
grave and aggravated character so that the cooperative was justified in imposing the highest
penalty available — dismissal. Furthermore, Article 296(c) states that loss of trust and confidence
in the employee is a just cause for dismissal. But it will validate an employee's dismissal only
upon compliance with certain requirements, namely: (1) the employee concerned must be holding
a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust
and confidence.
IN DISABILITY COMPENSATION CLAIMS, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT [THE
SEAFARER] WAS UNABLE TO PERFORM HIS CUSTOMARY WORKFOR MORE THAN 120
DAYS WHICH CONSTITUTES PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY.

ELMER A. APINES vs. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AND/OR DANILO

F. VENIDA

G.R. No. 202114, November 09, 2016

Facts: Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. (ESPI) is a local manning agency, with Danilo
F. Venida as representative (collectively, the respondents). Emirates Trading Agency LLC (ETAL)
is among ESPI's foreign principals. On September 11, 2007, Apines boarded ETAL's ship, M/V
Bandar TBN Trans Gulf, for an eight-month engagement as bosun. Apines claimed that sometime
in the third week of September, a British surveyor was on board the ship to inspect the cargo hold.
Captain Glicerio Castañares (Capt. Castañares) and Chief Mate Edgardo Llevares instructed
Apines to put an apparatus on the top tank of the cargo hold to check for possible leaks. Apines
promptly complied with the order. On his way up from the cargo hold, he accidentally stepped on
scattered iron ore pellets causing his left knee to strongly hit the steel railings of the ladder, and
for him to slip and fall. According to Apines, despite a sprain and swollen ankle, he was able to
stand up and walk. When the pain eventually became intolerable, Apines informed Capt.
Castañares about his condition. Apines was given analgesics.
Apines claimed that since the pain in his left knee even worsened, he requested for immediate
repatriation on medical grounds.
ESPI claimed that it referred Apines to a company-designated doctor, but the latter consulted his
own physicians instead. Apines consulted Dr. Patrick O. Leh (Dr. Leh), an orthopedic surgeon in
CGH. The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Leh indicated that Apines had "degenerative
osteoarthritis" and "medial meniscal tear" in his left knee. Dr. Leh assessed that Apines "may
return to work after 30 [to] 45 days," but "needs continued medical treatment for osteoarthritis."
On June 6, 2008, Apines filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a
Complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical, hospital and
transportation expenses, moral and exemplary damages, sickness allowance, attorney's fees and
legal interest.

Issues: 1. Whether Apines failure to comply with the 72-hour reporting requirement fatal to his
claim.
2. Whether Apines is entitled total and permanent disability benefits.

Held: 1. No. The absence of a post-employment medical examination cannot be used to defeat
respondent's claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to the
seafarer's fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of petitioners. As indicated in the Exit
Interview and Crew De-briefing Checklist, Apines promptly reported to ESPI's office within 72-
hours from repatriation. Admittedly, Apines failed to offer documentary proofs of the respondents'
denial to assist him in his medical needs. However, Apines cannot be faulted for the said lack
since the custody of the documents, if there were any at all, pertains more to the respondents.
2. Yes. In disability compensation claims, "what is important is that [the seafarer] was unable to
perform his customary workfor more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability,"
since "an award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the purpose of
the benefit, which is to help the employee in making ends meet at the time when he is unable to
work. Due to ESPI's failure or refusal to issue a medical rating within 120 days from repatriation,
in legal contemplation, Apines' disability is conclusively presumed to be total and permanent.