Case # 10

Dayag vs. Canizares

Facts:

The seven petitioners, William Dayag, et.al, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
wages, overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and actual, moral
and exemplary damages against Alfredo Young, a building contractor doing business under the firm name
Young’s Construction. They filed the complaint with the NCR Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The case
was subsequently assigned to Labor Arbiter Canizares. According to the petitioners, they were hired by
Young to work as tower crane operators at the latter’s construction site in San Juan, Metro Manila then they
were transferred to Cebu City to work at the construction of his Shoemart Cebu project. The petitioners left
Cebu for Manila purportedly due to harassment by Young.
Instead of attending the initial hearings set by the labor arbiter, Young filed a motion to transfer the
case to the Regional Arbitration Branch, Region VII of the NLRC. He claimed that the workplace where
petitioners were regularly assigned was in Cebu City and that, in consonance with Section 1(a) of Rule IV
of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the case should have been filed in Cebu City. The labor arbiter,
agreeing that petitioners’ workplace when the cause of action accrued was Cebu City, granted Young’s
motion and ordered the transmittal of the case to the regional arbitration branch of Region VII. The
petitioners promptly appealed said order to the NLRC, which, however, dismissed the same for lack of
merit. Hence, the recourse to this Court by petitioners.
Issue:

Whether or not the proper venue is at Cebu City, being the workplace of the complainants

Ruling:
No.
In the recent case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC this Court held that the question of venue essentially
pertains to the trial and relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and
merits of the case. It underscored the fact that the permissive rules underlying provisions on venue are
intended to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. With
more reason does the principle find applicability in cases involving labor and management because of the
doctrine well-entrenched in our jurisdiction that the State shall afford full protection to labor.
The rationale for the rule is obvious. The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party—
whether as complainant/petitioner or as respondent, as the case may be, the nearest governmental
machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal, and the other party is not to be
given the choice of another competent agency sitting in another place as this will unduly burden the former.
In fact, even in cases where venue has been stipulated by the parties, this Court has not hesitated to set
aside the same if it would lead to a situation so grossly inconvenient to one party as to virtually negate his
claim.
In the case at hand, the ruling specifying the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch as the venue
of the present action cannot be considered oppressive to Young. His residence in Corinthian Gardens also
serves as his correspondent office. Certainly, the filing of the suit in the National Capital Region Arbitration
Branch in Manila will not cause him as much inconvenience as it would the petitioners, who are now
residents of Metro Manila, if the same was heard in Cebu. Hearing the case in Manila would clearly
expedite proceedings and bring about the speedy resolution of instant case.
VirJen Shipping and Marine Services vs. NLRC
GR L-58011 & L-58012 (November 18, 1983)

Facts:
Certain seamen entered into a contract of employment for a 12-month period. Some three months
after the commencement of their employment, the seamen demanded a 50% increase of their
salaries and benefits. The seamen demanded this increase while their vessel was on route to a port
in Australia controlled by the International Transport Federation (ITP) where the ITF could
detain the vessels unless it paid its season ITF rates. The facts showed that when the seamen
boarded the vessel M/T Jannu, there was no intention to send their ship to Australia but would
trade in Carribean ports only. The agent of the owner of the vessel agreed to a 25% increase, but
when the vessel arrived in Japan shortly afterwards, the seamen were repatriated to Manila and
their contracts terminated.

The seamen (private respondents) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Seamen
Board. The NSB rendered a decision declaring that the seamen breached their employment
contracts when they demanded and received from Vir-Jen Shipping wages over and above their
contracted rates.

The NSB decision was appealed to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the NSB and required
the petitioner to pay wages and other monetary benefits corresponding to the unexpired portion
of the manning contract on the ground that the termination of the seamen was without a valid
cause.

Two motions for reconsideration filed with Second Division were denied by said Division. Another
motion for reconsideration was filed with the Supreme Court en banc which gave its due
course, after finding that there was a need to reconcile the decision of the Second Division with
that of the First Division with the Wallem Decision (an earlier case having the same facts). In that
decision, the First Division had ruled that the termination of the seamen was illegal.

Issue:

Whether or not the termination of the seamen was illegal.

Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court en banc found the termination of the seamen’s contract illegal. The
contention that the manning industries in the Philippines would not survive if the instant case is
not decided in favor of the petitioner and would in effect “kill the hen that lays the golden egg” is
not supported by evidence. Filipino seamen are admittedly as competent and reliable as seamen
from any other country in the world. It is competence and reliability, not cheap labor that makes
our seamen so greatly in demand. Certainly the seamen are entitled to government protection
when they ask fair and decent treatment by their employers and when they exercise the right to
petition for improved terms of employment, especially when they fell that these are substandard
or are capable of improvement according to internationally accepted rules.

The seamen did not violate their contracts of employment. The form contracts approved by the
National Seamen Board (now POEA) are designed to protect Filipinos, not foreign shipowners
who can take care of themselves. The standard forms embody the basic minimums which must be
incorporated as parts of the employment contract. To state, therefore, that the affected seamen
cannot petition their employer for higher salaries during the 12-month duration of the contract
runs counter to the established principles of labor legislation.