[368] Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., A.P. Maller Singapore PTE Ltd. v.

Avestruz1 (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
G.R. No. 207010 | February 18, 2015 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge.
TOPIC: Termination of Employment by Employer – Substantive Requirements – Just Causes  In this case, the emails did not establish that respondent’s conduct was willful or
– Willful Disobedience – Gross Insubordination characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude.
 The Court concurs with the CA’s observation that Avestruz’s statement regarding
SUMMARY: Respondent Avestruz was hired as a cook on a ship. One day, he got into an the incident in the galley deserves more credence, being corroborated by Kong (a
altercation with the ship captain because the garbage bin in the kitchen was oily. Respondent messman who witnessed the same).
was dismissed. Upon complaint, petitioners avail of the defense of termination on the ground  Conversely, apart from Captain Woodward’s emails, no other evidence was
of insubordination, as evidenced by emails. SC did not give credence to the defense or its presented by the petitioners to support their claims.
evidence.  While the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before
administrative bodies, petitioners should have offered additional proof to
DOCTRINE: Insubordination, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, necessitates corroborate the statements described therein.
the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been  Respondent was also not given any written notice of the charge against him nor
willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and (2) the order violated given opportunity to explain or defend himself. He was only verbally informed that
must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the he would be dismissed from service.
duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
RULING: The petition is denied. The CA decision is affirmed.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Art. 297 (282) (a)

FACTS:
 Petitioner hired respondent as a chief cook for a period of 6 months aboard the
vessel M/V Nedlloyrd Drake.
 Respondent got into an altercation with the ship captain when the latter noticed the
cover of the garbage bin in the kitchen was oily.
 As a result of the incident, respondent was dismissed.
 Respondent filed for illegal dismissal alleging that no investigation or hearing was
conducted nor was he given any notice stating the ground for his dismissal.
 LA dismissed the complaint.
 NLRC affirmed but ruled that petitioners failed to observe the procedure laid down
in the POEA-SEC.
 CA reversed.
 Petitioners contend that respondent was dismissed on the ground of
insubordination for repeatedly failing to obey his superior’s order to maintain
cleanliness in the ship. They presented e-mails which the claim chronicled relevant
circumstances that led to respondent’s dismissal.

ISSUE/HOLDING: W/N there was illegal dismissal. – YES.

RATIONALE:
 The Court did not give credence to the emails.
 Insubordination, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, necessitates the
concurrence of at least two requisites:
(1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized
by a wrongful and perverse attitude and

1 Digest mostly from C2021.