V. Medequillo GR No. 177498 January 18, 2012 1 st contract: November 6, 1991 9 months $808 + $404 OT pay
Feb 2, 1991 ordered by the ship captain to disembark the vessel and repatriated back to manila for no reason or explanation
April 23, 1992 transferred employment and second contract was approved
No deployment
Dec 1994 respondent demanded for his passport and other employment documents but was only allowed in exchange of signing a document No novation; 1 st contract is different and separate from that of the 2 nd contract
Complaint re 1 st contract already prescribed (3 yrs)
*actual deployment is a suspensive condition for the commencement of the employment
No dismissal as there was no er- ee relationship
Breach but with valid reason
Reprimand instead as penalty for non-deployment Respondent was still employed under the 1 st contract when he negotiated with the petitioners on the second contract novation became an unavoidable conclusion
1 st the start of the 3 yr period must be reckoned on feb 1992, which was the date of his repatriation. The cause of action under the 1 st contract was already time-barred
Yes. But, without actual employment, the perfected contract gives rise to obligations on the part of the petitioners
Yes. According to POEA standard employment contract as there was no actual departure of the seafarer from the point of hire. However, this does not mean that the seafarer has no remedy in case of non-deployment without any valid reason
Cannot be sustained as there was no evidence to prove the same was submitted
POEA 1991 is applicable because the breach of contract happened on feb 1992 Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or modifies the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions or by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor
Even before the start of the er-ee relationship, the perfection of the contract gave birth to certain rights and obligations, the breach of which may give rise to cause of action against the erring party Bright Maritime Corporation v. Fantonial GR No. 165935 Feb 8, 2012 January 15, 2000 contract of employment
January 17, 2000 medical examination; med cert with fit work; schedule of flight; PDOS seminar; was advised by the liaison officer that he could not leave because there are some defects on his med cert;
January 18, 2000 he was told that there was nothing wrong with his med cert
May 16, 2000 complaint for illegal dismissal was filed
Preventing respondent to leave Manila is valid
Employment contract was not perfected
Should not award monetary benefits
The explanation of the doctor as to the standard operating procedure is against logic and chronological recording of medical procedures
It was perfected but did not commence when the petitioner was not able to depart from the point of hire. However, the perfection of the contract gave rise to certain rights and obligations, breach of which would give cause of action against the erring party
Award for moral damages amounting to 30K for the act of the petitioner was tainted with bad faith; exemplary damages must also be awarded for the correction for the public good view of the petitioners action of preventing the respondent from being deployed because he is not fit to work, despite evidence to the contrary; attorneys fees should also be awarded for the petitioners act compelled the respondent to incur expenses to protect his rights
Estate of Nelso Dulay v Aboitiz GR No. 172642 June 13, 2012 Nelson Dulay was hired and initially worked as an ordinary seaman
RA 8042 is applicable, hence, NLRC has jurisdiction on the case There is no specific provision thereunder which provides for jurisdiction over disputes or unresolved grievances regarding
25 days after the completion of his contract, Dulay died because of renal failure; he was a bona fide member of AMOSUP at the time of his death
Nelsons brother received 20K pursuant to art. 20(a)2 of the CBA the interpretation or implementation of CBA. Art 217 and 261 of the Labor Code are very specific in stating that VA have jurisdiction in cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of CBA
It is clear that the parties, in the first place, really intended to bring to conciliation or VA any dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of the provisions of CA
Yap v Thenamaris GR No. 179532 May 30, 2011 Yap was employed as electrician for the duration of 12 months
After 3 months, vessel was sold
Yap received bonuses, but refused to accept 1 month wage. Said he is entitled to the payment of the unexpired portion of the contract for illegal dismissal Illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to backwages for the unexpired portion of the contract
5 th par, sec 10 of RA 8042 is violative of sec1, art 3 and sec 3, art 13 for it gives an erring employer the option to pay an illegally dismissed migrant worker only 3 months for every year of the unexpired term of the contract and that it violates equal protection of law Illegal dismissal is not disputed.
This case should not be different from Serrano Docrine of operative fact applies as a matter of equity and fair play People v Ganigan GR No. 156497 August 20, 2008 35 people and appellees complained of illegal recruitment against Marcos Ganigan
The group was asked to pay 2K for assurance fee and additional fees Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
The fees are for the registrpation to the Catholic Mission The great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court on the ascertainment of the credibility of the witnesses
Romero v People Private respondent asked Romero Petitioner did not recruit the The act of the petitioner clearly GR no. 171644 November 23, 2011 about securing a job in Israel
Romero got money from respondent to process his papers
Respondent was able to secure a job in Israel but was caught and detained for not having a working visa
respondents lies within the definition of recruitment and placement as defined in art 13, par b of the labor code