Professional Documents
Culture Documents
32. Leonora
Caballero 13,900.00
33. Julianita
Aranador 14,000.00
NARVASA, J.:
In connection with the application with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) of J & B Manpower Specialist,
Inc. for a license to engage in business as a recruitment agency,
a surety bond was filed on January 2, 1985 by the applicant and
the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation, herein petitioner,
in virtue of which they both held themselves
. . . firmly bound unto (said) Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, Ministry of Labor in the
penal sum of PESOS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
ONLY . . . (Pl50,000.00) for the payment of which will
and truly to be made, . . . (they bound themselves,
Footnotes
1 This limitation is stated no less than three (3) times
in the surety bond.
2 The blanks were not filed up by the parties.
3 Rollo, pp. 48-49; parenthetical statements supplied.
4 Emphasis supplied.
5 Rollo, pp. 41-42 being pp. 1 and 2 of the Resolution
of the Deputy Minister dated Dec. 19, 1986, in which
are enumerated the complainants entitled to refund the
amounts individually due to them.
6 The list of complainants entitled to refund and the
amounts respectively due them are set forth at pages
10 and 11 of the Order of the respondent
Secretary: Rollo, pp. 54-55.
7 Id., pp. 9-34. The petition is dated September 12,
1987.
8 Emphasis supplied.
9 Sec. 3 of Rule VI, Book II of the New Rules on
Overseas Employment
10 Sec. 2 (a) and (2), id.
11 Sec. 10, id.
FELICIANO, J.:
The petitioner, Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation (Pascor,
in short), seeks the annulment and setting aside of the
Resolutions of the public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) dated 14 August 1986 and 19 November
1986, denying Pascor's appeal for having been filed out of time
and denying its Motion for Reconsideration, respectively.
POEA office had already closed for the day. Thus, the
appeal was filed the following day.
To Support the above explanation, in addition to an affidavit
executed by Mr. Ruben de la Cruz, petitioner submitted a
certification dated 2 May 1986 executed by Evelyn G. Sauza,
receive . receiving clerk of respondent NLRC stating that she had
read to receive the Memorandum on Appeal on or about 4:15
P.M., 28 April 1986, because the Memorandum was supposed to
be filed with the POEA office in Ortigas and not with the NLRC in
Intramuros.
The brevity of the delay in filing an appeal is not, of course, by
itself a sufficient basis for giving due course to the appeal. In the
present case, however, the factual circumstances combine with
the legal merits of the case urged by the petitioner to move us to
the conviction that respondent NLRC should have recognized and
heeded the requirements of orderly procedure and substantial
justice which are at stake in the present case by allowing the
appeal. In Siguenza v. Court of appeals, 5 the Court stressed that
the right to appeal should not be lightly disregarded by a
stringent application of rules of procedure especially where the
appeal is on its face meritorious and the interests of substantial
justice would be served by permitting the appeal:
In the case of Castro v. Court of Appeals (132 SCRA
782), we stressed the importance and real purpose of
the remedy of appeal and ruled:
An appeal is an essential part of our judicial
system. We have advised the courts to
proceed with caution so as not to deprive a
party of the right to appeal (National
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v.
CORTES, J.:
In POEA Case No. 85-06-0394, the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) promulgated a decision on
February 4, 1986 dismissing the complaint for money claims for
Footnotes
* Under the POEA Rules and Regulations, "[a]ny
agency or entity which fails to renew its license or
authority shall, upon expiration thereof, be immediately
delisted and disallowed from conducting recruitment
and placement." [Rule II, see. 17.]
CRUZ, J.:
The sole issue submitted in this case is the validity of the order of
respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated October
30, 1992, dismissing the petitioner's appeal from a decision of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration on the
ground of failure to post the required appeal bond. 1
The respondent cited the second paragraph of Article 223 of the
Labor Code as amended, providing that:
In the case of a judgment involving a monetary award,
an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon
the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a
rules, E.O. 247 (reorganizing POEA) and the POEA Rules, as well
as the settlement of other liabilities the recruiter may incur.
As for the escrow agreement, it was presumably intended to
provide for a standing fund, as it were, to be used only as a last
resort and not to be reduced with the enforcement against it of
every claim of recruited workers that may be adjudged against
the employer. This amount may not even be enough to cover
such claims and, even if it could initially, may eventually be
exhausted after satisfying other subsequent claims.
As it happens, the decision sought to be appealed grants a
monetary award of about P170,000 to the dismissed employee,
the herein private respondent. The standby guarantees required
by the POEA Rules would be depleted if this award were to be
enforced not against the appeal bond but against the bonds and
the escrow money, making them inadequate for the satisfaction
of the other obligations the recruiter may incur.
Indeed, it is possible for the monetary award in favor of the
employee to exceed the amount of P350,000, which is the sum of
the bonds and escrow money required of the recruiter.
It is true that these standby guarantees are not imposed on local
employers, as the petitioner observes, but there is a simple
explanation for this distinction. Overseas recruiters are subject to
more stringent requirement because of the special risks to which
our workers abroad are subjected by their foreign employers,
against whom there is usually no direct or effective recourse. The
overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with a foreign employer. The
bonds and the escrow money are intended to insure more care on
the part of the local agent in its choice of the foreign principal to
whom our overseas workers are to be sent.
Bellosillo, J, is on leave.
2007,
the
appellate
petitioner can be held liable renders the law on joint and solidary
liability inutile.
As to petitioners contentions that Philippine labor laws
on probationary employment are not applicable since it was
expressly provided in respondents employment contract, which
she voluntarily entered into, that the terms of her engagement
shall be governed by prevailing Kuwaiti Civil Service Laws and
Regulations as in fact POEA Rules accord respect to such rules,
customs and practices of the host country, the same was not
substantiated.
Indeed, a contract freely entered into is considered the law
between the parties who can establish stipulations, clauses, terms
and conditions as they may deem convenient, including the laws
which they wish to govern their respective obligations, as long as
they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
or public policy.
It is hornbook principle, however, that the party invoking the
application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law,
under the doctrine of processual presumptionwhich, in this case,
petitioners failed to discharge. The Courts ruling in EDIStaffbuilders Intl., v. NLRC[10] illuminates:
In the present case, the employment contract
signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi
Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for
in the contract (e.g. specific causes for termination,
termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended
by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the
contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters
relating to the termination of the employment of Gran.
In international law, the party who wants to have
PUNO, J.:
One of the anguished cries in our society today is that while our
laws appear to protect the poor, their interpretation is sometimes
anti-poor. In the case at bench, petitioner, a poor, uncounselled
entertainment dancer signed a contract with her Japanese
employer calling for a monthly salary of One Thousand Five
Hundred U.S. Dollars (US$1,500) but later had to sign an
immoral side agreement reducing her salary below the minimum
standard set by the POEA. Petitioner invoked the law to collect
her salary differentials, but incredibly found public respondent
straining the seams of our law to disfavor her. There is no greater
disappointment to the poor like petitioner than to discover the
ugly reality behind the beautiful rhetoric of laws. We will not allow
this travesty.
This is a petition for certiorari to review the Decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), 1 dated December
29, 1992, which affirmed the Decision of public respondent
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Administrator
Jose N. Sarmiento, dated February 17, 1992, dismissing
petitioner's complaint for unpaid salaries amounting to Six
Thousand Dollars (US$6,000.00).
The facts are undisputed.
On December 1, 1988, petitioner, an entertainment dancer,
entered into a standard employment contract for overseas Filipino
artists and entertainers with Planning Japan Co., Ltd., 2 through
its Philippine representative, private respondent Centrum
Placement & Promotions Corporation. The contract had a duration
of two (2) to six (6) months, and petitioner was to be paid a
monthly compensation of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
(US$1,5000.00). On December 5, 1888, the POEA approved the
contract. Subsequently, petitioner executed the following side
agreement with her Japanese employer through her local
manager, Jaz Talents Promotion:
Date: Dec. 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Salary Deduction
MANAGERIAL COMMISSION
DATE OF DEPARTURE: _________________
ATTENTION: MR. IWATA
The stipulation is in line with the provisions of Rule II, Book V and
Section 2(f), Rule I, Book VI of the 1991 Rules and Regulations
Governing Overseas Employment, thus:
Book V, Rule II
Sec. 1. Employment Standards. The Administration
shall determine, formulate and review employment
standards in accordance with the market development
and welfare objectives of the overseas employment
program and the prevailing market conditions.
Sec. 2. Minimum Provisions for Contract. The following
shall be considered the minimum requirements for
contracts of employment:
a. Guaranteed wages for regular working
hours and overtime pay for services rendered
beyond regular working hours in accordance
with the standards established by the
Administration;
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. Standard Employment Contract. The
administration shall undertake development and/or
periodic review of region, country and skills specific
employment contracts for landbased workers and
conduct regular review of standard employment
contracts (SEC) for seafarers. These contracts shall
provide for minimum employment standards herein
enumerated under Section 2, of this Rule and shall
recognize the prevailing labor and social legislations at
the site of employment and international conventions.
fact that the private respondent was compelled to sign the special
agreement at Vancouver, Canada.
There is nothing in the public and private respondents' pleadings,
to support the allegations that the petitioners used force and
violence to secure the special agreement signed in Vancouver.
British Columbia. There was no need for any form of intimidation
coming from the Filipino seamen because the Canadian
Brotherhood of Railways and Transport Workers (CBRT), a strong
Canadian labor union, backed by an international labor federation
was actually doing all the influencing not only on the ship-owners
and employers but also against third world seamen themselves
who, by receiving lower wages and cheaper accommodations,
were threatening the employment and livelihood of seamen from
developed nations.
The bases used by the respondent NSB to support its decision do
not prove that the petitioners initiated a conspiracy with the ITF
or deliberately sought its assistance in order to receive higher
wages. They only prove that when ITF acted in petitioners' behalf
for an increase in wages, the latter manifested their support. This
would be a logical and natural reaction for any worker in whose
benefit the ITF or any other labor group had intervened. The
petitioners admit that while they expressed their conformity to
and their sentiments for higher wages by means of placards,
they, nevertheless, continued working and going about their usual
chores. In other words, all they did was to exercise their freedom
of speech in a most peaceful way. The ITF people, in turn, did not
employ any violent means to force the private respondent to
accede to their demands. Instead, they simply applied effective
pressure when they intimated the possibility of interdiction should
the shipowner fail to heed the call for an upward adjustment of
the rates of the Filipino seamen. Interdiction is nothing more than
only have their wages improved thus leading ITF to be placid and
quiet all these years insofar as Filipinos are concerned but the
hiring of Philippine seamen is at its highest level ever.
Reporting its activities for the year 1988, the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) stated that there will be an
increase in demand for seamen based overseas in 1989 boosting
the number to as high as 105,000. This will represent a 9.5
percent increase from the 1988 aggregate. (Business
World, News Briefs,January 11, 1989 at page 2) According to the
POEA, seabased workers numbering 95,913 in 1988 exceeded by
a wide margin of 28.15 percent the year end total in 1987. The
report shows that sea-based workers posted bigger monthly
increments compared to those of landbased workers. (The
Business Star, Indicators, January 11, 1988 at page 2)
Augmenting this optimistic report of POEA Administrator Tomas
Achacoso is the statement of Secretary of Labor Franklin M.
Drilon that the Philippines has a big jump over other crewing
nations because of the Filipinos' abilities compared with any
European or westem crewing country. Drilon added that cruise
shipping is also a growing market for Filipino seafarers because of
their flexibility in handling odd jobs and their expertise in
handling almost all types of ships, including luxury liners. (Manila
Bulletin, More Filipino Seamen Expected Development,December
27, 1988 at page 29).lwph1.t Parenthetically, the minimum
monthly salary of able bodied seamen set by the ILO and adhered
to by the Philippines is now $276.00 (id.) more than double the
$130.00 sought to be enforced by the public respondents in these
petitions.
The experience from 1981 to the present vindicates the finding
in Vir-Jen Shipping that a decision in favor of the seamen would
not necessarily mean severe repercussions, drying up of
GANCAYCO, J.:
On November 2, 1982, a "crew Agreement" was entered into by
private respondent Nerry D. Balatongan and Philimare Shipping
and Equipment Supply (hereinafter called Philimare) whereby the
latter employed the former as able seaman on board its vessel
"Santa Cruz" (renamed "Turtle Bay") with a monthly salary of US
$ 300.00. Said agreement was processed and approved by the
National Seaman's Board (NSB) on November 3, 1982. 1
SECOND DIVISION
EDGARDO M.
PANGANIBAN ,
- versus -
TARA TRADING
Promulgated:
SHIPMANAGEMENT INC.
AND SHINLINE SDN BHD,
October 18, 2010
Respondents.
x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
While it is true that labor contracts are
impressed with public interest and the
provisions of the POEA Standard Employment
Contract must be construed logically and
liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the
pursuit of their employment on board oceangoing vessels, absent substantial evidence
from which reasonable basis for the grant of
benefits prayed for can be drawn, We are left
1.
2.
3.
His daughter was sick and, as a seafarer, he could not just decide
to go home and be with his family.[29] Even the psychiatric
report[30] prepared by the evaluating private psychiatrist of
petitioner shows that the hospitalization of petitioners youngest
daughter caused him poor sleep and appetite. Later, he started
hearing voices and developed fearfulness.
Although strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims
for compensation and disability benefits, the Court cannot just
disregard the provisions of the POEA SEC. Significantly, a seaman
is a contractual and not a regular employee. His employment is
contractually fixed for a certain period of time. Petitioner and
respondents entered into a contract of employment. It was
approved by the POEA on October 25, 2005 and, thus, served as
the law between the parties. Undisputedly, Section 20-B of the
POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the
Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels
(POEA-SEC) provides for compensation and benefits for injury or
illness suffered by a seafarer. It says that, in order to claim
disability benefits under the Standard Employment Contract, it is
the company-designated physician who must proclaim that the
seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial,
due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latters
employment. In German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,[31] the
Courts discussion on the seafarers claim for disability benefits is
enlightening. Thus:
[In] order to claim disability benefits under the
Standard Employment Contract, it is the companydesignated physician who must proclaim that the
seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total
or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the
term of the latters employment. There is no provision
requiring accreditation by the POEA of such physician.
In fact, aside from their own gratuitous allegations,
petitioners are unable to cite a single provision in the
said contract in support of their assertions or to offer
are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA
SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino
seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going
vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the
deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts,
the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[32]
Lastly, it appears premature at this time to consider
petitioners disability as permanent and total because the severity
of his ailment has not been established with finality to render him
already incapable of performing the work of a seafarer. In fact,
the medical expert termed his condition as brief psychotic
disorder. The Court also takes note, as the CA correctly did, that
petitioner did not finish his treatment with the companydesignated physician, hence, there is no final evaluation yet on
petitioner.
All told, no reversible error was committed by the CA in
rendering the assailed Decision and issuing the questioned
Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the October 29, 2008 Decision of the Court
of Appeals and its March 4, 2009 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No.
104343, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.[1]
A motion for reconsideration was consequently filed [2] by the
private respondents to which petitioners filed an Opposition
thereto.[3]
In a Minute Resolution dated June 28, 2000, the Court
resolved to deny the motion for reconsideration with finality.[4]
Subsequently,
the
Filipino
Association
for
Mariners
Employment, Inc. (FAME) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene
and to Admit a Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention.
Private respondents, meanwhile, also filed a Motion for Leave
to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration of our decision.
In both motions, the private respondents and FAME
respectively pray in the main that the Court reconsider its ruling
that Filipino seafarers are considered regular employees within
the context of Article 280 of the Labor Code. They claim that the
decision may establish a precedent that will adversely affect the
maritime industry.
The Court resolved to set the case for oral arguments to
enable the parties to present their sides.
To recall, the facts of the case are, as follows:
Petitioner Douglas Millares was employed by private respondent
ESSO International Shipping Company LTD. (Esso International,
for brevity) through its local manning agency, private respondent
Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. (Trans-Global, for brevity) on
November 16, 1968 as a machinist. In 1975, he was promoted as
Chief Engineer which position he occupied until he opted to retire
in 1989. He was then receiving a monthly salary of US $1,939.00.
B. Voluntary Termination
When an employee voluntary terminates his employment with at
least 36 months of credited service without any misconduct on his
part, 18 percent of the total amount credited to his account, plus
an additional of one percent for each month (up to a maximum of
164 months of credited service in excess of 36, will be distributed
to him provided (1) the employee has completed his last Contract
of Enlistment and (2) employee advises the company in writing,
within 30 days, from his last disembarkation date, of his intention
to terminate his employment. (To advise the Company in writing
means that the original letter must be sent to the Companys
agent in the Philippines, a copy sent to the Company in New
York).
xxx
C. Other Terminations
When the employment of an employee is terminated by
the Company for a reason other than one in A and B
above, without any misconduct on his part, a
percentage of the total amount credited to his account
will be distributed to him in accordance with the
following.
Credited Service Percentage
36 months 50%
48 75%
60 100%