G.R. No. 127195 Case Digest

G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999

Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. and Diamantides Maritime, Inc.. petitioners

vs NLRC and Wilfredo Cajeras, respondents

Ponente: Bellosillo

Facts:

Petitioners assail the decision of public respondent NLRC affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision finding them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay Wilfredo Cajeras salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, plus attorney's fees.

Cajeras was hired by Marsaman, the local manning agent of Diamantides as chief cook steward on MV Prigipos, owned and operated by Diamantides, for a period of 10 months with monthly salary of US$600. Cajeras started work on August 1995 but in less than 2 months was repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by mutual consent.

On November 1995 Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration branch alleging that he was dismissed illegally, denying that his repatriation was by mutual consent and asking for payment. That he was assigned as chief cook, assistant cook and mess man in addition assignment. And because of the added assignments, he became sick and requested for medical attention but was refused by the ship's captain. When the ship docked in Holland, Cajeras were examined by a doctor who recommended for the immediate repatriation of Cajeras for some disease unknown.

On September 1995, Cajeras was handed his seaman's service record book with the mutual consent as the cause of discharge. Cajeras promptly objected for the cause of discharge but was not able to do anything as ha was immediately sent to the airport. After his arrival in Manila, Cajeras complained to Marsaman but to no avail.

Marsaman and Diamantides denied the imputation of illegal dismissal, alleging that Cajeras approached the captain and requested for repatriation and the doctors diagnose showed that he is suffering from paranoia and other mental problems.

On January 1996, Labor Arbiter resolved the dispute in favor of Cajeras ruling that the manning company did not show convincing evidence.

Petitioners then appealed to the NLRC, but NLRC affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter. That petitioners didn't proved the mutual consent especially by noting that Cajeras did not actually sign his seaman's service record book to signify his repatriation. The captain's deck log was not considered reliable because Cajeras was given opportunity to contest the entry.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration contends that: (1) NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not according full faith and credit to the official entry of captain, (2) by not appreciating the medical report issued by the examining doctor, (3) in affirming the award of attorney's fees despite the claim for exemplary damages and (4) in ordering a monetary award beyond the maximum of 3 months salary for every year of service set by RA 8042.

Ruling: Petition denied.

The employment of a Filipino seaman according to the Standard Employment Contract may be terminated when expiration of the contract unless Master and the Seaman by mutual consent in writing agree to an early termination. Of which, no document was shown to prove the mutual consent.

The deck log was not given credit too because there was no signature showing that Cajeras signify his conformity to the repatriation.

The medical diagnose of the examining doctor was not credited too because the doctor was a medical practitioner and didn't show expertise as to the diagnose of paranoia and mental disease. 

The attorney's fees awarded will suffice too because in action for recovery of wages where an employee was forced to litigate and incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum of 10% is legally and morally justifiable to be entitled with the award.

As to the salaries, the rule has been that an illegally dismissed worker whose employment if for a fixed period shall be entitled to payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment. However, Section 10 of RA 8042 provides that "...the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less."

Court agree with petitioner that Cajeras can't be entitled with the full payment of his unexpired term because he served for less than two months but we disagree that Cajeras is entitled to 3 months pay only because the law is not clear also as to the terms of the payment thus as a general rule in interpreting a statute that every part of the word thereof be given effect.

NLRC's decision was affirmed.