G.R. No. 112574 Case Digest

G.R. No. 112574, October 8, 1998
Mercidar Fishing Corp. represented by its President Domingo Naval, petitioner,
vs NLRC and Fermin Agao, Jr., respondents
Ponente: Mendoza

Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the decision, dated August 30, 1993 of NLRC dismissing the appeal of petitioner Mercidar from the decision of Labor Arbiter denying the reconsideration.

Complaint was filed by Agao against Mercidar for Illegal dismissal and non-payment of 5 days service incentive leave for 1990. Agao has been employed as a bodegero. He complained that he was constructively dismissed by Mercidar when he refused his assignment aboard its boats.

Agao alleged that he had been sick and was allowed to go on leave without pay for 1 month. When he reported back to work he was told to come back some other time because he can't be reinstated immediately, then on Mercidar refused to give Agao work. For that reason, Agao requested for a certificate of employment but Mercidar refused to give him such certificate unless he submits his resignation. Since Agao didn't submit his resignation, Mercidar gave him separation pay and has prevented him from entering the premises.

Mercidar alleged on the other hand that it was Agao who actually abandoned his work. It claimed that Agao was absent for 3 months  without leave. They also alleged that Agao requested for his certificate of employment for the purpose of his application to another fishing company; and Agao refused to get his certificate and resign unless he was given separation pay.

Then Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a decision disposing the case, ordering Mercidar to reinstate Agao with backwages, 13th month and incentive leave pay.

Mercidar appealed to NLRC which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. NLRC dismissed the claim that Mercidar is not liable for service incentive pay as field personnel are not entitled to such pay under the labor code

NLRC denied the later motion for reconsideration of its decision.

Issues: (1) NLRC erred in ruling and sustaining the view that fishing crew members are not field personnel? (2) NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision?

Ruling: The petition has no merit.

In the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage, fishermen employed by petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural work away from petitioner's business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessel's patron or master as the NLRC correctly held. 

Neither did petitioner gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that private respondent had constructively been dismissed by petitioner. Such factual finding of both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter is based not only on the pleadings of the parties but also on a medical certificate of fitness which, contrary to petitioner's claim private respondent presented when he reported to work on May 28, 1990.